What was crickets best decade?

[slowfinger]

Steyn is the only real ATG bowler and McGrath is somewhere nearby, every plodder averages <25 when the wickets are conducive to pace bowling.

even Ishant sharma has had his sub-25 ATG 100 wicket burst. don’t suppose he’d be getting picked in any ATG teams soon though …

 

[srbhkshk]

Steyn had some really bowler friendly pitches at home tbf.

Yes but his average is really ~17 when you account for the crazy eyes.

 

[Molehill]

Yes but his average is really ~17 when you account for the crazy eyes.

I think it goes back up to 22 for some questionable hairstyle choices in his 30's.

 

[HookShot]

for sheer quality the current era is the best. as it will be in other sports. simply because modern cricketers will always be better than older ones due to how technology and fitness evolves with better tactic understanding

for a competitive and nostalgia standpoint the 90s is probably the best due to the advent of good tv coverage and several teams being equally capable of winning in odis against each other in big tournaments and no team strongly dominating like West Indies in 70s and 80s and Australia in 2000s

the ATGs point is just bull****, give the current era 20 years and you will say so many wax lyrically about the current players too and have them as ATGs. nostalgia is a strong reason for rating players highly often

Just give them some decent equipment and this pre-WW2 eleven would murder any T20 team around today….

(Bradman is carrying the drinks)

01. Victor Trumper
02. Frank Woolley
03. Charlie Macartney
04. Stan McCabe
05. Walter Hammond
06. Les Ames
07. Learie Constantine
08. George Hirst
09. Maurice Tate
10. Harold Larwood
11. Bill O’Reilly

 

[Socerer 01]

Just give them some decent equipment and this pre-WW2 eleven would murder any T20 team around today….

(Bradman is carrying the drinks)

01. Victor Trumper
02. Frank Woolley
03. Charlie Macartney
04. Stan McCabe
05. Walter Hammond
06. Les Ames
07. Learie Constantine
08. George Hirst
09. Maurice Tate
10. Harold Larwood
11. Bill O’Reilly

ok

 

[Socerer 01]

Steyn is the only real ATG bowler and McGrath is somewhere nearby, every plodder averages <25 when the wickets are conducive to pace bowling.

same argument doesn't apply to assessing batting for some reason ?

 

[trundler]

The lack of Hill and Jessop renders the team invalid.

 

[Xix2565]

I thought Cummins had bowled superbly last year to take his wickets on those Pakistan roads at 22.5, but then Anderson came along and did it at 4 runs less. Cummins entire Test career is matched by Anderson aged 34-40, just let that sink in....

Also worth remembering that in his 'average' years, Anderson was also becoming by far and away England's highest ODI wicket taker too. He's not a beneficiary of workload management, he's a freak.



As an Englishman, it pains me to say it, but this.

1 series performance is not some great distinguisher unless you want to start looking at all those times where Anderson was faded or useless while England sucked or dropped games. And no, it's not matching unless the wickets are coming at the same speed for the same amount of runs in a similar amount of Tests. Otherwise it's just a contrast between an expert in attritional fast bowling and someone who can attack while also being attritional.

 

[Molehill]

1 series performance is not some great distinguisher unless you want to start looking at all those times where Anderson was faded or useless while England sucked or dropped games. And no, it's not matching unless the wickets are coming at the same speed for the same amount of runs in a similar amount of Tests. Otherwise it's just a contrast between an expert in attritional fast bowling and someone who can attack while also being attritional.

It's taken Anderson 8 Tests more in the last 6 years to achieve what Cummins has in his entire career, and he's taken those wickets at a lower average too. Ok, strike rate not quite as good, but then Jimmy had taken over 450 Test wickets (and 270 ODI) before the Cummins stats even start registering against him!

Mindblowing....

 

[Socerer 01]

with Jimmy you either have people who rate his longevity and the freak nature of his and include that aspect in rating him or you have people who don't rate him at all because his record benefits from workload management, same playing for a long time, being crap earlier etc

 

[Molehill]

with Jimmy you either have people who rate his longevity and the freak nature of his and include that aspect in rating him or you have people who don't rate him at all because his record benefits from workload management, same playing for a long time, being crap earlier etc

I kind of see both ways. He was a better ODI bowler as a youngster who was capable of bowling great deliveries when conditions were suitable at Test level. Hence, he kept on adding to his wicket tally without ever really being a great bowler and he could be quite expensive too. But what he's done since turning 30 or so is just ridiculous. If he was judged just on that there would be no doubt really. It's just his performances in Australia which let him down (and hence some of the ratings here) because he's learnt to bowl effectively everywhere else.

 

[Xix2565]

It's taken Anderson 8 Tests more in the last 6 years to achieve what Cummins has in his entire career, and he's taken those wickets at a lower average too. Ok, strike rate not quite as good, but then Jimmy had taken over 450 Test wickets (and 270 ODI) before the Cummins stats even start registering against him!

Mindblowing....

I value bowlers who can attack while being attritional, and Anderson hasn't proven that really with his record overall and in the sample slice you want to look at. It's not like he's terrible though without that extra quality.

 

[subshakerz]

I kind of see both ways. He was a better ODI bowler as a youngster who was capable of bowling great deliveries when conditions were suitable at Test level. Hence, he kept on adding to his wicket tally without ever really being a great bowler and he could be quite expensive too. But what he's done since turning 30 or so is just ridiculous. If he was judged just on that there would be no doubt really. It's just his performances in Australia which let him down (and hence some of the ratings here) because he's learnt to bowl effectively everywhere else.

Jimmy isn't as good as Cummins no matter which way we want to spin it.

 

[subshakerz]

Actually when you look into it, it is very rare for a cricketer to provide 10 respectable or better years. Rarer still for 10 good years.

Only 9 pace bowlers have put in 10 years averaging under 30 (3 test minimum). Anderson is one. 42 managed more than 5, which sounds like a lot until you click it is about the total number of quicks currently active. 22 pacers averaged sub 35 for 10 years or more.

Many peoples' choice for #1 of all time managed 8 years averaging sub 30 (Malcolm Marshall). If we're fair and consistent, you need less than you might think to put your name in the ATG conversation.

200 wickets is fine. 300 you're in if you bring the results.

I meant a decade plus of overall performance not necessarily great performance. Marshall has a 13 year career and over 300 wickets so he would of course qualify.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Jimmy would have got good quicker if the England coaches hadn't been obsessed with changing his action to protect him from injury. Ironically he went back to his natural action and enjoyed unparalleled longevity and freedom from injury.

 

[ZK$]

Eight years without missing too many games is enough to be an ATG bowler for me.

 

[Socerer 01]

Eight years without missing too many games is enough to be an ATG bowler for me.

Ishant Sharma ATG lesssgoooo

 

[Molehill]

Eight years without missing too many games is enough to be an ATG bowler for me.

So if you took 305 wickets at 21.35 in those 8 years, would that qualify you for ATG?

What if you already had 380 wickets before those 8 years even started too?

 

[ZK$]

So if you took 305 wickets at 21.35 in those 8 years, would that qualify you for ATG?

What if you already had 380 wickets before those 8 years even started too?

Those 380 wickets would only add to the player’s legacy for me. With Anderson, I don’t really care too much about his record before 2010 since he’s had a full career since then. His peak since the start of 2014 is insane. I rate him in the same tier as Pollock and Walsh.

 

[Shady Slim]

I thought Cummins had bowled superbly last year to take his wickets on those Pakistan roads at 22.5, but then Anderson came along and did it at 4 runs less. Cummins entire Test career is matched by Anderson aged 34-40, just let that sink in....

the difference is anderson 34-40 gets to do it on pitches specifically tailored to jack his stats up whereas cummins has to do it on the unforgiving highways of the great southern land