S
Satan666
Guest
^^ Surpirsed Gilchrist is not in atleast your top 10!
The Greatest: The Top 20 of The Last 20
- Thread starter cricket_icon
- Start date
Samuels
Rally Round The West Indies
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Location
- Kingston, Jamaica
- Profile Flag
- West Indies
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
This is the topic where you cannot really agree 100% on one set of players. Anyways, my list goes like this:
I have given the nod to the impact players and the ones who were able to led their teams single handedly. That is why Jacques Kallis is in the top 4 and the Dravids and the Sangakkaras below Gilchrist. The 21st man would be Virender Sehwag.
- Sachin Tendulkar
- Muralitharan
- Glenn McGrath
- Jacques Kallis
- Shane Warne
- Wasim Akram
- Ricky Ponting
- Waqar Younis
- Brian Lara
- Adam Gilchrist
- Curtly Ambrose
- Alan Donald
- Shaun Pollock
- Courtney Walsh
- Rahul Dravid
- Dale Steyn
- Sanath Jayasuriya
- Kumar Sangakkara
- Matthew Hayden
- Inzamam ul Haq
I have given the nod to the impact players and the ones who were able to led their teams single handedly. That is why Jacques Kallis is in the top 4 and the Dravids and the Sangakkaras below Gilchrist. The 21st man would be Virender Sehwag.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
totally doesn't surprise me, I think rating punter, warne and mcgrath, undoubtedly the most important players of that all conquering aussie side, is down to mentality of people doing the rating. I think in the UK anyway we've never been a fan of ruthless sportsmen, Mcgrath and punter just got everyone's backs up by cheerlessly demolishing teams. we prefer wayward mavericks, Warne fits a lot more comfortably into the type of athlete that's popular, the guy we can sort of relate to, though in fairness I think his boozy persona was a front for a far more competitive and astute player.
anyway, I'll have a go.
1. Murali
2. Mcgrath
3. Tendulkar
4. Ponting
5. Warne
6. Akram
7. Lara
8. Kallis
9. Ambrose
10. Sangakkara
11. Gilchrist
12. Steyn
13. Sehwag
14. Donald
15. Waqar
16.Pollock
17. Inzamam
18. Dravid
19. Chanderpaul
20. Laxman
Yeah I think you could be right, it's often a personality thing as to who fans are drawn to. Other thing helping out Warne (and now McGrath) is that in retirement they've proven to be personable guys - breaking away from that very unlikeable way they played. Occasionally at least 
Dare I say it...but he's only a wicketkeeper! Did a great job and was very valuable to Aussie cricket, but I couldn't rank him right up there with the great batsmen of my time.
Dare I say it...but he's only a wicketkeeper! Did a great job and was very valuable to Aussie cricket, but I couldn't rank him right up there with the great batsmen of my time.
S
Satan666
Guest
Yeah I think you could be right, it's often a personality thing as to who fans are drawn to. Other thing helping out Warne (and now McGrath) is that in retirement they've proven to be personable guys - breaking away from that very unlikeable way they played. Occasionally at least
Dare I say it...but he's only a wicketkeeper! Did a great job and was very valuable to Aussie cricket, but I couldn't rank him right up there with the great batsmen of my time.
I guess it comes down to whether you rather a batsman or a bowler or a keeper.
Jonty Rhodes didnt make my list but he certainly was the best fielder in the last 20 years, always a spectacle at backward point on the field.
The reason I say he's only a wicket keeper is that I can't remember Gilchrist being seriously considered as a Test batsmen without gloves ie. he only got into the team after Healy was dropped. That to me is a factor in his value.
I remember those 2 played in a couple of ODIs together, but if I recall Gilchrist dropped some catches in the slips, and the experiment soon stopped.
I remember those 2 played in a couple of ODIs together, but if I recall Gilchrist dropped some catches in the slips, and the experiment soon stopped.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
great to see this thread hasp picked up! A lot of good discussions goin on here and it's obvious we won't have 100% agreement on who the best is, who hsould be top 10, who should be lower tier top 20 and so on. Names like Steyn and KP have popped up on some of your lists, I personally wouldn't have them in my own and Pollock was another close call but he wavered a little toward the end and wasn't always a huge threat, or that's how I remember it anyway.
Some really interesting points being made about the top 1, no Tendulkar? Well you all know I'm a big fan and think, objectively speaking, he is the greatest batsman ever (again not a huge fan of comparing eras but hey-ho). So I won't place my arguments for Tendulkar being no.1 but rather look into arguments hwo else it could be.
I have no problem if someone wishes to place Warne or Murali up there or even Kalli but McGrath? I just can't buy it. Terrific test bowler but not quite as good in the ODI game. A better average than Akram but this is one of those cases when the stats only tell part of the story. Akram was a "typical" fast bowler in the sense that he tried picking up a wicket with every delivery and so was more likely to be put away, add to that the extra pace. McGrath was always content with sitting back and biding time, waiting for a batsman's mistake. Both great bowlers but add in Akrams extra pace, excitement, better ability with the old ball and overall ability to swing and he is the most completely fast bowler I've ever seen. No way McGrath matches that. Both are great, both are top 10, but only one can be the best.
And no Sehwag for me, he is a flat track bully at best.
Oh and at my own peril I'm going to join the Gilchrist discussion, yes it's true, at the time he didn't have the batting ability to be in the Aussie test side for his batting only (easily for the ODIs) but I've ranked him as a keeper batsman and in that role, he is simply unparalleled.
----------
Steyn over Waqar? I don't get it. Steyn's test record is really coming on and he's about 30 odd wickets behind Waqar but Younis played in the age of Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Waugh, Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid et al. Steyn's record is only slightly better, having spent a large time playing on the bowler friendly pitches of SA.
Plus in the last 20 years, ODI cricket has been a major staple and Steyn in the shorter format is expendable imo, but Younis was integral. When making these lists, especially for modern players, we can't act as if ODI cricket doesn't exists, it's a great part of our sport with all it's own history, rivalry and honour. Heck, the biggest sporting event in cricket takes place in 50 overs. That has to come into play.
Some really interesting points being made about the top 1, no Tendulkar? Well you all know I'm a big fan and think, objectively speaking, he is the greatest batsman ever (again not a huge fan of comparing eras but hey-ho). So I won't place my arguments for Tendulkar being no.1 but rather look into arguments hwo else it could be.
I have no problem if someone wishes to place Warne or Murali up there or even Kalli but McGrath? I just can't buy it. Terrific test bowler but not quite as good in the ODI game. A better average than Akram but this is one of those cases when the stats only tell part of the story. Akram was a "typical" fast bowler in the sense that he tried picking up a wicket with every delivery and so was more likely to be put away, add to that the extra pace. McGrath was always content with sitting back and biding time, waiting for a batsman's mistake. Both great bowlers but add in Akrams extra pace, excitement, better ability with the old ball and overall ability to swing and he is the most completely fast bowler I've ever seen. No way McGrath matches that. Both are great, both are top 10, but only one can be the best.
And no Sehwag for me, he is a flat track bully at best.
Oh and at my own peril I'm going to join the Gilchrist discussion, yes it's true, at the time he didn't have the batting ability to be in the Aussie test side for his batting only (easily for the ODIs) but I've ranked him as a keeper batsman and in that role, he is simply unparalleled.
----------
Steyn over Waqar? I don't get it. Steyn's test record is really coming on and he's about 30 odd wickets behind Waqar but Younis played in the age of Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Waugh, Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid et al. Steyn's record is only slightly better, having spent a large time playing on the bowler friendly pitches of SA.
Plus in the last 20 years, ODI cricket has been a major staple and Steyn in the shorter format is expendable imo, but Younis was integral. When making these lists, especially for modern players, we can't act as if ODI cricket doesn't exists, it's a great part of our sport with all it's own history, rivalry and honour. Heck, the biggest sporting event in cricket takes place in 50 overs. That has to come into play.
Akram vs McGrath is a classic argument of style vs substance. Akram had better raw skills, but McGrath beat him in 2 areas: accuracy, and seam movement. Everyone talks about swing/reverse swing, but seam movement is just as likely to get you wickets, and McGrath was the king of the nip back ball. And yeah, I agree Akram did try and take a wicket every ball - ended up being a real weakness! He was impatient, bowled a lot of no balls and was always searching for that perfect delivery. Bowled a fair few of perfect ones, no doubt - I could spend hours watching him on youtube - and have. Yet for all that effort and talent, in the end his strike rate is worse than McGrath's - in both forms. I'd rather watch Akram, but I'd rather have McGrath on my team.
Also since you've done it icon, I thought I'd ask generally: it seems cricket fans are happy to applaud aggression and skills in a bowler like Akram, but at the same time like to criticise them in a batsman like Sehwag, in my mind they are roughly equivalent - very aggressive, very talented, perhaps not the most patient. Is this a kind of discrimination against certain skills in batsmen or bowlers eg. if McGrath and Pollock were batsmen we'd love them for their application and consistency, and if Sehwag were a fire breathing paceman his attributes would somehow be appropriate?
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
This. Arguing between excitement/raw ability over consistency and application can be interesting but I totally agree, at the very least when it comes to applying that arguement to bowlers or batsmen it usually contradicts itself.
for the akram v mcgrath arguement, I think akrams talent and skill would make up for a lot of holes in his record, but not enough to catch up with someone who had virtually no weaknesses and took wickets everywhere at an incredible rate.
Last edited:
S
Satan666
Guest
Been waiting a long time to post this video, McGrath outfoxes the old crow Sachin Tendulkar!
The day Sachin Tendulkar discovered the mastery of Glenn McGrath, watch what happens - YouTube
Last edited by a moderator:
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
You really can't compare the two because cricket from the inception has always been a batsman's game & in the modern age of T20, big bats and short boundaries - it increasingly so now.
Most cricket fans prefer of course aggressive batsmen, an attacking bowlers (90 mph bowlers, spinners who turn it miles). However they play under different dynamics.
fast bowlers like McGrath, Marshall, Imran, Lindwall, Wasim, Ambrose, Donald, Steyn, Lillee, hadlee, Trueman etc etc etc namely are correctly in the upper echelons of quick bowlers in history because they had the special skills to take wickets on any surface. Unlike bowlers below them who may be only good on a seaming/greentop or be non threatening on a road wicket.
Thus quick bowlers who could be force in a batsman's domain "flat wicket" are extra special.
This is why the skills for fast-bowlers/off-spinners for eg such as reverse swing & doosra are such big bowling weapons.
Similar this is why Warne/Murali (maybe O'Reilly, Gibbs, Tayfield also to a degree) are regarded as the two best spinners ever. Most spinner even some very good ones like Swann generally are only effective when the wicket starts to wear on days 3, 4,5 of a test - but early on in a test they would defensive bowlers while the quick bowlers utilize conditions. Warne/Murali lifted the barrier because captains generally could bowl them at any point/day of a test & they would be a serious threat.
With batsman facing & scoring runs vs those aforementioned special bowlers in their domain "bowler friendly wickets" has always been the acid test that separated the men from the boys . King Viv Richards basically is the only batsmen whose had that super batting aggressive approach & was totally successful doing it versus the best of bowlers - particularly in their domain his entire career. Bradman, Lara, Pietersen, Ted Dexter, Sobers, Greenidge, Compton, Ponting did it too - but they fluctuated between super aggression/respect throughout their careers.
Generally facing a Marshall, Lillee or any top-class paceman in history great batsman that have score runs vs them have done it with a high degree of respectful batsmanship. These bowlers were hardly ever smashed about. This is why the thought of Viv & Sobers facing those great fast-bowlers of yesteryear without a helmet & intimidating some of them will always be a big deal.
During that infamous 1975/76 series when windies lost 5-1 down under to go & for Richards to open versus Lillee/Thomson at their peaks without a helmet & score a hundred & a few 50s further emphasizes this.
Sehwag for eg as yall mention wouldn't fall into this batting group because his aggression success generally came versus average bowlers on roads. Thus he is the batting equivalent of a English seamer that Hoggard & Anderson were at certain points of their careers when they only took wickets in english conditions but were dud away from home. Or Anil Kumble in the 1990s - who was only able to take wickets on turners but dud outside of india/asia.
Also with regards to Mcgrath vs Akram thing. If you judging them at their peaks i've always believed its impossible to separate them. I always use Waqar/Bothm as examples. Waqar at his peak from 1989-1994 was a good as an fast bowler in cricket history. While Botham from 77-82 was the best complete all-rounder in history.
The only reason why they wouldn't & can't be called the greatest is because his peaks was too short. Thus the likes of McGrath who had a longer peak as bowler or Sobers/Kallis/Imran as all-rounders - & would be rated higher. Thus the latter would generally be in picked over Waqar/Botham in all-time times for eg.
Last edited:
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
Sehwag is a flat track bully. I don't dislike his aggression, it makes him fun to watch but he isn't highly skilled, he doesn't have finesse and he isn't easy on the eye. Akram was the opposite, yes aggressive but easily the most skilled fats bowler I've seen, he had brute power (bat and ball) and he had the extra added finesse and "class". Sehwag doesn't have those required tangibles, require for greatness.
Sehwag a very good batsman, not quite top 20.
Akram is a great bowler, easily top 10 or 5 and highly ranked in all time discussions too.
----------
Good post by War and a point I made earlier which people seem to forget, Akram bowled a hell of a lot in the subcontinent, on dry, slow, flat pitches and still managed to average spectacularly well over the course of his career. McGrath's average is helped a lot by him bowling so much on bowler friendly pitches, add to that better fielding with better catching...Akram edges it for me every time.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Good post by War and a point I made earlier which people seem to forget, Akram bowled a hell of a lot in the subcontinent, on dry, slow, flat pitches and still managed to average spectacularly well over the course of his career. McGrath's average is helped a lot by him bowling so much on bowler friendly pitches, add to that better fielding with better catching...Akram edges it for me every time.
When judging the great fast bowlers in history IMO Lillee & Marshall have done enough to be ranked as the top 2 because of the longevity of their "peaks" was the most complete of any fast-bowler in history.
But its a matter of conjecture & basically impossible in my view to chose between the peaks of Hadlee, Ambrose, Trueman, Akram, Donald, Holding, Roberts, Imran, Waqar, Lindwall, Garner, Steyn, McGrath, Davidson, Larwood, Snow, S Pollock, Adcock, Procter, Bishop, Hall, Statham.
The most you can do is place the medium pace/super accurate merchants of Hadlee/McGrath/S Pollock/Statham behind the rest who of them who were complete 90mph bowlers.
You've unintentionally opened another can of worms I think
What in cricket is skill? what is talent? what is luck? I see Graeme Swann and Ravi Jadeja manage to get the ball to go straight when they seem to be putting exactly the same amount of revs on the ball as their stock ball! Is this luck? Skill? It's called 'natural variation' and is great to have, but how much credit should the bowler get?Going back to our examples...Sehwag is rare in the way he can play the ball with just his eye ie. minimal foot movement, and getting his 'hands through the ball'. To me that is fantastic raw talent, as most batsmen don't have a good enough eye to get away no footwork. Of course that talent is wasted overseas where the ball moves more, and he hasn't developed the SKILLS to deal with that extra movement. Talent vs skill. Should he get credit for his talent? Or should he be dismissed as wasting his talent, by not enhancing it?
Wasim Akram I find similar, so much talent ie. very rare ability to swing the ball. Byt like Sehwag perhaps he didn't develop all the skills that he needed to succeed. I think he did better than Sehwag overseas of course, but I'm judging him by a higher standard, because I think with his abilities Wasim Akram should have averaged below 20! But he seemed so impatient and going for wickets every ball/over cost him extra runs. Is not working on your patience better than not working on your technique against the moving ball? Apparently so
There's other grey areas too...eg. Would Wasim Akram have been such a great bowler without having the knowledge of reverse swing, given to him by Imran Khan and Safraz Nawaz? Is knowledge a skill to be praised? Obviously not, you need to be able to use that reverse swing, and Wasim and Waqar were brilliant with it. Then once you've established what talent and skill a player has, how much is it worth? How much of each is needed to be 'great'?
I'm making myself dizzy with questions, just wanted to throw some theories out there as to how it's so difficult to truly evaluate players. And I haven't even mentioned PERFORMANCE yet ie. the stats.
Samuels
Rally Round The West Indies
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Location
- Kingston, Jamaica
- Profile Flag
- West Indies
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
I agree to disagree. Flat bully or not, in the end it requires a whole lot of skill and consistency to have the Test average of around 50. He is certainly not, as you said, a player that looks pleasing to the fans of copy book game play but what makes him special is the fact at that he scored runs at great aplomb, at a great pace and mounting the pressure on the opposition in the process. Secondly, I agree that he was a different batsman on flat decks but it is not that he has not scored runs in fast pitches of Australia or elsewhere. There have been plenty of power hitters of the ball but the consistency at which Sehwag counter attacks the opposition and succeeds in it is incredible.
FYI, class, skill etc are intangibles. Just saying.
