Fast/Seam Bowlers of the 1990s - anyone for a Top Ten?

[weldone]

I'm with SK here. Tendulkar is the best cricketer of the 90s for me too. Between '93 and '99, he performed against top attacks almost in every series everywhere. IIRC, during this period Tendulkar scored almost 5000 runs at an average of close to 65, with centuries in almost every series of decent length. This was a period of top-class bowling everywhere, except England (and India). As a whole, Tendulkar of the noughties isn't comparable to the Tendulkar before tennis elbow IMO. While in noughties you had every Tom, Dick and Harry averaging 50, there were only 3 batsmen who played for a large part of the 90s and averaged over 50 - Tendulkar, Lara and S. Waugh. That's why I rate all 3 of them very highly, especially Tendulkar.

India was almost unbeatable at home. And Tendulkar was supreme in away conditions. It didn't help that none of India's 90s bowlers were decent in away conditions, including Srinath and Kumble - who matured later to become somewhat decent away bowlers later on in the 00s.

Blocky's logic is flawed IMO. For example, Lara didn't bat single-handedly to keep WI competitive. Even if we conveniently forget all about Richie Richardson, Hooper, Chanderpaul, Adams, Simmons (comparable with Sachin's support batsmen for most of the 90s to say the least), we can't forget that Lara had a pace attack of Ambrose and Walsh while Sachin had Srinath and Prasad.

 

[weldone]

I've never been a fan of the "Sachin is God" rhetoric, for the very basis that other players have had bigger impact for India in winning matches/series than Tendulkar has. Tendulkar for extended periods wasn't even the best player in his team.. I'd argue that Dravid for the better part of the early and mid 00s was the better batsman and had more innings of note ( generally tended to be "the other guy" to Laxman, Sehwag, et all during their match winning knocks) - then you had the performances of Harbhajan and Kumble to consider too.

none of the above is relevant for the discussion we are having now, i.e. "best cricketer of the 90s"

 

[Blocky]

none of the above is relevant for the discussion we are having now, i.e. "best cricketer of the 90s"

The fact that you think it doesn't have relevance makes your point of view around Sachin a bit more questionable.

Yes, I know he's your God and you bow down to him, but ultimately, I judge people on their ability to impact series results. Sachin unarguably never had that to the level of other guys being mentioned as "best cricketer of the 90s"

 

[Saint Kopite]

You saw Lara as a bat single handedly keep the Windies competitive through the 90s until he couldn't do it no longer. You saw Warne take what was a pretty average "also-ran" team of the early nineties into a world beating team with help from other players and do it in all environments.

You just can't put Sachin as "the guy of the 90s" because ultimately, if you're looking for virtuoso performances then you're looking at Lara and what he did for Windies... if you're looking for pair performances, you're looking at the two W's from Pakistan and what they did throughout the 90s. If you're looking for world beaters, then you're looking at Warne/McGrath and what they did for Australia during the 90s. And Sachin did have the benefit of home conditions with a pretty good Kumble, a pretty good Harbhajan and a severely underrated Srinath.

Sachin was arguably more effective during the 00s in terms of innings that actually mattered, but I'd not actually consider him the best player of either the 90s or the 00s. The 00s, you're starting to talk about the Kallis', the Pontings, the Pollocks, the Steyns, the Warnes, the McGraths. The 90s, I'd have Waqar, Wasim, Lara, Warne as guys ahead of Sachin - not on talent, nor on pure aggregate - but on meaningful performances that lead his team to series wins.

ps, for every "Prasad, Kuruvilla, Chuahan" you talk about - I can talk about a Nixon McClean, a Scott Muller, a Brendon Julian, a Franklin Rose, a Basit Ali, a Hasan Raza... etcetera.

Except, Prasad, Kuruvilla and Chauhan etc were our premier bowlers for two to three years unlike the names you mentioned who only played for a series or two and mostly were support bowlers to a Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Warne etc.

Anyway, Lara singlehandedly kept the Windies competetive throughout the 90s? Seriously? What about Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Richie Richardson, Chanderpaul and Carl Hooper? And, Warne took an average team? I am gobsmacked that you are saying a team of Allan Border(Till 1994), Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, David Boon, Waugh Brothers, McGrath and McDermott was an average "also-ran" team.

If you're suggesting the support, ie those players who Lara and Warne had were better than Sachin had in nineties, there is no point discussing this further. No one man can single-handedly make you world-beaters. They may win you a game here and there but in order to dominate the game for years, you need great support. And, that applies in all sorts. Be it cricket, football or basketball. Not even the great Michael Jordan won it single-handedly.

 

[Saint Kopite]

I've never been a fan of the "Sachin is God" rhetoric, for the very basis that other players have had bigger impact for India in winning matches/series than Tendulkar has. Tendulkar for extended periods wasn't even the best player in his team.. I'd argue that Dravid for the better part of the early and mid 00s was the better batsman and had more innings of note ( generally tended to be "the other guy" to Laxman, Sehwag, et all during their match winning knocks) - then you had the performances of Harbhajan and Kumble to consider too.

I don't expect you or anyone isn't Indian to understand the craze and passion of "Sachin Is God". And, I am not criticizing you for that as well. What Sachin was for most of us Indians in nineties, and that too the entire country ie, is something which was more than just cricket. People who didn't watch cricket stopped just to watch him play. Still remember how tea-stalls and shops which had TV were crowded just to see him bat.

Its perfectly ok for you not to consider "Sachin - The God Of Cricket". But, you would never get it why an Indian feels that way.

 

[Saint Kopite]

As a whole, Tendulkar of the noughties isn't comparable to the Tendulkar before tennis elbow IMO. .

I know some here who think Sachin wouldn't have prospered in T20 as he couldn't attack like Dhoni or Virat.

I simply tell them to watch the Sachin of pre-tennis elbow.

 

[Blocky]

Except, Prasad, Kuruvilla and Chauhan etc were our premier bowlers for two to three years unlike the names you mentioned who only played for a series or two and mostly were support bowlers to a Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Warne etc.

Anyway, Lara singlehandedly kept the Windies competetive throughout the 90s? Seriously? What about Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Richie Richardson, Chanderpaul and Carl Hooper? And, Warne took an average team? I am gobsmacked that you are saying a team of Allan Border(Till 1994), Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, David Boon, Waugh Brothers, McGrath and McDermott was an average "also-ran" team.

If you're suggesting the support, ie those players who Lara and Warne had were better than Sachin had in nineties, there is no point discussing this further. No one man can single-handedly make you world-beaters. They may win you a game here and there but in order to dominate the game for years, you need great support. And, that applies in all sorts. Be it cricket, football or basketball. Not even the great Michael Jordan won it single-handedly.

McClean, Franklin Rose and I think Bishop at one point formed a bowling attack for the Windies... the idea that India had no cricket players of worth outside of Sachin holds no merit, because Sachin had a number of guys in the early 00s and then by about 1996-1998, India was seen as one of the strongest batting sides in the world and one of the biggest threats when they played at home - remember, the continent that Steve Waugh couldn't conquer?

Michael Jordan needed Scottie Pippen, absolutely... but then when Laxman, or Dravid, or Harbhajan were winning matches for India... generally Tendulkar wasn't having the greatest of knocks, it wasn't until the 00s that he started turning around how many centuries he scored in draws into some that were in wins.

 

[Blocky]

I know some here who think Sachin wouldn't have prospered in T20 as he couldn't attack like Dhoni or Virat.

I simply tell them to watch the Sachin of pre-tennis elbow.

We're not discussing Sachin the limited overs player. Sachin the limited overs player was quite rightly ranked #1 in the world for pretty much all of the 90s... he was wickedly good and did contribute to a lot of victories for his side.

 

[Burgey]

I don't expect you or anyone isn't Indian to understand the craze and passion of "Sachin Is God". And, I am not criticizing you for that as well. What Sachin was for most of us Indians in nineties, and that too the entire country ie, is something which was more than just cricket. People who didn't watch cricket stopped just to watch him play. Still remember how tea-stalls and shops which had TV were crowded just to see him bat.

Its perfectly ok for you not to consider "Sachin - The God Of Cricket". But, you would never get it why an Indian feels that way.

Is it because of a case of national myopia?

 

[cnerd123]

Guys, this is a good thread so far, please don't ruin it by discussing religion.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I've never been a fan of the "Sachin is God" rhetoric, for the very basis that other players have had bigger impact for India in winning matches/series than Tendulkar has. Tendulkar for extended periods wasn't even the best player in his team.. I'd argue that Dravid for the better part of the early and mid 00s was the better batsman and had more innings of note ( generally tended to be "the other guy" to Laxman, Sehwag, et all during their match winning knocks) - then you had the performances of Harbhajan and Kumble to consider too.

Dravid was awesome too, yeah. But when he reached his peak India had an awesome batting lineup for all conditions and a great bowling lineup at home. You'd think this would be easy to understand for anyone who's watched their careers.

And lol @ Tendulkar "not even being the best batsman" in his team for long stretches. Well no ****, he played 24 years, a large chunk of them with Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag. It's obvious everyone would have their little peak. And anyway, Tendulkar was easily our best batsman from 1994-2002, and arguably from 2007-2010 as well. That's 12 years... Basically as long as most entire careers. So there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Streak was fantastic in the nineties, bowled with absolutely no support and a batting team that never really got him totals to put scoreboard pressure on and spent large portions of the time with an average below 25.

Angus Fraser was just as good.

 

[SAURABH BAHUGUN]

CRICKETER of 1990s

When we are discussing the cricketer of 90s it has got to be Waqar younis on his ability to win matches for Pakistan on his own and that to from impossible looking situations.Sachin was not a match winner for his team especially in test cricket

 

[Burgey]

Angus Fraser was just as good.

**** he was a good bowler. Best Ponmie bowler since Snow IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Til that time in any event. Anderson arguably better, certainly been around longer and at his best has been very good.

 

[weldone]

I've never been a fan of the "Sachin is God" rhetoric, for the very basis that other players have had bigger impact for India in winning matches/series than Tendulkar has. Tendulkar for extended periods wasn't even the best player in his team.. I'd argue that Dravid for the better part of the early and mid 00s was the better batsman and had more innings of note ( generally tended to be "the other guy" to Laxman, Sehwag, et all during their match winning knocks) - then you had the performances of Harbhajan and Kumble to consider too.

none of the above is relevant for the discussion we are having now, i.e. "best cricketer of the 90s"

The fact that you think it doesn't have relevance makes your point of view around Sachin a bit more questionable.

Yes, I know he's your God and you bow down to him, but ultimately, I judge people on their ability to impact series results. Sachin unarguably never had that to the level of other guys being mentioned as "best cricketer of the 90s"

First of all, I don't think Sachin is God. I'm not even sure if he's the 2nd best batsman ever.

Secondly, please tell me how Dravid being better than him for parts in 00s and Harbhajan Singh's bowling are relevant when we are discussing cricketer of the 90s. FYI, in the entire 90s, Harbhajan Singh took a sum total of 21 test wickets at an average of 38.57. Now, if I point out the irrelevance of your points to the subject of argument you'll start shouting 'worship', 'God', 'bow down', 'holy cow' blah-blah. Please think twice before you type.

 

[Pratters]

Look up Ambrose's series-by-series of the late 90s. I mean, it's great to maintain a low average if you have 4-74 with an economy rate below 2 over a whole series but that's not the sort of job I'm looking for when I'm expecting the greatest bowler of all-time. I think his raw stats exaggerate the impact he had on tests post-1995 a fair bit. Obviously, he'd sometimes have spells like in Perth v. Australia in 97 but by and large he was too much of a holding bowler for half a decade as opposed to generating strike output for me to consider him the greatest of the decade.

I was exaggerating about Waqar being the best as well because I love him so. I think he's second or third. I think the first probably has to be Wasim. He was awesome pretty much throughout the decade without any major dips in form.

Putting it this way, if you were entering a novice team who could pick only one bowler from the 90s for the decade, Ambrose will rip up **** for five years and then be content with not letting anyone score and picking a few poles now and then. Waqar would be the best of all-time for five years and a merely good but expensive strike bowler for the remaining five. Donald won't play the first three years and Mcgrath/Pollock won't play five. When I frame my question that way, Wasim appears to be a no brainer.

That's a pretty great post.

I have seen Ambrose bowl 7 overs for 12 runs with zero or 1 wicket and then the batsmen ease out on a couple of the millions of seamers they tried in the 90s. This is why strike rates of bowlers is so important in tests.

I don't think you can take the 3 years against Donald that much. It would be between Akram and Donald for the fast bowler of the decade.

 

[weldone]

FTR I wouldn't even mention Tendulkar's name if we were discussing cricketer of the 00s.

Muttiah Muralitharan. 565 wickets @ 20.97. Enough said.

 

[weldone]

I know some here who think Sachin wouldn't have prospered in T20 as he couldn't attack like Dhoni or Virat.

I simply tell them to watch the Sachin of pre-tennis elbow.

To me, one of the best things about Tendulkar's career is how he adjusted his game after he got old and recovered from a career-threatening injury. I have a lot of respect for Tendulkar of 2007-2010. This is something that even greats like Viv Richards didn't manage (or didn't even bother about).

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar always adjusted his game. In the first portion of his career till around 1994, he just used to play shots, make 50-60 odd most of the time before giving a catch to a fielder. Played far too much in the air. By around 1996 he was still an attacking batsman but had honed out the risks he used to take as a teenager.