Best cricketer for this decade ?

[Migara]

Top batsmen of this decade (at least 40 innings)

[B]A Flower 		63.25[/B]
Mohammad Yousuf 	60.05
[B]RT Ponting 		59.31
JH Kallis		58.93[/B]
Inzamam-ul-Haq		56.06
[B]KC Sangakkara 		55.36[/B]
DPMD Jayawardene	54.64
HP Tillakaratne		54.24
G Gambhir		54.07
[B]BC Lara 		54.06
R Dravid 		53.45[/B]

Few batsmen stand out because they have similar away and home averages. Only thing keeping Flower back is that he played only 42 innings. Otherwise he was head and shoulders above the rest in this decade.

 

[Migara]

Best bowlers in this decade (>40 innings)

Murali is clearly above the rest in # wickets and in average.

 

[Ikki]

Best bowlers in this decade (>40 innings)

Murali is clearly above the rest in # wickets and in average.

Clearly? Without B/Z:

          [B]Avg     SR[/B]
[B]Murali[/B]   22.58   55.4
[B]McGrath[/B]  20.46   51.2
[B]Warne[/B]    25.10   50.8

 

[Athlai]

Clearly? Without B/Z:

          [B]Avg     SR[/B]
[B]Murali[/B]   22.58   55.4
[B]McGrath[/B]  20.46   51.2
[B]Warne[/B]    25.10   50.8

Considering wickets taken it's a bit hopeful of you to keep Warne in there tbh.

 

[Migara]

Clearly? Without B/Z:

          [B]Avg     SR[/B]
[B]Murali[/B]   22.58   55.4
[B]McGrath[/B]  20.46   51.2
[B]Warne[/B]    25.10   50.8

Almost 50% more wickets than McGrath with lesser innigs. yes Clearly

 

[The Sean]

Clearly? Without B/Z:

          [B]Avg     SR[/B]
[B]Murali[/B]   22.58   55.4
[B]McGrath[/B]  20.46   51.2
[B]Warne[/B]    25.10   50.8

Considering wickets taken it's a bit hopeful of you to keep Warne in there tbh.

Almost 50% more wickets than McGrath with lesser innigs. yes Clearly

Out of interest, what does the wickets tally adjust to with those three bowlers?

 

[Athlai]

Out of interest, what does the wickets tally adjust to with those three bowlers?

Murali 423 from 118 innings
McGrath 289 from 125 innings
Warne 340 from 121 innings
(Murali also bowls a full 1000 more overs than either of the others)

 

[The Sean]

Murali 423 from 118 innings
McGrath 289 from 125 innings
Warne 340 from 121 innings
(Murali also bowls a full 1000 more overs than either of the others)

Ta. Interesting stuff.

 

[Ikki]

Considering wickets taken it's a bit hopeful of you to keep Warne in there tbh.

Murali bowled more overs and for Sri Lanka.

If it is hopeful for me to keep Warne there, what for then McGrath? Warne took more wickets than McGrath, and at a better SR, so it's not simply because he bowled more than him.

Almost 50% more wickets than McGrath with lesser innigs. yes Clearly

Removing minnows he plays 9 less innings than McGrath...yet bowls 1414 overs more, the equivalent of 38-39 tests for McGrath

 

[Migara]

Murali bowled more overs and for Sri Lanka.
Removing minnows he plays 9 less innings than McGrath...yet bowls 1414 overs more.

What will happen if McGrath or Warne did that? Possibly retire 3 years earlier

 

[Athlai]

Murali bowled more overs and for Sri Lanka.

If it is hopeful for me to keep Warne there, what for then McGrath? Warne took more wickets than McGrath, and at a better SR, so it's not simply because he bowled more than him.

McGrath averaged 20 though so it isn't that hopeful at all seeing that it would suggest he may have bowled better than Murail though obviously bowled less overs.
I still find it pretty amazing how economical Murali was, he bowled 1000 more overs than those two and still averages 22 (basically bowled a third more balls than either of the others)

 

[Ikki]

What will happen if McGrath or Warne did that? Possibly retire 3 years earlier

Why? Do you age faster as you bowl more?

McGrath averaged 20 though so it isn't that hopeful at all seeing that it would suggest he may have bowled better than Murail though obviously bowled less overs.
I still find it pretty amazing how economical Murali was, he bowled 1000 more overs than those two and still averages 22 (basically bowled a third more balls than either of the others)

True, but that was the kind of bowler he was. He contained and eventually cracked batsmens' defenses. McGrath and Warne attacked - Warne probably more so, with respect to his type of bowling - and competed for wickets against the rest of the team. I am not trying to say what Murali did was easy. Maybe only 2-3 other spinners in history could have done it. He just wasn't clearly better. I personally gave him the nod because he is still bowling whereas McGrath and Warne were injured at times (or banned ) and retired in 07.

 

[Athlai]

Why? Do you age faster as you bowl more?



True, but that was the kind of bowler he was. He contained and eventually cracked batsmens' defenses. McGrath and Warne attacked - Warne probably more so, with respect to his type of bowling - and competed for wickets against the rest of the team. I am not trying to say what Murali did was easy. Maybe only 2-3 other spinners in history could have done it. He just wasn't clearly better. I personally gave him the nod because he is still bowling whereas McGrath and Warne were injured at times (or banned ) and retired in 07.

Yeah I think if Warne and Murali swapped their positions they'd probably have fared worse. Can't see Warne bowling as many overs as Murali did for Sri Lanka or Murali taking anywhere near as many wickets wearing a baggy green.

Though Murali and McGrath bowling in tandem for most of a session is a mouth watering prospect. Think of how few runs would be scored!

 

[Richard]

I was only commenting on the original post. Boycott mentions Warne, and I said if he mentioned Warne he should mention McGrath, because he has a superior record, and I believe he was as good this decade. Actually, probably better.

Ah, I see. I'd agree with you that if one is mentioned the other should be but for me neither deserve mention.

And personally, I would count ODIs in 'best cricketer' because otherwise I would have thought it would say 'best test cricketer'. To me, 'best cricketer' is impacted by both, because I think being right up there in both forms of the game means you are a more talented and successful player.

I've said before that there's no cricket which is a combination of Test and ODI, so therefore there is no cricketer that is such. On CW, and in plenty of other places too (especially those of Boycs' generation) there's a "applies to Tests only unless otherwise stated" consensus. I'm not really that interested in a best-ODI-player-of-decade discussion, but in Tests I certainly am.

 

[Richard]

Why? Do you age faster as you bowl more?

No, but your body's physical condition is likely to deteriorate faster, meaning you're likely to be unable to play for as long in terms of years. It's a frankly astonishing effort from Murali to bowl as many overs per Test as he has without any deterioration in performance until recently, and the excellence of that achievement cancels-out any caveats that have to be thrown in in terms of how much that increases his wicket-taking chances.

 

[four_or_six]

I've said before that there's no cricket which is a combination of Test and ODI, so therefore there is no cricketer that is such. On CW, and in plenty of other places too (especially those of Boycs' generation) there's a "applies to Tests only unless otherwise stated" consensus. I'm not really that interested in a best-ODI-player-of-decade discussion, but in Tests I certainly am.

Every cricketer's career can be regarded as a combination of his test career and his ODI career, therefore all cricketers are such, not none of them.

 

[Richard]

Every cricketer's career can also be regarded as a combination of how well he performs on the field and how well he conducts himself off it, and also how good a bowler and batsman he is, and also many other things combined which are generally treated as separate.

I'm not that interested in any of them though, unless otherwise stated. By-and-large I'll judge batsmen as batsmen, bowlers as bowlers, players as players and good-quality people as good-quality people.

 

[four_or_six]

Every cricketer's career can also be regarded as a combination of how well he performs on the field and how well he conducts himself off it, and also how good a bowler and batsman he is, and also many other things combined which are generally treated as separate.

I'm not that interested in any of them though, unless otherwise stated. By-and-large I'll judge batsmen as batsmen, bowlers as bowlers, players as players and good-quality people as good-quality people.

It's one thing separating how good a person is off the field, it's quite another separating how good a batsman they are in ODI cricket and how good a batsman they are in test cricket.

 

[bagapath]

True, but that was the kind of bowler he was. He contained and eventually cracked batsmens' defenses. McGrath and Warne attacked - Warne probably more so, with respect to his type of bowling - and competed for wickets against the rest of the team.

murali's SR is better than warne's. and it is better than most of the pace bowlers' in history. if he was not attacking i dont know who else was. just because he was also economical dont make him a defensive bowler. he was the biggest threat to batsmen in the 90s everywhere (except in australia). BTW, I have always preferred warne to murali. that doesnt change the facts i have written above.

 

[Ikki]

murali's SR is better than warne's. and it is better than most of the pace bowlers' in history. if he was not attacking i dont know who else was. just because he was also economical dont make him a defensive bowler. he was the biggest threat to batsmen in the 90s everywhere (except in australia). BTW, I have always preferred warne to murali. that doesnt change the facts i have written above.

It's actually not when you remove minnows. Warne's is better than Murali's, overall and especially post 2000. However, Murali was also a tad tighter in average.