Top Five Cricketers from each country

[MrPrez]

He's the best of his generation, which was an incredibly strong generation of batsmen. I would possibly argue that some rate him too much higher than these contemporaries, but he was certainly the best of the bunch - which is saying a lot.

Is he the second best batsman after Bradman? Tough to say. Certainly needs to be in the discussion though.

 

[smash84]

yeah, i personally do think he was somewhat over rated, but my point is that having him as the greatest batsman after Bradman is not an entirely unreasonable opinion hence putting Richie's opinion of him.

 

[vcs]

He became rather "boring" (i.e. just human like the rest) after his elbow and back issues so people tend to forget how good he was in the '90s. Like Warne and Lara from that decade, he transcended the numbers he put up (which were pretty damn good themselves).

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Starting at an age of 16 yrs
World class in teenage
Becoming number 1 in 20-30
Maintaining top level performances until 40.

It's not easy to ignore such a feat. Especially that Teenage superstardom.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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

There is not much difference between Pollock and Kallis. Only 2 ATG allrounders in last 25 years. Normally allrounders tends to be superstars with their electrifying presence in the field. But not this two.
Donald easily overshadowed Pollock.
You need to check Kallis stats to understand his value.
Sachins , Akrams, Gilchrists , Laras .. belong to a different league .. you don't need checking their stats to admire them. Genuine icons.

 

[ankitj]

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.

This. It's one thing to not hold him greatest icon or something like that. Quite another to not even admit there is a fair debate to be had becuase err ... Indian fans. How many times bollocks like that can be paddled before it becomes embarrassing?

 

[Slifer]

Holder could crack top 20. Surely he's odds on to end up your second best AR after Sobers, unless we elevate Constantine far above his test output

He's certainly been the best wi skipper since Richardson. And winning the wisden series convincingly against a decent England side did help his cause immensely. If somehow holder finishes with stats anywhere close to a ian botham yeah he'd be in our top 20 . For now imo, he's on the outside looking in

 

[stephen]

Nobody is downplaying how good Tendulkar was. He was an ATG and arguably the best of his generation. His status as icon has little to do with that.

The statement I was diminishing was "Tendulkar was the biggest icon of the last 25 years", which is only true because he's Indian. Lara would have been had he been Indian and Tendulkar West Indian.

The fact that this is even being debated is ridiculous. Kallis is a great counterpoint. Both had similar personalities which shied away from the limelight and both were the most talented cricketers in their team. If Kallis were Indian and Tendulkar South African it would be Kallis that would be "The greatest icon of the last 25 years".

 

[mr_mister]

He's certainly been the best wi skipper since Richardson. And winning the wisden series convincingly against a decent England side did help his cause immensely. If somehow holder finishes with stats anywhere close to a ian botham yeah he'd be in our top 20 . For now imo, he's on the outside looking in

Well his averages are very similar to Botham. Can't see him getting 14 tons and 380 wickets though ha

 

[GoodAreasShane]

While unlikely, I don't think it is impossible at all for Holder to get 14 tons. He's 27 now, his batting average has been on the rise for a while, if he plays on until about 37ish making runs at the rate he has the last 12-18 months he will be right up there. Won't get close on wickets though

 

[the big bambino]

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

Yeah this is just modern era jingoism. Warne didn't bowl to a quartet of SA batsmen as good as Taylor, Nourse, Mitchell or Rowan. And fool yourself as much as you like but Grimmett's bowling won two series against England and however you try and diminish that achievement you damn Warne's against India even more so.

 

[srbhkshk]

The fact that this is even being debated is ridiculous. Kallis is a great counterpoint. Both had similar personalities which shied away from the limelight and both were the most talented cricketers in their team. If Kallis were Indian and Tendulkar South African it would be Kallis that would be "The greatest icon of the last 25 years".

Eh, Warne , Lara , Wasim , McGrath , Imran are all considered bigger icons than Kallis in spite of none of them being an Indian.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Kallis is less celebrated because he's less exciting and less aesthetically pleasing than his competitors. It has **** all to do with him being south African imo. His teammates ABdV and Steyn being from south Africa didn't hurt them being two of the most popular cricketers of the era.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Kallis is less celebrated because he's less exciting and less aesthetically pleasing than his competitors. It has **** all to do with him being south African imo. His teammates ABdV and Steyn being from south Africa didn't hurt them being two of the most popular cricketers of the era.

This.
Barry Richards a bigger icon than many ATGs despite playing just 4 tests .

 

[Burgey]

No he isn't. Not really.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Nobody is downplaying how good Tendulkar was. He was an ATG and arguably the best of his generation. His status as icon has little to do with that.

The statement I was diminishing was "Tendulkar was the biggest icon of the last 25 years", which is only true because he's Indian. Lara would have been had he been Indian and Tendulkar West Indian.

The fact that this is even being debated is ridiculous. Kallis is a great counterpoint. Both had similar personalities which shied away from the limelight and both were the most talented cricketers in their team. If Kallis were Indian and Tendulkar South African it would be Kallis that would be "The greatest icon of the last 25 years".

If Lara and Kallis played for 24 years ( top level in both formats ) and Sachin career was just 18yrs ( starting at 19 or 20 instead of 16 ) they could have been bigger icons than Sachin. Kallis I am not sure , Lara without a shadow of doubt.

Sachins case was helped by that unusually early start and unusually longer career.

Before his 26th bday , he had 40 international centuries. Previous Record was 35 centuries. That's ridiculous.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

No he isn't. Not really.

Barry Richards will be remembered more than Andy Flower , Younis Khan , Chanderpaul , Brian Statham ..to name a few..

Barry Richards rated 24th greatest cricketer of all-time in ESPN Legends , ahead of Barnes , Ranji , O' Reilly , Holding..etc

 

[Burgey]

Barry Richards is remembered as one of the great "What if" players in cricket history, along with the likes of Archie Jackson. That doesn't make him an icon ffs.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah this is just modern era jingoism. Warne didn't bowl to a quartet of SA batsmen as good as Taylor, Nourse, Mitchell or Rowan. And fool yourself as much as you like but Grimmett's bowling won two series against England and however you try and diminish that achievement you damn Warne's against India even more so.

That quartet didn't play together in a test though. Taylor was done before Nourse began.

And other than 2 big names their batting order was usually full of minnow bats. South Africa in the 90s at least always had 4-5 solid support players to go with Kallis and Kirsten who were Nourse/Mitchell level. Cullinan was also certainly billed as that level before Warne took him down a peg

O'Reillly faring so much better than Grimmett against basically the same English side is quite telling. Unless you consider Grimmett equal to Warne and O'Reilly better than both of them. Grimmett averaged 32 against them, despite taking a ton of wickets. Going through the record it seems he went for 100+ runs basically every second innings he bowled against England after his awesome debut. Like I said good but not great. Hammond plundered him for runs like Sachin did Warne years later

Warne flopped hard against India, it isn't cancelled out by Grimmets English performance which obviously is nowhere near as bad. But he averaged so low due to the West Indies and what I believe to be a weak SA side, especially in 32/33. Could have been remembered like Mailey if he only got to bowl to England like Mailey basically did. And yes I know they were drastically different bowlers.

 

[Slifer]

The other day I was pondering who was the best cricketer of a particular decade and who was the THE cricketer of a particular decade. Sometimes the two arent exactly the same imo. When you think of a particular decade, whose name comes first to mind:

Imo I came up with this:
30s : Bradman
40s: ???
50s:??
60s: Sobers
70s : love him or hate him but Lillee probably best represents that decade.
80s: imran was the best player but Richards is probably the first name that comes to mind when we think of the 80s
90s: this one was tough but being from the WI , the cricketer we heard most about was Warne
00s: Tendulkar, although imo kallis was the best overall player
10s: that would be now so probably Kohli.