Greatest cricketer post 1990

[ankitj]

Agree with Jono

Also agree to an extent with what Hit Wicket that among the given lot, the one more likely to find a place in your all time XI should be rated higher (wicket-keeper's slot is different though).

 

[Prince EWS]

Also agree to an extent with what Hit Wicket that among the given lot, the one more likely to find a place in your all time XI should be rated higher (wicket-keeper's slot is different though).

I personally don't agree with that logic at all; I'd take the guy who could have the biggest impact on a standard Test team. It's not really something you could have a proper debate on though; it's just one of those "different definitions of greatness" things.

 

[smash84]

Allrounders aren't always better than specialists, even if they have similar statistics. I'm not saying they aren't necessarily.

But better/greater "cricketer" doesn't mean "oh could he do more aspects of cricket" better. He may be a more skilled cricketer, but not necessarily more valuable.

Obviously greater/better/valuable are very subjective terms. Different people would interpret them differently. It is true though that good all rounders are not necessarily better than specialists but they are valuable because they give you more options than a specialist.