The 10 players who will "define" cricket in the next decade

[Mister Wright]

So not big fan of Haddin?

Haddin will be Australia's next keeper, but not a long term option. Maybe 3 or 4 years at best. All the rest are in their early 20s so will be a longer term option.

 

[Prince EWS]

Have a looks at Sangakkara, Silva, Jayasuriya FC average and get back to me on the pitches. The pitches that most domestic matches are played on are far worse then the international pitches.

Fair enough (going to exclude Silva though on the basis of him being far from proven himself, not to mention being decidedly poor until recently anyway - plus there's the fact that Tharanga actually averages under 30 rather than the low 40s average of Sangakkara or high 30s average of Jayasuriya who started his career as a bowler..), but what exactly has Tharanga done to deserve anywhere near the praise he gets? His technique is ordinary, his shot selection is ordinary, his stats against decent attacks are ordinary, his domestic stats are ordinary. He seems to be mentioned simply because he's young and in the team, which in itself is ridiculous. The likes of Watson, Tait and Taylor have actually done something - be it at first class level, ODI level or List A level. Tharanga has done nothing other than score runs against poor attacks and get selected based on it.

 

[Jono]

Tharanga greatly helped get his team into the World Cup final, that's something more than just scoring runs against poor attacks for mine.

Not that I'm arguing Tharanga deserves to be among the top 10, but he played an extremely vital knock in the semi, and as good as Mahela was in that match, Tharanga was crucial in allowing him to be able to play himself in. Was an extremely good pressure knock, especially considering the experience of Sanath and Sanga couldn't handle it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tharanga greatly helped get his team into the World Cup final, that's something more than just scoring runs against poor attacks for mine.

Not that I'm arguing Tharanga deserves to be among the top 10, but he played an extremely vital knock in the semi, and as good as Mahela was in that match, Tharanga was crucial in allowing him to be able to play himself in. Was an extremely good pressure knock, especially considering the experience of Sanath and Sanga couldn't handle it.

And if Watson averaging 40 in 12 innings batting in the top 4 proves nothing because it's not a long enough period, then one innings in which Tharanga looked fairly ordinary (IMO) proves exactly that as well.

 

[chaminda_00]

Fair enough (going to exclude Silva though on the basis of him being far from proven himself, not to mention being decidedly poor until recently anyway - plus there's the fact that Tharanga actually averages under 30 rather than the low 40s average of Sangakkara or high 30s average of Jayasuriya who started his career as a bowler..), but what exactly has Tharanga done to deserve anywhere near the praise he gets? His technique is ordinary, his shot selection is ordinary, his stats against decent attacks are ordinary, his domestic stats are ordinary. He seems to be mentioned simply because he's young and in the team, which in itself is ridiculous. The likes of Watson, Tait and Taylor have actually done something - be it at first class level, ODI level or List A level. Tharanga has done nothing other than score runs against poor attacks and get selected based on it.

Sangakkara averages in the low 30s in FC in Sri Lanka btw, his FC average gets increased by Test Cricket. Most of Tharanga FC in Sri Lanka was when he was 18 and 19, thats why his FC record isn't great. His hardly played FC cricket in the last 2-3 years. If you take all that into account his FC record doesn't really show much about his ability just how 18/19 went in his first two seasons of FC cricket.

When it comes to International level his shown on occasions against top sides that he could be one of the best talents in the world. There is no doubt his got the raw talent. Once he matures there no doubt he will score more runs regular against top sides.

Also he has scored more runs against good attacks then Taylor, unless we are going to classifly England and New Zealans poor cus he scored runs against them. That Bangladesh side he scored runs against was better then a lot of attacks in ODIs, i.e the Sri Lanka bowling attack against Australia in the Super 8 match. Really outside Zimbabwe and Holland his scored all his runs against decent sides.

 

[Prince EWS]

When it comes to International level his shown on occasions against top sides that he could be one of the best talents in the world.

How so? I don't think he's done that at all, TBH. Getting the odd score isn't special - even the most mediocre of players could manage it.

There is no doubt his got the raw talent. Once he matures there no doubt he will score more runs regular against top sides.

Plenty of doubt, IMO.

Also he has scored more runs against good attacks then Taylor, unless we are going to classifly England and New Zealans poor cus he scored runs against them. That Bangladesh side he scored runs against was better then a lot of attacks in ODIs, i.e the Sri Lanka bowling attack against Australia in the Super 8 match. Really outside Zimbabwe his scored all his runs against decent sides.

The England attacks he has faced have certainly been poor. IIRC, he was part of the team that had the pleasure of facing the Bresnan phase at which point the English attack was exceptionally dire - worse than some of the attacks Desh had trotted out really. As far as Taylor goes, it's just a personal opinion of me thinking he looks a better player than Tharanga so I'm not going to argue it. The likes of Watson, Cook and De Villiers are certainly better than him though and the numbers prove so. You can go on all you like about Sri Lankan pitches at domestic level, but the guy doesn't even average 30 - I highly doubt there is 20 run difference, especially once you account for the fact that the opening bowlers in Australian/South African/English domestic cricket are far greater than those in Sri Lanka. I'm quite astonished that Tharanga has even been mentioned, let alone the question asked "Why isn't he there?" - it just confirms my thoughts that he is over-rated though really.

 

[Sanz]

So what has Watson done so far in his career ? To me he has been the biggest hype of the decade. As for Tharanga doing nothing - Did you really watch him play in England last summer ? 6 100s in his first 30 innings, I dont remember any other ODI player doing that. He has makings of a really great player and someone who is going to serve SriLanka for a long long time and IMO has the potential to be one of SriLanka's best batsman ever.

 

[chaminda_00]

The England attacks he has faced have certainly been poor. IIRC, he was part of the team that had the pleasure of facing the Bresnan phase at which point the English attack was exceptionally dire - worse than some of the attacks Desh had trotted out really. As far as Taylor goes, it's just a personal opinion of me thinking he looks a better player than Tharanga so I'm not going to argue it. The likes of Watson, Cook and De Villiers are certainly better than him though and the numbers prove so. You can go on all you like about Sri Lankan pitches at domestic level, but the guy doesn't even average 30 - I highly doubt there is 20 run difference, especially once you account for the fact that the opening bowlers in Australian/South African/English domestic cricket are far greater than those in Sri Lanka. I'm quite astonished that Tharanga has even been mentioned, let alone the question asked "Why isn't he there?" - it just confirms my thoughts that he is over-rated though really.

Sangakkara showen there is 10+ run difference if you just take in Non Test Stats. Most of the guys that have played for Sri Lankan average 10 higher in Test Cricket then when they have played domestic cricket. You seem to have also missed the fact that he played pretty much all his domestic cricket when he was like 19. I don't really think his FC and List A stats mean much.

I can understand that people don't rate him until he scores a bucket load of runs against top bowling attack consistantly. But really De Villers, Watson haven't done that either. The only think that you could go by that separates them is domestic stats, which are irrelevant in this case, due to his age at the time and general nature of pitches.

 

[four_or_six]

So what has Watson done so far in his career ? To me he has been the biggest hype of the decade.

A batting average of 35 and bowling of 34 in 65 ODIs, and a batting average of 49 and bowling of 30 in 55FC matches isn't nothing.

 

[Richard]

Nobody forced the awkward old sod to drop out for 3 years! And it was a combination of things, wasn't it - the England captaincy, not wanting to lose the Yorkshire captaincy, Solkar, etc. Mentally he was knackered, afaics, due to a combination of self-inflicted pressure and the real pressure of being the best batsman in an English lineup that wasn't nearly as good as it had been.

I always thought it was mostly due to his disgust at a glorified amateur in Denness (who I've simply never understood how on Earth he ever got in the England side, never mind captained it - even Keith Fletcher's case isn't as shocking as Denness') getting the captaincy ahead of him? He did say recently, when commenting on the Trescothick case, that he'd had something similar in that time, but it was actually the first I'd heard of it.

I find his being given that captaincy in 1973 as interesting a prospect as Botham not being given it in 1980, personally. And both might have made both players (and as a result, England) better.

Certainly not Lamb, Vaughan or Gatting (even when cashing in against weak attacks in the middle phase ..). Not Gooch, for the reasons you mentioned. Atherton, as he said himself, was far too vulnerable at the start of his innings. Probably not Gower, although I know who I'd rather watch. I really rated Amiss, but maybe he didn't have Boycott's sheer bloodymindedness. I do think that Dennis gets a rough deal for his "failures" in 1974/5 though, but if Boycott was at the absolute peak of his game (which Amiss was in 1974) then perhaps you could see him doing better out there. Edrich was very good, mind. Possibly under-rated because he generally kept quiet and just scored lots of runs.

Certainly none of the current lot yet. Like you say, we can reconsider Cook & KP in 10 years' time.

Perhaps I slightly underestimate Edrich - to score 175 against Lillee, Thomson and Walker at 38 must also have been quite some feat. Interesting that all the top three are probably all openers (Boycott, Edrich and Amiss - and that's in the time after Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Washbrook) which has been very much the opposite of the trend of the last 20-odd years.

 

[Jono]

And if Watson averaging 40 in 12 innings batting in the top 4 proves nothing because it's not a long enough period, then one innings in which Tharanga looked fairly ordinary (IMO) proves exactly that as well.

Everytime Watson bowls, whether he gets wickets or not, he looks ordinary IMO. That's not the point though, it doesn't matter how they look. Honestly half the time I've seen DeVilliers ( or eg.) bat at both levels he's looked like he could go out any minute, but he's still performing.

IMO, just as much as whoever you're debating with (cbf reading through all the posts) is doing Watson a disservice, you're not paying Tharanga enough credit.

Again I'd like to point out that Tharanga IMO isn't in the top 10 cricketers that will shape the next decade of cricket, just putting in my 2 cents on the posts I'm reading.

 

[Prince EWS]

Everytime Watson bowls, whether he gets wickets or not, he looks ordinary IMO.

His bowling was irrelevant to the debate though - we were only discussing their relative batting strengths.

That's not the point though, it doesn't matter how they look. Honestly half the time I've seen DeVilliers ( or eg.) bat at both levels he's looked like he could go out any minute, but he's still performing.

But Tharanga isn't.

IMO, just as much as whoever you're debating with (cbf reading through all the posts) is doing Watson a disservice, you're not paying Tharanga enough credit.

As usually occurs when one believes a player is over-rated, one is going to disagree with the masses regarding him. It doesn't shock me. I just don't rate him. He's done little of note at any level except the minnow-bashing level (including the England attack he faced which was probably worse than minnow-level) and his technique looks ordinary to boot. People seem to disagree with me - lots of 'em - hence my opinion that the guy is over-rated.

 

[Richard]

Everytime Watson bowls, whether he gets wickets or not, he looks ordinary IMO. That's not the point though, it doesn't matter how they look. Honestly half the time I've seen DeVilliers ( or eg.) bat at both levels he's looked like he could go out any minute, but he's still performing.

IMO, just as much as whoever you're debating with (cbf reading through all the posts) is doing Watson a disservice, you're not paying Tharanga enough credit.

Again I'd like to point out that Tharanga IMO isn't in the top 10 cricketers that will shape the next decade of cricket, just putting in my 2 cents on the posts I'm reading.

Haha. TBH, I know I've said it before, I think you overrate Tharanga. Yes, he did play a good innings in that semi-final, but it was just one good innings. The fact that it was a crucial game doesn't make-up for 40 or so poor performances.

Had games against substandard sides not been classed as ODIs, I'm very confident Tharanga would not be thought of as highly as he is by some.

His batting against the rabble of the England attack in 2006 was excellent, but that's all it was, batting against a rabble attack.

And me (somewhat unusually) I did actually read all of Tharmi and Rob's posts, and some interesting stuff came in there, too. I'd recommend them.

 

[gotigers21]

how exactly has malinga not proved anything and asif is a surefire great.
test stats:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype
odi stats:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

I rest my case.
by the way, pietersen is gonna carry england really far especially in odis. he goes after every bowler and is a huge hitter. also, bravo looks to be a great all-rounder. hopefully, he does not underachieve like one abdul razzak.

 

[FBU]

Forgot to add Ryan Sidebottom to the list...

No?

If you are going to add Sidebottom then I will have Anderson in ODIs. He is 5th on the England's wicket takers and has the best strike rate of any English bowler past or present. He is only 24.

 

[adharcric]

Raina got picked cus of his all round potential like Watson, Bravo really.

Bull****.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Tharanga's innings vs NZ been discounted too for any reason?

 

[Prince EWS]

Tharanga's innings vs NZ been discounted too for any reason?

No, but it's a clear anomaly when you take into account all his other innings against non-rubbish attacks.

 

[chaminda_00]

Interesting thread so far, due to the fact that most of guys are not really established, most opinions seem to be based on personal opinon. I think i should mention that i do feel that Raina, Watson and Taylor have a good chance of shaping world. But IMO AB, Tharanga and Cook will be more of an impact and should have been in the list ahead of those three. Its does mean that those players are crap or anything, just that i rate those three ahead of those other three.

Also why isn't Tharanga other century counted, because it seems that if Tharanga scores runs against a side it must be a minnow or a fluke. The how talk about those centuries against England is stupid too, so what they had Brensen in the attack. His one bowler, his doesn't make a whole bowling attack crap. Flintoff played in that series right? As an opener batsmen he still had to get through his opening burst before he could attack Brensen. Unlike someone like Watson who can score come in down the order and only face a couple average bowlers. But that doesn't mean i would discount his performances either, you just have to take things all those thing into account, rather just say that side had Brensen.

 

[Prince EWS]

Flintoff played in that series right? As an opener batsmen he still had to get through his opening burst before he could attack Brensen.

Nup. Tharanga scored 120 against the might of Harmison (ODI version), Plunkett, Bresnan, Mahmood, Collingwood and Dalrymple. Collingwood and Darlymple were England's best bowlers in that series - says it all. One of the worst attacks I've ever seen at ODI level - Bangladesh's current attack is much better really. He managed to score 109 when Mahmood was dropped for Kabir Ali, as well - a worse attack really. Flintoff was not playing.