-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current)
- Thread starter venkyrenga
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Flem274*
123/5
athlai has too many categories
great aka atg
very good aka atvg
good
test standard aka exists
not terrible aka not test standard but can obviously play
terrible aka spud
hackfraud aka how?
or to use players
glenn mcgrath
james anderson
andy bichel
chris martin
matt henry
mitchell santner
darren powell
great aka atg
very good aka atvg
good
test standard aka exists
not terrible aka not test standard but can obviously play
terrible aka spud
hackfraud aka how?
or to use players
glenn mcgrath
james anderson
andy bichel
chris martin
matt henry
mitchell santner
darren powell
_00_deathscar
International Regular
I think Swann was a better bowler than Jadeja, who are both better than Harby and Vettori. Not sure about that grouping…
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
*Daren
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
ATG
Great
Very Good
Good
Mediocre
Poor
Enough categories for me. And MacGill will be in the very good category. As will Saqlain. Vettori in the good category. Harby in the very good category too. For all his faults, and there were plenty, Harby used to bowl random 5fer spells almost everywhere except Australia. I definitely dont think that makes him better than someone who got 3fers and 4 fers but more consistently and won more matches that way, but it is an aspect that should be looked at.
Lyon in the very good category too, btw.
Great
Very Good
Good
Mediocre
Poor
Enough categories for me. And MacGill will be in the very good category. As will Saqlain. Vettori in the good category. Harby in the very good category too. For all his faults, and there were plenty, Harby used to bowl random 5fer spells almost everywhere except Australia. I definitely dont think that makes him better than someone who got 3fers and 4 fers but more consistently and won more matches that way, but it is an aspect that should be looked at.
Lyon in the very good category too, btw.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
When you are rating spin bowlers, especially of 90s and 00s, record against India is certainly more important than against any other team.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
**** no
sunilz
International Regular
So they should be judged by their record in Ashes ?
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Mate it's same as how for pace bowlers and batsmen of the same era, record against Australia is paramount. Lot of players get knocked down for not doing well against the best.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Actually yes, if they are from Aus or Eng
IMO most important teams for spinner to perform against in that period would be, in order:
Aus/WI (WI not so much 00s)
Eng (if they're Australian)
SA
NZ/Ind/Pak etc.
.
.
.
Zim/Ban
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
why are you guys like this. That makes no sense for so many reasons
sunilz
International Regular
Yes and what you wrote makes perfect sense . A spinner should be judged by how he performs against Eng rather than Ind/Pak in 90s/2000s. Are you serious?
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Why on earth would Ind/Pak be a more important team to perform against? Because they are "better players of spin"? Irrelevant.
It's most important to perform against the team you most want to win against. Same for any skillset. As an Australian fan of the 90s I'd take a spinner that beats England, West Indies or South Africa over one that bullies India every day of the week.
sunilz
International Regular
So you should have no problem if I rate Yuvraj Singh ( record against Pak) a better batsman than Gilchrist ( record against Eng)
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You're doing it again, but why would I have a problem with how you rate anyone.
To be clear again because obviously I'm not, I don't care about how anyone rates anyone. I was responding purely to the absurd statement that performing against India was "most important".
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
it wasn't back then. Mostly because of how SC cricket was perceived at the time, and because of different rivalries.
For example, Aus could barely be bothered touring India regularly until the late 90s because no one here really rated SC cricket until then. It sucks to say it, but it's true. It was thought of as second rate. Warne could have bowled Aus to victory in a series in India in the 90s and no one would have given a **** if he'd taken 1/200 in an Ashes test or cost Aus a Frank Worrell Trophy series. That all started to change from probably the mid-90s, but seriously up til then very few people cared.
That doesn't mean it's right, it's just how it was. if you're looking at how to rate Warne, then for sure how he bowled to India matters a lot to people who are properly keen on the game, but he's rated as highly as he is by a lot of people because he owned the Poms all the time, and it was hilarious.
The counterpoint I suppose would be that for India, playing vs Pakistan is massively important because of the rivalry and history, and if someone owns a series against them for India they'd get massive props. But for Aus a series vs Pakistan is pretty ho hum, mostly because they don't seem to try half the time we play them.
Last edited: