Best Overall Cricketer?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO, Mark Waugh is much more naturall talented and more fun/interesting to watch than Steve, but he is a bit more cmplacent at times.

Steve Waugh will put his head down and bat and bat and bat, if he has to. He is perhaps the hardest worker in cricket. He clearly puts alot of effort into his game. As a result, he doesn't give away his wicket very often- he makes you earn it. His work ethic took him to No.1......

 

[marc71178]

I think Gillys keeping is just as importaint as Kallis bowling and IMO Gilly is the better batsman so thats why I choose him.

The thing is, if Aus played their second best keeper (or best keeper but not as good a batsman), they wouldn't miss Gilchrist as much as if SA didn't have Kallis.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well said Marc.

 

[hourn]

Well....everyone to his own opinion. The ICC panel of experts have cleared his action, I believe his deformity is such that his arm bends backwards when he delivers the ball, not forwards(someone correct me if I am wrong), and that is not chucking in my book. Anyway, if you dispute the ICC decison on that, there are some other decisions that can be disputed like Lee, Akhtar, Harb.... If you are selective, that just means pure prejudice. You have to go the whole hog and denounce every single one of them even though they have all been cleared by the ICC.

What do you mean???

Because I consider one person to be a chuker I have to brand all the others chuckers??

My views on them:

Lee - looks very suspect, but I think it is actually OK. The weird thing about him is he doesn't push his right arm into his action which makes it very hard to bowl at any pace, let alone as quick as anyone else.

Akhtar - he is ok. His "oomph" ball is a bit suspect though.

Harbajan - he is sweet - he has a lot of wrist in his action, which causes the throwing effect.

Saraandeep Singh however is a massive thrower, as is James Kirtley.

As for those pages, Neil Pickup showed, I've seen that page and it doesn't nothing to change my mind. I dont need to see him bowl with a thousand cameras on him - I've seen him bowl in a game. Thats where he gets the wickets. What he does at some university when he knows he must make every effort not to throw otherwise his career is over, really means nothing to me.

 

[age_master]

lee and acktar have actions that are fine, leave it out, ad even if you think that they do chuck, teh ICC have cleared them both and well thats just your problem


Stve waughs technique aint great at all, which makes his stats even mroe impressive, but yes his tech isn't great, he plays soo badly off teh front foot and never pulls, compare him to someone with good technique like Mark and the effort required to sore that many runs is soo much less for them

 

[luckyeddie]

James Kirtley's worked hard over the last couple of years on his action (which frankly was dreadful and HIGHLY suspect), although it still looked a little ropey last time I saw it.

Re Murali - no, no, no. He has been 100% exonerated - and rightly so. This argument is very old, very tedious and very dead.

Oh and Hourn - what colour is the sky? You cannot stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'la-la-la-la-la'. What Neil has posted is called evidence.

That's like me saying 'India, World Champions 2003' despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Andre]

note to whomever said it: steve waugh doesn't have good technique.

Over my time at Cricket Web, I've heard some dumb things, sometimes even stupid.

However, this one takes the cake. Whilst Steve might not have the flashiest, prettiest of fanciest technique in world cricket, it works Perfectly for him, it never fails on him.

For someone to say he doesn't have a good technique, answer me this question. How can a man with poor technique have scored 29 Test hundreds and over 10 000 Test runs.

 

[V Reddy]

The thing is, if Aus played their second best keeper (or best keeper but not as good a batsman), they wouldn't miss Gilchrist as much as if SA didn't have Kallis.

But it is b'coz AUS is the best team. If Kallis played for AUS and he missed a match for them then AUS wouldn't have missed Kallis too. Any team would love to have a player like Gilly in their team. You should also consider Keeping as equal to Bowling and Gilly is more good at keeping than Kallis is at bowling.

 

[Cloete]

more good

i think ur looking for the word "better" vish

 

[Rik]

i agree pretty much wit hall your rankings, but I can't give any praise to a guy who I believe throws the ball. Regardless of what others think, I have that view, and I believe he is getting worse and worse now.

As for the best all round cricketer, i agree with Gilchrist, just in front of Pollock.

1st of all here's proof he doesn't throw analysis

Also you can give credit to him because he has been cleared numerous times and also he's got a better wicket to game ratio, average and econ rate than Warne in every form of the game...

 

[Rik]

Best all round player? In the past most probably Sobers, but at the moment it is Kallis, he can bat, bowl and field while Gilchrist is just a batsman who admits he's a quite ordinary gloveman.

 

[V Reddy]

i think ur looking for the word "better" vish

Yeah thought that i had typed something wrong but couldn't find it :duh: .

Rik, you seem to go by what a player thinks about himself.You did the same thing to Ervine. You posted one inning in which bowled badly but didn't post the other innings in which he played well . Gilchrist may have dropped some catches but took some very very good ones too. Boucher has dropped many catches in WC and TVS cup but that doesn't mean he is a bad keeper.The performance in the matches is the thing which matters not what a player thinks of himself ( atleast in my opinion ). Do you think Kallis is that good a bowler. Whenever i see him bowl he gives away 45 runs minimum. I don't think he can come into a SA team on his bowling alone.He bowls well once in 6-7 matches.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Do you think Kallis is that good a bowler. Whenever i see him bowl he gives away 45 runs minimum. I don't think he can come into a SA team on his bowling alone.He bowls well once in 6-7 matches.

I strongly disagree. When SA came to the West Indies, he was the best of the bowlers. He bowled in th low 90's(high 80's) range and swung the ball a great deal. For such a good batsman, he is a very quick bowler. I use the WI example because our pitches are not the best bowling wickets.

 

[Rik]

Yeah thought that i had typed something wrong but couldn't find it :duh: .

Rik, you seem to go by what a player thinks about himself.You did the same thing to Ervine. You posted one inning in which bowled badly but didn't post the other innings in which he played well . Gilchrist may have dropped some catches but took some very very good ones too. Boucher has dropped many catches in WC and TVS cup but that doesn't mean he is a bad keeper.The performance in the matches is the thing which matters not what a player thinks of himself ( atleast in my opinion ). Do you think Kallis is that good a bowler. Whenever i see him bowl he gives away 45 runs minimum. I don't think he can come into a SA team on his bowling alone.He bowls well once in 6-7 matches.

It's blatently obvious even to Gilchrist himself that although he's a good keeper, he's mainly picked for his batting. Gilchrist is a very fine player but he's not the world's most complete player because he still drops easy catches and although he's a brilliant batsman and a decent keeper, that's it. Kallis can take wickets, make runs and field well. Although I'm discriminating against Gilchrist because he doesn't bowl, Kallis is just class in every area, sound, dependable and high scoring batsman in both forms of the game, useful 1st change seamer and a slip fielder with buckets for hands. I'm only going by the bleedin' obvious that the most complete player in the World is Kallis. Gilchrist the best keeper batsman yes, but Kallis is the best all-round player.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Kallis is a fine batsman. Considering the ratio of dropped catches off Gilchrist :rolleyes: and Kallis, I would dare say he is a better bat.
Slight advantage- Gilchrist

Kallis is a good fielder.
IMO, Gilshrist wouldn't get into the Australian team if not for his batting....he's no Healy....
Advantage- Kallis

Kallis is a very useful bowler. For a batsman who plays at 3, he has amazing stamina. He's bowled over 20 overs a few times before.
Gilchrist......well he just doesn't bowl...
Unclear advantage

Overall, I think Kallis is a better allround cricketer. He would definitely be the allrounder in my fantasy team. I would settle for a techinically sound keeper who can bat a bit and go for the batsman who can bowl instead, rather than the decent keeper who can bat.

 

[Top_Cat]

note to whomever said it: steve waugh doesn't have good technique.

Now that's just funny. Would you care to elaborate upon just how Steve Waugh could improve upon his overall 'technique'? Bear in mind we're talking about a guy who has averaged 50+ since he was recalled back into the Aussie side in 1993, has 29 Test hundreds overall and is universally acknowledged as one of the toughest players to dismiss in world cricket due to a rock-solid technique.

As for those pages, Neil Pickup showed, I've seen that page and it doesn't nothing to change my mind. I dont need to see him bowl with a thousand cameras on him - I've seen him bowl in a game. Thats where he gets the wickets. What he does at some university when he knows he must make every effort not to throw otherwise his career is over, really means nothing to me.

You're awfully quick to dismiss something which has provided more evidence than you have. Oh that's right, people often disregard that which they don't understand.

You want to discredit that study? Good luck to you. Saying "It's worthless" doesn't achieve this and if anything, you discredit yourself by doing just that. So let's hear your alternative hypothesis.

 

[Haffy]

to say steve waugh has a bad technique is like saying glenn mcgrath is the best batsman in the world.

my pick for mvp is gilchrist. he is such a good bat and can keep. he is not by any means the best keeper in the world. probably not australia even. (if u discount batting completely)

 

[Eclipse]

Kallis is overated IMO

Against Australia he was totaly Hopless with the ball he would just continualy get floged as he tryed to intimadate our batsman with jucy long hops and half vollys.

As a batsman he was hard to get out at times but on no occasions did he ever threatern with the bat his only scores came in situations were the game was lost and not once did he show any sort of aggresion and beleve me at times it really could have helped his team.

He was better with the bat in the One dayrs but worse with the ball but overall I know alot of people though he was playing selfish cricket as a batsman even S. Elworthy who was doing commentry at the time though he was batting selfishly buy taking up alot off balls to make a sub 30 score and leaving to much for the lower order.

Having said that I havent seen alot of him against teams other than Australia and his figures suggest he is alot better than what I saw.

 

[Anil]

What do you mean???

Because I consider one person to be a chuker I have to brand all the others chuckers??

My views on them:

Lee - looks very suspect, but I think it is actually OK. The weird thing about him is he doesn't push his right arm into his action which makes it very hard to bowl at any pace, let alone as quick as anyone else.

Akhtar - he is ok. His "oomph" ball is a bit suspect though.

Harbajan - he is sweet - he has a lot of wrist in his action, which causes the throwing effect.

Saraandeep Singh however is a massive thrower, as is James Kirtley.

As for those pages, Neil Pickup showed, I've seen that page and it doesn't nothing to change my mind. I dont need to see him bowl with a thousand cameras on him - I've seen him bowl in a game. Thats where he gets the wickets. What he does at some university when he knows he must make every effort not to throw otherwise his career is over, really means nothing to me.

My point is that all of them have suspect actions because of which all have been called by umpires and tested by the ICC. All of them have been cleared, however. That's is what they have in common. There are still detractors who say all of them still chuck. That's another thing in common.

Your attitude to Neil's pictures clearly shows your prejudice. He has a physical deformity, even for cheating anyone, he just wouldn't be able to straighten his arm. Do you get that? So, your theory that he tried to trick the ICC panel of experts just doesn't wash or do you think that they are all big fools and were duped by the devious and cunning Murali? :P :P

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

his figures suggest he is alot better than what I saw.

He is. Trust me, he is.

he would just continualy get floged

Not the first to receive such treatment...

his only scores came in situations were the game was lost

Runs are runs. Lara scored his hundred in Trinidad with very little support.

even S. Elworthy

Wow. Even the Steve Elworthy???......:rolleyes: