Greatest cricketer post 1990

[Ikki]

If you're including Ponting's ODI captaincy record, that means you're taking into account ODI cricket.

If you're taking into account ODI cricket, Sachin most definitely belongs in this debate.

TBF, whilst I rate ODIs lesser, I think he has as much shot as some of the names...but #1? Just for batting? Did he really bring that much more to the game than an Akram who has 0 votes? Not really.

 

[silentstriker]

9 votes for McGrath is a disgrace.

 

[silentstriker]

Hilarious how in three months Kallis has gone from one of the most criminally underrated players ever to the most overrated.

Kallis has won more games than McGrath? Warne? Murali?

 

[Teja.]

9 votes for McGrath is a disgrace.

Yep, Everything should be split between Kallis, Gilchirst and Pollock tbh.

 

[bagapath]

9 votes for McGrath is a disgrace.

indeed, it is. one has to take solace in the fact that pigeon still got nine times as many votes as punter.

 

[The Sean]

I don't think the two leaders in the poll are any great surprise. Both Tendulkar and Kallis should be well in the mix for this at any time IMO, but then add the fact that each of them are on an epic run of form right now and it's easy to see why they'd attract so many votes.

 

[Teja.]

I find it a bigger disgrace that Tendulkar has more votes than Kallis tbh. Kallis is a negligibly worse batsman and as HD Ackerman said(and not Donald, PEWS) Can we see their bowling figures? Can we?

 

[vcs]

Hilarious how in three months Kallis has gone from one of the most criminally underrated players ever to the most overrated.

Kallis has won more games than McGrath? Warne? Murali?

That logic basically rules batsmen out.

 

[Teja.]

That logic basically rules batsmen out.

Yep and is hence flawed. A better indicator is the value that a kallisballer adds to the team.

Basically Pollock's 4 wickets @ 23 might be bettered slightly by the other ATG pacers in this but by a big enough difference to even come remotely close to outweigh 30 runs? No friggin' way.

 

[silentstriker]

That logic basically rules batsmen out.

Imagine that. The greatest cricketers are people who win you the most games. If that means bowlers get an edge, so be it. The batsmen have enough edges and sport isn't fair. Some positions are more important than others - the quarterback is more important than the punter and guess who is more likely to be the MVP? And rightfully so.

 

[Prince EWS]

Imagine that. The greatest cricketers are people who win you the most games. If that means bowlers get an edge, so be it. The batsmen have enough edges and sport isn't fair. Some positions are more important than others - the quarterback is more important than the punter and guess who is more likely to be the MVP? And rightfully so.

And the allrounder is more important than the bowler.

 

[vcs]

Imagine that. The greatest cricketers are people who win you the most games. If that means bowlers get an edge, so be it. The batsmen have enough edges and sport isn't fair. Some positions are more important than others - the quarterback is more important than the punter and guess who is more likely to be the MVP? And rightfully so.

Oi, don't be bringing your American sporting analogies here.

Well, I disagree, the relative value that a bowler or a batsman adds to a team depends on the strengths and weaknesses that it already possesses.

 

[Ikki]

I find it a bigger disgrace that Tendulkar has more votes than Kallis tbh. Kallis is a negligibly worse batsman and as HD Ackerman said(and not Donald, PEWS) Can we see their bowling figures? Can we?

Disagree; although I wouldn't vote for Tendulkar as #1 I think there is a case in limiting just how you rate Kallis' all-round contributions.

The guy averages about as many wickets per match as Shane Watson does really - and at worse figures. Is 1 wicket an inning really a great help in the bowling? Kallis will rarely, IMO, win matches with his bowling and even less likely to win them with both disciplines in the same match. As a cricketer in the sense of being good in multiple facets of the game he is better than Tendulkar but as a great cricketer in the sense of a player who plays the game of cricket I don't think it is clear-cut at all.

I fear Tendulkar far more as just a pure batsman than Kallis as an all-rounder TBF. I think that is a great case for "greatness". I guess I am in the crowd that is seeing Kallis as a bit overrated these days.

 

[Teja.]

Disagree; although I wouldn't vote for Tendulkar as #1 I think there is a case in limiting just how you rate Kallis' all-round contributions.

The guy averages about as many wickets per match as Shane Watson does really - and at worse figures. Is 1 wicket an inning really a great help in the bowling? Kallis will rarely, IMO, win matches with his bowling and even less likely to win them with both disciplines simultaneously. As a cricketer in the sense of being good in multiple facets of the game he is better than Tendulkar but as a great cricketer in the sense of a player who plays the game of cricket I don't think it is clear-cut at all.

I fear Tendulkar far more as just a pure batsman than Kallis as an all-rounder TBF. I think that is a great case for "greatness". I guess I am in the crowd that is seeing Kallis as a bit overrated these days.

The thing is perceptions on match-winning abilities are subjective.

120 runs vs 120 runs + 2/60 is not.

 

[vcs]

The thing is perceptions on match-winning abilities are subjective.

120 runs vs 120 runs + 2/60 is not.

Prince/Uppercut, what have you done to this kid?

 

[Ikki]

The thing is perceptions on match-winning abilities are subjective.

120 runs vs 120 runs + 2/60 is not.

True, to an extent. I don't think people make up perceptions up willy nilly. There is a reason why bowlers feared Viv or Warne is seen as a great match-winner, etc.

I remember a post in another thread regarding how India were #1 despite not having anywhere near the best bowling attack during Ponting's/Kallis' career. Therefore all wickets and runs made are not equal in that sense. Contributions can be made in a great sample of matches where they will be enough to win the match, even if it is not the most runs scored or most wickets taken overall.

 

[Teja.]

Prince/Uppercut, what have you done to this kid?

Always thought Kallis and Pollock were certainly the most effective cricketers of the last two decades tbh. Just called Tendulkar greater because I was biased.

 

[vcs]

Always thought Kallis and Pollock were certainly the most effective cricketers of the last two decades tbh. Just called Tendulkar greater because I was biased.

It wasn't about the contents of the post per se, it was just that it sounded exactly like something Prince or Uppercut would write.

 

[Teja.]

True, to an extent. I don't think people make up perceptions up willy nilly. There is a reason why bowlers feared Viv or Warne is seen as a great match-winner, etc.

I remember a post in another thread regarding how India were #1 despite not having anywhere near the best bowling attack during Ponting's/Kallis' career. Therefore all wickets and runs made are not equal in that sense. Contributions can be made in a great sample of matches where they will be enough to win the match, even if it is not the most runs scored or most wickets taken overall.

For me all the intangibles come into play only when the cricketers are deadset even anyway. You're not gonna sell me one cricketer while the other one can bat just as well as well as take two wickets. It's not even close. It's a monotonic preference.

 

[Ikki]

But that is a fallacy. You are assuming Kallis' is just as good a batsman as Tendulkar. He isn't, for mine.

His other facet - bowling - hardly affects games for it to matter so it hardly adds to his greatness in terms of winning a match IMO. It's mostly economical with the ability to chip off a wicket once in an inning.