-
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.
The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s
- Thread starter Ilovecric
- Start date
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd take McGrath for his continued dominance when wicket-taking became all-but impossible for pretty much everyone else. It is all just personal preference, of course. A lot of people go for Ambrose on account of his speed and hostility. I see all of that stuff as nothing more than a means to an end.
Sachin, Ponting and Lara are the three I can never make up my mind about. Sachin has the most complete record but I can't help but feel he looks so much better than he is. Ponting has the best record but hasn't quite been tested to the same extent as Sachin or Lara. Lara was the one I most enjoyed watching but I don't think his impact on cricket in his country was anywhere near as positive as that of the other two.
Indians, Australians and West Indians probably feel that one of the three is obviously the best. Personally I can never make up my mind.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I'd be interested to hear what our West Indian friends think of that, but I would have thought personally that Lara's impact on WI cricket as a whole was far bigger than Ponting's on Australia.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think the presence of one star player can hinder a sporting team's development sometimes. The attitudes and ethics of West Indian cricket are infinitely worse now than they were when Lara's career began. Lara obviously can't be blamed for that, but he didn't exactly do much to stop it.
bagapath
International Captain
i dont think attitude plays that big a role in sporting success. lara/miller/warne/sobers/botham/compton/gower were as successful as dravid/tendulkar/hadlee/waugh/murali/border/gooch. these two groups represent the two extremes of off field behavior and work ethics.but you cant choose one over the other in terms of delivering the goods for the team on the ground.
west indies cricket is dying a slow death probably because the game is losing its relevance in that region. gayle would have fitted very well into the teams under lloyd. and haynes could have played with the present lot. blaming the lifestyles is getting too judgmental, IMO
Hit_Wicket
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I agree that there are a number of candidates for both best batsman and best bowler and that its quite difficult to split them apart.
Nonetheless, I'll go with Tendulkar (in his prime then) and McGrath (one of the select few who could consistently antagonise/trouble Lara).
Both these selections are purely subjective choices - Lara probably has equal claim to the title of best batsman of that decade.
Likewise, Akram and Walsh wouldn't be unjustified selections in the bowling department.
Nonetheless, I'll go with Tendulkar (in his prime then) and McGrath (one of the select few who could consistently antagonise/trouble Lara).
Both these selections are purely subjective choices - Lara probably has equal claim to the title of best batsman of that decade.
Likewise, Akram and Walsh wouldn't be unjustified selections in the bowling department.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Nah I personally disagree. Firstly there is often far less emotion with a McGrath vs Ambrose debate (generally).
Secondly, I think the records of Ambrose and McGrath, despite their diffferent techniques and bowling methods, is ridiculously similar.
I think Lara, Sachin and Ponting's careers are all quite different. Sachin has epic longevity and consistency, Lara has peaks that are untouchable, and Ponting has a specific 2-3 year block where he probably batted better than anyone has over such a long period (at least since the start of the 90s).
Whilst Ambrose and McGrath's careers don't completely overlap either, I think there's a much better case for people arguing in favour of one over the other to run out of arguments pretty quickly. They cancel each other out so much in their overall bowling record.
What McGrath has over Ambrose is he did it when batting did become quite easier, and was amazing. But if he's better than Ambrose for that alone, he's probably better than every other fast bowler the world has seen.
bagapath
International Captain
this is so true even if you were not selling this theory hard. mcgrath has very strong claims to the title of the greatest pace bowler of all time. marshall would be the only one who could pip him at the post with his scorching pace and more versatility. for consistent success around the globe over a long period mcgrath has very few peers.
ambrose's very poor record against india works against him when u compare him with mcgrath who was terrific against all opponents.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Ha ha yeah don't mind me - I completely missed the word "positive" in your original post, which meant I completely missed the point as well.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What one player thought isn't relevant.
Wrong. The best batting side of their day was India. Ambrose struggled for effect against them; Donald decimated them several times.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Isn't it an indictment then on Donald that he has a relatively poorer record against Australia, if they weren't the best batting side of the time?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's a disappointing blot on his career record, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all. Near enough all players have something similar. It is not under any circumstances something that precludes Donald from being able to dine at the very top table of bowlers and certainly not something that makes him automatically inferior to Ambrose same way Ambrose's relatively inane record against India doesn't make him automatically inferior to Donald.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Against pace, at least, Australia's batting of the 90s was far better than India, who Tendulkar aside usually fell like a pack of cards outside India. Which makes a pace bowlers record against them more important.
Having said that, Donald averaged 27 against them in the 90s, which is not a failure by any measure, and performed slightly better than Ambrose in the subcontinent.
MrIncredible
U19 Cricketer
Completely disagree here Australia >> india batting wise.
Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
Inzi and Waqar.......................
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Ambi never played IND at his peak tough.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
India in India was easily the biggest challenge for any seam bowler. Ambrose never actually bowled in India, through no fault of his own; Donald did and excelled. Donald also decimated India in South Africa, as Ambrose was unable to do in West Indies. Meanwhile, it is not true at all to say that India usually fell like a pack of cards outside India; yes, if there were proper seam-friendly conditions some of their batsmen usually did, but even the likes of Sadagoppan Ramesh and others were capable of scoring on flat decks outside India; certainly the likes of Navjot Sidhu, Rahul Dravid, Azharuddin and Tendulkar were, and all were also capable of fighting tooth-and-nail on greener decks.
Ambrose did not bowl very much in the subcontinent, and when he did it was Pakistan, which is notably different from India and Sri Lanka in that there is no typical Pakistani pitch (whereas the classic Indo-Lankan deck offers nothing to seam at all). So it's hard to assess him much in terms of comparison to Donald.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You could argue that the Australian batting unit of 1993-1993/94 (Taylor, Slater, Boon, M Waugh, Border, S Waugh, Healy) was superior to anything India put out 1990-1999/2000, but by-and-large India had more quality and were a tougher prospect to bowl at, especially at home, than Australia.
Aside from that one year there was always at least one hole in the Australian batting, and while the same was generally true of India, the quality there (Sidhu, Dravid, Tendulkar, Azhar) was far superior to most that was available to Australia.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not quite true, Ambrose against India in 1997 was certainly not off-peak in terms of his results against other sides around the same time; Ambrose basically had one non-stop "peak" (for me plateau is the more appropriate term) from 1990 to 2000, without any sustained downtime. And the overwhelming impression I've got from that series is that India simply blocked him out without great difficulty - try as he might he was unable to break through the quality of the Indian batting. Yet Franklyn Rose could.
That was Ambrose's only series against India, and had he had more - as Donald did - then it's a fair assumption that he might have done a decimation job, especially if allowed some proper seaming, bouncy decks that he so thrived on. But sadly, he didn't.