Top Five Cricketers from each country

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar was definitely not the best player/THE cricketer of the 2000s. Didn't define the decade like he did the 90s. Probably not even in the top 5 batsmen of the decade much less overall cricketers. I'd say one of Murali, Kallis or Ponting deserves that title. Probably Ponting because he was the face of that team's dominance.

 

[Malcolm]

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.

The 00s were ruled by Ponting.

 

[the big bambino]

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.

Grimmett played against 2 then three of those batsmen in 31/32 and 35/36. Not two as you conveniently mistake. Kallis was great but that's only one player compared to the four Grimmett played against. You are pumping up Kirsten. He benefits by playing a low percentage of his games against Australia. Whereas SA's top batsmen of Grimmett's era had to achieve their averages almost exclusively against Aus and Eng. Which is why the lesser bats look like minnows to you. The so called solid bats of the modern era would look like minnows too if they played 70% or more of the time against their best opponents as the SA side of Grimmett's era did.

Its irrelevant if he went for 100+ runs v England. He also bowled the most overs. His opponents incredibly strong. He also took a lot of wickets. He won the 1930 series and the 1934 series with O'Reilly. His record against his strongest opponent is very good. Donald and Pollock averaged over 30 v Australia too. Whereas Warne's record v India is just trash. Their comparative records against their best opponents is a telling and comprehensive win for Grimmett.

Yet Grimmett's bowling average is still better. Despite playing the bulk of his games against England. If you reversed the percentages so that Grimmett played most of his games v SA, WI or NZ and Warne the bulk against India then Grimmett's average would fall below 20. Warne's closing in on 40. In short Warne has benefited from every conceivable advantage and still averages more than Grimmett. SA didn't tour in 32/33. A team led by a bloke called Jardine did. That SA side won two five test series against England so can't be called minnows.

Overall the idea that Warne is one of the 5 best cricketers of the previous century or whatever is undeserved. I think he's hard pressed to justify himself as Australia's best leg spinner.

 

[Malcolm]

ESPN Cricketer of the decade 2000

Ponting - 60 points (13 No1 votes)
Kallis - 37 points (5 No1 votes)
Gilly -29 points (7 No1 votes)

 

[h_hurricane]

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.

Rating Kallis ahead of Tendulkar is not an inconceivable thought at all. Certainly not as ludicrous as rating Lillee ahead of Imran and Hadlee as overall cricketers. Yet, many do so. While Tendulkar,Kallis,Imran and Hadlee performed in most conditions, Lillee was mostly an ashes hero. Incredibly overrated by many(mostly Aussie and English).

Tendulkar is also overrated by many but the most overrated cricketer of his generation is undoubtedly Warne. Did jacks**t against the best spin playing team of his generation. Got owned in his debut series in 1991-92. Came to India in 1998 with a reputation as the best spin bowler ever,got brutally owned there too. In 1999-00, while Mcgrath and Lee were owning an extremely poor indian team, Warne got owned there as well. Came back to India again in 2001,got owned again. He did decently in 2004(only relative to his performances earlier).

 

[mr_mister]

Lol

 

[trundler]

Miller for the 50s, probably.

 

[ankitj]

The 00s were ruled by Ponting.

Or McGrath. Though he played his last test Jan 2007.

 

[ankitj]

Rating Kallis ahead of Tendulkar is not an inconceivable thought at all. Certainly not as ludicrous as rating Lillee ahead of Imran and Hadlee as overall cricketers. Yet, many do so. While Tendulkar,Kallis,Imran and Hadlee performed in most conditions, Lillee was mostly an ashes hero. Incredibly overrated by many(mostly Aussie and English).

Tendulkar is also overrated by many but the most overrated cricketer of his generation is undoubtedly Warne. Did jacks**t against the best spin playing team of his generation. Got owned in his debut series in 1991-92. Came to India in 1998 with a reputation as the best spin bowler ever,got brutally owned there too. In 1999-00, while Mcgrath and Lee were owning an extremely poor indian team, Warne got owned there as well. Came back to India again in 2001,got owned again. He did decently in 2004(only relative to his performances earlier).

While you are factually correct, you will be met with responses of shock and disbelief from Aussie posters. That's how much they buy into and get consumed by hype.

But Indian fans...

 

[mr_mister]

Jesus Christ the anti Australian sentiment is strong with some of you

 

[Slifer]

Tendulkar was definitely not the best player/THE cricketer of the 2000s. Didn't define the decade like he did the 90s. Probably not even in the top 5 batsmen of the decade much less overall cricketers. I'd say one of Murali, Kallis or Ponting deserves that title. Probably Ponting because he was the face of that team's dominance.

Yeah i know that but for better or for worse srt is probably the name most associated with the decade. He'd probably be the same for the 90s but i really hated picking the same cricketer twice unless they were a once in a lifetime type of player like the don

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Warne definitely had a fair few poor/indifferent games against India, more so than all other test nations combined probably. Bowling averages against India are not the be all and end all though, otherwise Gazza Lyon is slightly better than Murali and Paul Adams and Steve O'Keefe are the two best spinners of the modern era.

 

[ankitj]

Jesus Christ the anti Australian sentiment is strong with some of you

You are one my favourite posters though

 

[mr_mister]

Lara due to his world record breaking scores is more of a household name than Sachin imo

Casuals care about 365, 400 and 501 more than a consistent well rounded record against all nations or whatever the ****

 

[OverratedSanity]

They definitely care more about 100 centuries tbh. You can argue its a fake stat if you want but casuals gravitate to big round numbers.

 

[mr_mister]

They definitely care more about 100 centuries tbh. You can argue its a fake stat if you want but casuals gravitate to big round numbers.

Round numbers like 400?

TBH I didn't know that 100 centuries stat was that hyped up outside of diehard cricket fans

 

[mr_mister]

Grimmett played against 2 then three of those batsmen in 31/32 and 35/36. Not two as you conveniently mistake. Kallis was great but that's only one player compared to the four Grimmett played against. You are pumping up Kirsten. He benefits by playing a low percentage of his games against Australia. Whereas SA's top batsmen of Grimmett's era had to achieve their averages almost exclusively against Aus and Eng. Which is why the lesser bats look like minnows to you. The so called solid bats of the modern era would look like minnows too if they played 70% or more of the time against their best opponents as the SA side of Grimmett's era did.

Its irrelevant if he went for 100+ runs v England. He also bowled the most overs. His opponents incredibly strong. He also took a lot of wickets. He won the 1930 series and the 1934 series with O'Reilly. His record against his strongest opponent is very good. Donald and Pollock averaged over 30 v Australia too. Whereas Warne's record v India is just trash. Their comparative records against their best opponents is a telling and comprehensive win for Grimmett.

Yet Grimmett's bowling average is still better. Despite playing the bulk of his games against England. If you reversed the percentages so that Grimmett played most of his games v SA, WI or NZ and Warne the bulk against India then Grimmett's average would fall below 20. Warne's closing in on 40. In short Warne has benefited from every conceivable advantage and still averages more than Grimmett. SA didn't tour in 32/33. A team led by a bloke called Jardine did. That SA side won two five test series against England so can't be called minnows.

Overall the idea that Warne is one of the 5 best cricketers of the previous century or whatever is undeserved. I think he's hard pressed to justify himself as Australia's best leg spinner.

Grimmet had basically Maileys record against England. Both had a very decent WPM due to hardly any other bowlers of note in the team. Averages nearly identical though at 32 and 34.

One is remembered as a footnote and one a legend. Stop bigging up 1930s SA as a powerhouse side.

You're absolutely doing a disservice to Warnes record by ignoring the countless serieswhere he bowled Australia to victory, India excepted. Grimmet is like the Headley to Sachin or Sobers.

 

[h_hurricane]

Jesus Christ the anti Australian sentiment is strong with some of you

Not really. Most Indians are silent admirers of how great Aussies have been at cricket historically(and several other sports).

 

[h_hurricane]

The definitive Australian list is:

1. Border
2. Bradman
3. McGrath
4. Gilchrist
5. Warne

Ponting, G Chappell, O'Reilly, Miller, Lillee (in no particular order) all very unlucky to miss out

The fact three of them played alongside each other is a pretty decent clue as to why Australia dominated from the mid-90s for a decade.

The only order in which Border is ahead of Bradman is the alphabetical one.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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:

When I said most iconic .. i meant this. Not decade wise , generation wise.

WG
Ranji
Hobbs
Bradman
Sobers
Lillee
Viv
Sachin