Best performed cricketers across all conditions and vs any opponent

[Red]

I know Tendulkar as a batsman and Marshall as a bowler have nearly flawless records in all conditions, meaning they performed exceptionally well anywhere against anyone. Which other cricketers have achieved this type of record?

 

[Saint Kopite]

I know Tendulkar as a batsman and Marshall as a bowler have nearly flawless records in all conditions, meaning they performed exceptionally well anywhere against anyone. Which other cricketers have achieved this type of record?

Dravid, Lara, Wasim.

 

[smash84]

Imran khan

 

[Agent Nationaux]

To me, anyone with an under 40 average against a team or in a country discards him from this list. Similarly for a bowler its anything above 28.

Dravid averages 39 against Australia and 34 against South Africa. In South Africa he averages 30 and in Sri Lanka he averages 33.

Lara averages 35 against India, 33 in India and 36 in NZ.

Akram averages 31 against England, 29 against India, 30 against South Africa, 29 in England and 39 in South Africa (although this was over 2 Tests).

As a result of this, IMO none of the above qualify for what Monk asked for based on my criteria of 40 and 28.

Bradman qualifies (his lowest average was 74) as does Tendulkar (lowest average 40 in Zimbabwe).

Marshall, statistically misses out (narrowly) because his only average that is out of my criteria is 32 in NZ (but only 3 Tests so I will include him in the flawless category).

Similarly Hadlee also misses out on only one, and that is in Pakistan with an average of 44 (also only 3 matches so he should be included).

Imran makes the cut with his bowling (his highest average is in Australia - 28).

Lillee averages 30 against Pak over 17 Tests which excludes him from the list and Ambrose averages 38 against India over 9 Tests.

Kallis has 35 in England and Sri Lanka and Steyn has 32 against England.

These are some of the players I looked at. It would be an interesting exercise to do across the board (couldn't be bothered to try and figure it out using statsguru but maybe PEWS can help). Also, other people might have a different criteria to mine.

 

[fredfertang]

Tony Greig

 

[Red]

Tony Greig

True, very decent all round record vs all opponents in all conditions.

Bradman really let himself down against the WIs, only averaged 74.

 

[Red]

To me, anyone with an under 40 average against a team or in a country discards him from this list. Similarly for a bowler its anything above 28.

Dravid averages 39 against Australia and 34 against South Africa. In South Africa he averages 30 and in Sri Lanka he averages 33.

Lara averages 35 against India, 33 in India and 36 in NZ.

Akram averages 31 against England, 29 against India, 30 against South Africa, 29 in England and 39 in South Africa (although this was over 2 Tests).

As a result of this, IMO none of the above qualify for what Monk asked for based on my criteria of 40 and 28.

Bradman qualifies (his lowest average was 74) as does Tendulkar (lowest average 40 in Zimbabwe).

Marshall, statistically misses out (narrowly) because his only average that is out of my criteria is 32 in NZ (but only 3 Tests so I will include him in the flawless category).

Similarly Hadlee also misses out on only one, and that is in Pakistan with an average of 44 (also only 3 matches so he should be included).

Imran makes the cut with his bowling (his highest average is in Australia - 28).

Lillee averages 30 against Pak over 17 Tests which excludes him from the list and Ambrose averages 38 against India over 9 Tests.

Kallis has 35 in England and Sri Lanka and Steyn has 32 against England.

These are some of the players I looked at. It would be an interesting exercise to do across the board (couldn't be bothered to try and figure it out using statsguru but maybe PEWS can help). Also, other people might have a different criteria to mine.

I'm actually really interested in this discussion. Don't really want a cut off point necessarily, I'd hate discount someone because they averaged 39 with the bat somewhere or 32 with the ball somewhere for 3 tests.

 

[watson]

I don't think that a one-off bad series means very much because there are numerous good reasons why a player should underperform occasionally. In the case of Lillee the beginnings of a fractured spine is a good reason why he underperformed in Pakistan, and then returned home after a short time during the following tour of the West Indies. Even things like 'family concerns' are a legitimate reason, and badly effected Graham Thorpe mid-career for example. The list goes on.

 

[Slifer]

I know Tendulkar as a batsman and Marshall as a bowler have nearly flawless records in all conditions, meaning they performed exceptionally well anywhere against anyone. Which other cricketers have achieved this type of record?

I think Greg Chappell, Rohan Kanhai and Alan Davidson???

 

[Slifer]

To me, anyone with an under 40 average against a team or in a country discards him from this list. Similarly for a bowler its anything above 28.

Dravid averages 39 against Australia and 34 against South Africa. In South Africa he averages 30 and in Sri Lanka he averages 33.

Lara averages 35 against India, 33 in India and 36 in NZ.

Akram averages 31 against England, 29 against India, 30 against South Africa, 29 in England and 39 in South Africa (although this was over 2 Tests).

As a result of this, IMO none of the above qualify for what Monk asked for based on my criteria of 40 and 28.

Bradman qualifies (his lowest average was 74) as does Tendulkar (lowest average 40 in Zimbabwe).

Marshall, statistically misses out (narrowly) because his only average that is out of my criteria is 32 in NZ (but only 3 Tests so I will include him in the flawless category).

Similarly Hadlee also misses out on only one, and that is in Pakistan with an average of 44 (also only 3 matches so he should be included).

Imran makes the cut with his bowling (his highest average is in Australia - 28).

Lillee averages 30 against Pak over 17 Tests which excludes him from the list and Ambrose averages 38 against India over 9 Tests.

Kallis has 35 in England and Sri Lanka and Steyn has 32 against England.

These are some of the players I looked at. It would be an interesting exercise to do across the board (couldn't be bothered to try and figure it out using statsguru but maybe PEWS can help). Also, other people might have a different criteria to mine.

I use the exact same cut off for batsmen (40) but for bowlers I usually have 30 as my cut of point

 

[Agent Nationaux]

You have to have some sort of a cut off point or the exercise will become very difficult.

 

[Red]

You have to have some sort of a cut off point or the exercise will become very difficult.

Agree, I think an overall outstanding record with one flaw is ok though ( as you indicated re. Marshall )

 

[Maximas]

I say have a cut-off point similar to AN's, but allow maybe one outlier if the player has played less than 5 tests in that country or something like that

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Agree, I think an overall outstanding record with one flaw is ok though ( as you indicated re. Marshall )

I say have a cut-off point similar to AN's, but allow maybe one outlier if the player has played less than 5 tests in that country or something like that

Yeah I agree, but I wouldn't call Marshall's record a flaw because it was only 3 Tests. Similarly, I would ignore Lillee's record in Pak, but he averaged 30 against Pak over 17 Tests. If that's down to the few he played in Pak, I would then exclude this, but if it's over a few more tests then I would include them.

I think it's also good for this exercise to exclude 1 bad average, regardless of how many tests it covers and who against. So, for example if someone has a perfect record but averaged terribly in 1 country over 10 tests, we should still include this person in the list.

 

[Muloghonto]

I see it as a three-tier system. Sports is doing. Period. Achievements must be given priority over 'what could've beens'. But it is not a black and white system because its foolish to deny extenuating circumstances and one-offs. Its not the same as 'he just couldnt master that situation'.
So, for me, there is tier 1: example: Tendulkar. Achieved it everywhere, against everybody.
Then there is tier 2: achieved it everywhere he played well, except for places he didnt get to play in/ had a few statistical anomalies. Eg: Lillee/Marshall.
Then, lastly, there is tier 3: excellent/good in many conditions but failed repeatedly in a particular condition. Eg: Ponting.

 

[Slifer]

I see it as a three-tier system. Sports is doing. Period. Achievements must be given priority over 'what could've beens'. But it is not a black and white system because its foolish to deny extenuating circumstances and one-offs. Its not the same as 'he just couldnt master that situation'.
So, for me, there is tier 1: example: Tendulkar. Achieved it everywhere, against everybody.
Then there is tier 2: achieved it everywhere he played well, except for places he didnt get to play in/ had a few statistical anomalies. Eg: Lillee/Marshall.
Then, lastly, there is tier 3: excellent/good in many conditions but failed repeatedly in a particular condition. Eg: Ponting.

Tier 1: Rohan Kanhai, Greg Chappell, Alan Davidson, Imran, Sachin, Don
Tier 2: Glenn Mcgrath, Joel Garner, MM, Holding** (curiously never played against Pakistan), etc
Won't bother with the 3rd tier, too many to mention....

 

[Coronis]

Barnes, SF Barnes.

 

[smash84]

Barnes, you mean sydney ****ing barnes?

 

[fredfertang]

I'm noting an increasing number of snide references to the name Barnes on these boards since around 4.50 yesterday afternoon

 

[karan316]

Does Bradman really qualify?? I mean how many different grounds/countries did he play in?? Barring the minnows.