Top Five Cricketers from each country

[trundler]

Warne being one of the 5 cricketers of the century was truly ludicrous. Not only was Imran a vastly better cricketer, his contribution to Pakistani cricket is only rivaled by AB's to Australia or Worrell's to West Indies. Tendulkar definitely did have an impact owing to his sheer popularity.

 

[trundler]

What impact did Bradman have aside from being very popular and very good? See how ludicrous that is.

 

[Burgey]

He wasn’t “very good”, he was orders of magnitude better than anyone before or since.

Agree re Warne. Was a dumb choice. Hype won out there, for sure.

 

[Burgey]

Missed Worrell.

I didn’t miss him. He wasnt mentioned in the post I was replying to.

Frank Worrell absolutely one of the five greatest and most important cricketers of the 20th century imho.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

This is going to be a great thread; moulded in the best and enduring traditions of CricketWeb.
My boy vs your boy! Miyagi vs Miyagi! Bring it on!

Oh! And by the way: Murali >>> Warne.

Murali better player
Warne bigger icon

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

His record in all conditions was phenomenal, and he dominated in the subcontinent.

Most rounded quick of all time.

Hadlee did almost the same without support.

Then there was Sydney Barnes.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hobbs , Hammond , Headley.. etc always feature in all-time 11s. Even Trumper and Ranji.

But , when it comes to bowlers .. no one considering Barnes , Trueman , O'Reilly.. etc . They always start with Lillee . Why is that ?

Same with B.Richards / G.Pollock and Rice / Procter.

 

[ankitj]

I pick Barnes and G. Pollock in my world ATG XI usually.

 

[Dendarii]

Same with B.Richards / G.Pollock and Rice / Procter.

Pollock played just about enough test matches to come into the reckoning, but the other three do get overlooked for not having had much of a test career (or any in Rice's case). While you'd imagine that they would have done well if they'd had a proper opportunity to play test cricket, you can't be absolutely certain, and so all-time XIs will tend to feature players with a proven test record.

 

[marc71178]

Whatever , Tendulkar is the biggest cricket icon in last 25 years at least.

Dwayne Leverock says hi.

 

[the big bambino]

Grimmett's record is helped a lot by mauling South Africa. Against the top opponent of his era, England, his record is good but not great

Warne mauled SA too. And a dodgy England. His comparison against his hardest opponent is clearly inferior to Grimmett's.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Warne got repeatedly flattened by the best side again spin in his era.

 

[mr_mister]

Warne mauled SA too. And a dodgy England. His comparison against his hardest opponent is clearly inferior to Grimmett's.

Warne got them when they were actually good, don't be daft

And Warne still ran through countless good batsman despite a blemish against India. Grimmett only faced one quality batting line up and didn't run through them

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Pollock played just about enough test matches to come into the reckoning, but the other three do get overlooked for not having had much of a test career (or any in Rice's case). While you'd imagine that they would have done well if they'd had a proper opportunity to play test cricket, you can't be absolutely certain, and so all-time XIs will tend to feature players with a proven test record.

Procter played more test matches than Barry Richards , still it's always Pollock and Richards. Not Pollock and Procter. ( Procter played 16 matches against top quality Test teams and did very well with both bat and ball.)

Logically , Procter seems to be more guaranteed ATG than Richards. Assume, a 10% decline in their test performances compared to FC stats.

Result
Richards - a sub 50 very good batsman
Procter - a 22 with ball 33 with bat ATG AR

 

[stephen]

Get off your pet India hating track. If Warne was Pakistani and Imran was Australian, who do you think would be in Wisden's 5 cricketers of century? Aussies get their fair share of hyping up.

I want suggesting that Tendulkar was in any way bad. Only that his status as "greatest icon of the last 25 years" is entirely due to his position as India's ATG. See: Kohli currently. KW and Smith are better in some forms and worse in others but Kohli is Indian and therefore has a way bigger following than anyone else.

And I'd argue that an ATG leg spinner is far more noteworthy than an ATG batsman.
When wisden did their list, Warne had only really had one minor form slump but was being hailed as the savior of spin bowling worldwide. It might look a bit silly in hindsight to you but wisden had just seen Warne win a very memorable world cup and (being English) had seen him destroy the English batting lineup in quite memorable fashion. Yep, it's hype, but Tendulkar's status as icon is just as much hype. Longevity notwithstanding he was at best a little better than his contemporaries in a pretty crowded field. On pure cricketing ability alone the guy who should be held up as the biggest icon of the sport is Kallis. He had a batting record comparable to Sachin's and a bowling record good enough to make many sides without his batting.

Incidentally, I really want to see Rashid Khan play more internationals against top sides. He would be the world's biggest star if he wasn't playing for Afghanistan.

 

[Malcolm]

On pure cricketing ability alone the guy who should be held up as the biggest icon of the sport is Kallis.

No

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne got them when they were actually good, don't be daft

And Warne still ran through countless good batsman despite a blemish against India. Grimmett only faced one quality batting line up and didn't run through them

IIRC, Grimmett's most successful series against South Africa was in 1935/36, just a few months after South Africa had beaten England in England for the first time. Yes, it was a shock result, but South Africa's batting lineup at the time was perfectly respectable and included several players that probably would have made the side during Warne's era. For instance, Bruce Mitchell (3,471 test runs at 48.88), Dudley Nourse (2,960 @ 53.81 and regularly selected in SA All Time XIs to this day) and Eric Rowan (1,965 @ 43.66).

So I guess what I'm trying to say is: Even if South Africa were not Australia's strongest opposition during Grimmett's time, they were a perfectly respectable side, so Grimmett's amazing record against them is genuinely credit worthy and not be be brushed aside on the misguided premise that SA were minnows.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's so difficult for you ****s to accept that Tendulkar being rated so highly isn't down to him being Indian. Forget the fact that Indian fans obviously are biased in his favour, the guy is rated as the best from his era by pleeenty of people from outside the country. You can say he's overrated, but if so, he's overrated by everyone, not just Indians.

 

[smash84]

It's so difficult for you ****s to accept that Tendulkar being rated so highly isn't down to him being Indian. Forget the fact that Indian fans obviously are biased in his favour, the guy is rated as the best from his era by pleeenty of people from outside the country. You can say he's overrated, but if so, he's overrated by everyone, not just Indians.

Yeah, Richie Benaud put him to be the best since Bradman.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, Richie Benaud put him to be the best since Bradman.

Benaud definitively said 'a level above Greg Chapell'.

Stephen is once again peddling the myth that all Tendulkar has on his contemporaries is longevity, ignoring the fact that he was simply the best in the world for a considerable number of years. There's also the faultless, consistent record. Hating on something popular doesn't make you interesting. The guys calling him a literal deity might be absurd but so is downplaying just how good he was.