The Greatest: The Top 20 of The Last 20

[StinkyBoHoon]

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.

I know, it's something I find myself thinking about from time to time and end up just having to eject the thought from my brain. I think it's particularly an issue with cricket. for one, it's pretty much an individual sport with a very loose team element (catchers, running, field placing, helping your batting partner avoid strike at certain times) but the team element definitely comes out in getting the end result.

also, unlike football or rugby, it's just a succession of the same thing happening over and over again rather than a flowing natural game. the flow is in the match situation, never on the field.

anyone can score a run, almost everyone that's ever played has hit a few 4s and 6s, so there are points where even graeme swann plays a ball in a manner that achieves a result that ponting or tendulkar could be happy with. same as michael clarke can take a wicket so is capable of delivering a ball that warne would be happy with. then you do have to bring luck into it with cricket, how do you go about measuring a ball that takes a wicket by landing safely into 2nd slips hands against a ball that pops right out of them? you're taking all these tiny incidents and trying to turn them into something that you can end up ranking a player with.

For me, until I've worked out a better way I just go with a gut feeling of who's impressed me the most. I put sehwag in because sehwag was a batsmen that made me double check scorecards several times over the last decade. If I was giving someone a rundown of who was big 2000s cricket I don't think you could leave him out of the conversation. same with mcgrath, if you're honest you have to concede he was the most dominant fast bowler of the last 20 years, regardless of how much fun akram was to watch.

 

[NathanScott45]

Hmmm, after much deliberation

#1: Brian Lara
#2: Glenn Mcgrath
#3: Muttiah Muralitharan
#4: Shane Warne
#5: Waquar Younis
#6: Ricky Ponting
#7: Sachin Tendulkar
#8: Inzamam ul Haq
#9: Curtly Ambrose
#10: Jaques Kallis
#11: Mohammed Yousef
#12: Anil Kumble
#13: Adam Gilchrist
#14: Steve Waugh
#15: Rahul Dravid
#16: De Silva
#17: Wasim Akram
#18: Michael Clarke
#19: Mahela Jayawardene
#20: Shivnarine Chanderpaul

 

[Cricketman]

You guys think Dhoni's name should get a mention? For captaincy and sheer beastliness in the shorter forms of the game, and he did lead India to win every major trophy (world Cup, Champions Trophy, World T20, Asia Cup, CB Series) and number 1 in the test ranking. Don't forget that we also won some crucial test series abroad where we haven't before in places like in NZ. Brought a different brand to Indian cricket.

0-8 is a scar on his record but I think he would make the list for me in the high teens/number 20. He is in the same bracket as the likes of Steyn and KP in terms of giants in the last 10 years but may be hard to compare with the greats before them.

 

[Auwais]

I'd pick Fleming if I wanted someone in there based on their success as a captain.

 

[cricket_icon]

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.

Wasn't around when Lillee and Marshall were bowling so I guess perspective and timing has something to do with rankings. Akram will always be the greatest for me but I can see why people rank Marshall and Lillee has the best.

I certainly believe Akram had as long, if not a longer peak as those two and even when he was on a downward slope he was still one of the best bowlers on the planet.

Like Lara said, "the toughest bowler I ever played against"

----------

You guys think Dhoni's name should get a mention? For captaincy and sheer beastliness in the shorter forms of the game, and he did lead India to win every major trophy (world Cup, Champions Trophy, World T20, Asia Cup, CB Series) and number 1 in the test ranking. Don't forget that we also won some crucial test series abroad where we haven't before in places like in NZ. Brought a different brand to Indian cricket.

0-8 is a scar on his record but I think he would make the list for me in the high teens/number 20. He is in the same bracket as the likes of Steyn and KP in terms of giants in the last 10 years but may be hard to compare with the greats before them.

Agreed, Dhoni over the last decade has been superb, up and down in terms of batting form, especially in the test arena but pretty damn solid as an ODI performer, add to that a good test record, not very good away from home though. But his wins in the ODI format, winning all the championships on offer is very impressive indeed.

 

[War]

Wasn't around when Lillee and Marshall were bowling so I guess perspective and timing has something to do with rankings. Akram will always be the greatest for me but I can see why people rank Marshall and Lillee has the best.

I certainly believe Akram had as long, if not a longer peak as those two and even when he was on a downward slope he was still one of the best bowlers on the planet.

Like Lara said, "the toughest bowler I ever played against"

What would say was Akram's peak as fast-bowler in tests though?. When i started watching cricket in 1996/97 i would say i saw Akram look more consistent in ODI's. His bowling in test was very sporadic.

In AUS 99/00 i recall AUS handling pretty comfortably. His best test bowling efforts i saw was his spell vs India in Chennai 99, vs Windies @ Antigua 03.

Somehow i suspect his ultimate best as a test bowler was before 1996.

 

[Jine]

Sourav Ganguly .The best captain .

 

[cricket_icon]

What would say was Akram's peak as fast-bowler in tests though?. When i started watching cricket in 1996/97 i would say i saw Akram look more consistent in ODI's. His bowling in test was very sporadic.

In AUS 99/00 i recall AUS handling pretty comfortably. His best test bowling efforts i saw was his spell vs India in Chennai 99, vs Windies @ Antigua 03.

Somehow i suspect his ultimate best as a test bowler was before 1996.

I remember watching Akram as a kid in England, I think it was '96 and he was still very effective, not quite as destructive on previous tours but he made up for it in subsequent series' against Zimbabwe and importantly SA, with 3 back to back 5fors against a pretty strong saffers side and a decent Windies team. He managed a whole bevy of 5fors against India and Sri Lanka on very docile pitches too.

In terms of speed he was no longer out and out pace but he had more guile and tricks up his sleeve than any other fast bowler, all this while suffering from diabetes. I think his last great bit of bowling were the 11 wickets against the Windies in 2000. A couple years later he was out of the test arena.

So personally I think the end of Akram's peak was probably 98/99, he was at his Test best till the mid-90s.

So what I'm basically saying is, Akrams prime was peaked at about 90-95 and the tail end of his prime was 98/99.

In ODI cricket he was a deadly force almost right into the 2003 world cup. He was certainly one of the best pace bowlers in WC 99, with an astonishing 4-40 against a tough, gritty and extremely well functioning Aussie side.

----------

Sourav Ganguly .The best captain .

Ganguly was a great captain but I would rate Smith, Vaughn, Strauss, Ponting and Waugh above him.

 

[Aalay]

Ganguly was a great captain but I would rate Smith, Vaughn, Strauss, Ponting and Waugh above him.

I am not a Gangully fan but it would be very depressing to see him below Vaughn and Strauss.

 

[cricket_icon]

I am not a Gangully fan but it would be very depressing to see him below Vaughn and Strauss.

I haven't looked at the stats but both were more successful, winning more games and Vaughn in particular could be daring at times. Both beat very good Aussie sides, especially Vaughn. It wasn't just that he had a good team under him, he was also willing to go the extra mile to get the win. It's a close called thing but I'd rank both Strauss and Vaughn above Ganguly.

I think Ganguly is given a lot of credit for creating a more aggressive and watchable India but they didn't exactly have the best record did they?

Of the 49 matches he captained, he won 21, 12 of which came against Zib, Bang and the Windies. 9 of which were at home. He's two best wins away from home and out of the subcontinent were a test match each against the Aussies and England (discounting the Windies and Zimb here).

That's 2 of his 11 remaining wins coming outside of the subcontinent, of course India were meant to win at home or in the subcontinent against Bang and SL.