Top 10 of the last 10 years

[AngryPixel]

1. Muralitharan - so good that it's basically unrealistic to imagine anyone ever replicating his performances. you know this is true, plus, that at least 7 of this 10 will be batsmen shows he was up against it.

2. Ponting - come on guys, Sachins for was absent from 2003 - 2008. ponting spent the decade killing all-comers

3. Kallis - loads wickets and runs.

4. Tendulkar disappeared for a bit but still, 2003 WC and his recent form make up for the lean middle.

5. Sehwag - massive swathes where he did nothing but no one has batted like sehwag has when he's on form.

6. Sangakkara - at times ridiculously good. in ODIs the best wicket keeper bat combination.

7. Hayden - just can't think of many periods in the last 10 years when I didn't think hayden would score tons.

8. McGrath - still don't think the aussies would have lost in 2005 with him in the team, ok, he retired 4 years ago, MOS in the WC was a pretty decent send off though.

9. Dhoni dunno, probably everyone will moan at me for this but I can't thin of a cricketer who has had more influence on the cricketing landscape even if it is only in the last 4-5 years this started to manifest.

10. Lara - bit up and down, he captained in this time frame I think plus was regularly tainted by the disappointment that accompanied the west indies but still a genius at his best.

11. Warne - still genius, but he did retire at the tail of 2006 and he missed a year for the slimming thing. so that's 5 years out of 10, so I felt that wasn't quite enough for a top 10 spot.

I disagree there. Statsguru says he score 9 tons at the avg of 45 in ODIs and 10 Tons at the avg of 48 in Test matches. That is just a minor blip in the test match form. You just cannot call that absent form. I agree that an avg of 48 is below par for a player of his level but still he was not a extra baggage for the team. He was performing. Many teams would gladly take a player with a test avg of over 45

Ponting was in unbelievable form during that period. Scored 24 tons in the same period in test matches at avg of 64. But hey, every batsman has his time.

 

[sifter132]

We all are forgetting Rahul Dravid.

Dravid doesn't deserve a spot in the past 10 years because he was only amazing until 2007. After that, he's been really, really disappointing. If we were counting 1995-2005, he'd be in my list easily.

I agree with Yudi. People are willing to put Shane Warne and Brian Lara on these lists even though Warne only played 2 years of ODIs in this period and Lara made half the runs over the period that Dravid did (in all forms). Dravid has been plugging along pretty well and everyone has had their down times in this period - Ricky Ponting from 2007 onwards has been merely average, Tendulkar proved he was human in the early part of last decade, Sehwag's been underwhelming in ODIs and in the 2nd innings of Tests. You can easily pick holes in ANY players credentials.

Another couple of men being ignored - Andrew Flintoff and Shiv Chanderpaul. I don't think I'd put either in my top 10, but they'd both be definitely in the top 20, so it's a little surprising no one has mentioned them.

I just named an XI for the 2001-present period. There hasn't been too many great bowlers in that time (or great bowling conditions), so in order to stop only a couple from making a top 10 list I thought making a team would be fairer to them. And it's not a Test XI - it's an all formats XI, although it would basically be a Test XI, maybe Brett Lee aside who gets in because he's been an awesome ODI bowler as well as a pretty good Test one.

1 Virender Sehwag
2 Matthew Hayden
3 Ricky Ponting
4 Sachin Tendulkar
5 Jacques Kallis
6 Brian Lara
7 MS Dhoni
8 Shaun Pollock
9 Brett Lee
10 Muttiah Muralitharan
11 Glenn McGrath

And a 2nd XI just because I can:
1 Chris Gayle
2 Graeme Smith
3 Rahul Dravid
4 Kumar Sangakkara
5 Shiv Chanderpaul
6 VVS Laxman
7 Andrew Flintoff
8 Harbhajan Singh
9 Shane Warne
10 Dale Steyn
11 Makhaya Ntini

 

[cricket_icon]

murali below brett lee ?? and flintoff in the second XI, but no yousuf or inzy, or adam gilchrist?

 

[AngryPixel]

Whats wrong with that. Brett Lee is definitely better batsman than Murali. And Flintoff is in second XI is because he has performed in just a few series. Thus Allrounder spot is given to Kallis who has performed everywhere and scored runs like a machine. Freddie is great on his day but Kallis has been great throughout last decade.
Now lets come to the Gilly question. First team needed a leader and who better than Dhoni in last decade. So there was no point playing two keepers in same XI. Then in second XI we have Kumar who is arguably the best keeper in the last decade. He is a tremendous batsman too. Gilly is a shamsher but Kumar has the game for longer and stable inning.

Why Inzy wasn't selected? Read through the last 3 pages of the thread and you'll understand.

Yousuf had just one great season. Thats about it. Moreover who would you replace for Yousuf? Sachin,Ponting,Lara,Kallis,Dravid,Chanderpaul,Sangakakarra,Laxman?
Yousuf was a good player but it would be foolish to suggest that he was better than any of the men mentioned above.

 

[Cricketman]

Agreed that Yousuf only had one or two fantastic years. He was untouchable then but after that he fell off the radar, I don't think he has been in the top 20 or so batsman this decade IMO. Kind of like Steve Harmison... remember he had that one absolutely awesome year, 7 fer vs Windies and all, and then just crashed...

 

[sifter132]

murali below brett lee ?? and flintoff in the second XI, but no yousuf or inzy, or adam gilchrist?

Yousuf had a golden run, but overall he hasn't made the tough runs that the others I've picked have made. Jayawardene is a little bit similar, no obvious 2 year peak like Yousuf - at least he's been a bit more consistent, but if you isolate his performances against the best attacks then he isn't quite as good as the others.

Kevin Pietersen wasn't far off either. Younis Khan has done pretty well. Overall it's been a great period for batsmen.

Gilchrist was close I guess, but the Sangakkara/Flintoff pair worked well for the 2nd XI. If I'd played Sanga as a specialist batsman in the 1st XI instead of Lara, then Gilly would be in my 2nd XI. There were 3 clearly dominant keepers and Gilchrist was just unlucky in my selection.

 

[Rehan_24]

Why Inzy wasn't selected? Read through the last 3 pages of the thread and you'll understand.

Yousuf had just one great season. Thats about it. Moreover who would you replace for Yousuf? Sachin,Ponting,Lara,Kallis,Dravid,Chanderpaul,Sangakakarra,Laxman?
Yousuf was a good player but it would be foolish to suggest that he was better than any of the men mentioned above.

Opinion and choices differs so the opinion and choice about player of one person does not mean that it is representing every other individual's point of view and the list of all time greats.

Just to give the example, Inzamam-ul-Haq has been also nomiated in the Official World ODI 11 polling which recently held over the web.

Plus those who think that he didn't do anything in the last decade, they should remember that he was also nominated in one of the best player categories in one of the years of that very same decade, though he did not win but that nomination is itself an honor and recognition of that world class player.

And keep in mind guyz that Runs and stats does not tell you everything. Gayle and scored 1000 centuries but he will always be remembered as a big hitter and slogger of the ball not an all time World Class Player who has such diverse range of shots. The similar case goes with Muhammad Yousuf, I won't say that he should defnintely be come up in the Top Ten list but he was at the same level of Dravid in terms of class and batting technique. People mostly forget the basic essence of batting which is the footwork and technique of a player against a fast bowler and a spinner.

 

[AngryPixel]

Opinion and choices differs so the opinion and choice about player of one person does not mean that it is representing every other individual's point of view and the list of all time greats.

Just to give the example, Inzamam-ul-Haq has been also nomiated in the Official World ODI 11 polling which recently held over the web.

Plus those who think that he didn't do anything in the last decade, they should remember that he was also nominated in one of the best player categories in one of the years of that very same decade, though he did not win but that nomination is itself an honor and recognition of that world class player.

And keep in mind guyz that Runs and stats does not tell you everything. Gayle and scored 1000 centuries but he will always be remembered as a big hitter and slogger of the ball not an all time World Class Player who has such diverse range of shots. The similar case goes with Muhammad Yousuf, I won't say that he should defnintely be come up in the Top Ten list but he was at the same level of Dravid in terms of class and batting technique. People mostly forget the basic essence of batting which is the footwork and technique of a player against a fast bowler and a spinner.

Care to share the link where the Official World XI was selected via poll?

And how many times we gotta tell you, this thread takes into account performance over a decade not a particular year etc. Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but make a opinion which is reasonable and in context with the discussion. Dont start Star Wars discussion in a Soap Opera discussion .

He was nominated only once for ICC award and didnt win. If thats the criteria you want for selection in World XI for the decade, then Irfan Pathan should have been selected. He won the best debut player award. Better than just a nomination i guess


Even some of the players who didnt make it to the XI easily outshines the Inzy by a mile. Pieterson had great 3 years since Debut. So did Hussey who was Bradmansque during first 4 years.

 

[cricket_icon]

Whats wrong with that. Brett Lee is definitely better batsman than Murali. And Flintoff is in second XI is because he has performed in just a few series. Thus Allrounder spot is given to Kallis who has performed everywhere and scored runs like a machine. Freddie is great on his day but Kallis has been great throughout last decade.
Now lets come to the Gilly question. First team needed a leader and who better than Dhoni in last decade. So there was no point playing two keepers in same XI. Then in second XI we have Kumar who is arguably the best keeper in the last decade. He is a tremendous batsman too. Gilly is a shamsher but Kumar has the game for longer and stable inning.

Why Inzy wasn't selected? Read through the last 3 pages of the thread and you'll understand.

Yousuf had just one great season. Thats about it. Moreover who would you replace for Yousuf? Sachin,Ponting,Lara,Kallis,Dravid,Chanderpaul,Sangakakarra,Laxman?
Yousuf was a good player but it would be foolish to suggest that he was better than any of the men mentioned above.

You didn't get the point of the thread. It is not about making a team but about listing who you believe to be the best players of the last decade. Also Mohammed Yousuf averages well over 50 with I think 23 or 24 centuries...that obviously shows that he had more than a couple of good seasons, plus in the last decade he is second only to Ponting and Kallis in scoring the most runs. Plus he is damn elegant to watch. Not a top 20 batsman of the last decade? come on....stop the bias and look at things objectively guys, not just who I quoted by the way but other posters as well.

 

[Rehan_24]

Care to share the link where the Official World XI was selected via poll?

And how many times we gotta tell you, this thread takes into account performance over a decade not a particular year etc. Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but make a opinion which is reasonable and in context with the discussion. Dont start Star Wars discussion in a Soap Opera discussion .

He was nominated only once for ICC award and didnt win. If thats the criteria you want for selection in World XI for the decade, then Irfan Pathan should have been selected. He won the best debut player award. Better than just a nomination i guess


Even some of the players who didnt make it to the XI easily outshines the Inzy by a mile. Pieterson had great 3 years since Debut. So did Hussey who was Bradmansque during first 4 years.

I am talking about the World ODI XI of the last 40 years that recently held, I am sure you have forgotten, I think I am reasonable enough to put my view in a reasonable and logical manner

But alas, people like you knows little about cricket who just go towards stats and does not understand the batting technique and footwork kind of thing which is the essence of batting. Pieterson is a different kind of player. One can't compare him with greats like Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar and Inzamam.

So you want more on stats, read this. You also forget that Inzamam was the second player to get to 10,000 runs in One day Cricket and that was against India I remember, Plus He was ahead of Sachin in half-centuries till his retirement.

He was not only a great player in the Batting surfaces but also a very good batsman in the bowling support wickets and that is said by Sanjay Manjeraker and a lot like others.

we did not start wars but we had a right to have our own view and if someone comes up and disrespect our player we have definitely the right to support him with logic and reasons enough.

Nevertheless, I have had enough of this discussion, In my book and most others, Inzamam was among All-Time Match Winner Greats standing beside Ponting, Lara and Steve Waugh.

 

[cricket_icon]

I am talking about the World ODI XI of the last 40 years that recently held, I am sure you have forgotten, I think I am reasonable enough to put my view in a reasonable and logical manner

But alas, people like you knows little about cricket who just go towards stats and does not understand the batting technique and footwork kind of thing which is the essence of batting. Pieterson is a different kind of player. One can't compare him with greats like Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar and Inzamam.

So you want more on stats, read this. You also forget that Inzamam was the second player to get to 10,000 runs in One day Cricket and that was against India I remember, Plus He was ahead of Sachin in half-centuries till his retirement.

He was not only a great player in the Batting surfaces but also a very good batsman in the bowling support wickets and that is said by Sanjay Manjeraker and a lot like others.

we did not start wars but we had a right to have our own view and if someone comes up and disrespect our player we have definitely the right to support him with logic and reasons enough.

Nevertheless, I have had enough of this discussion, In my book and most others, Inzamam was among All-Time Match Winner Greats standing beside Ponting, Lara and Steve Waugh.

Well said Rehan. Everyone is entitled to their opinions as long as they can present them in an enlightened and objective manor, without attacking the other individual.

 

[AngryPixel]

I am talking about the World ODI XI of the last 40 years that recently held, I am sure you have forgotten, I think I am reasonable enough to put my view in a reasonable and logical manner

But alas, people like you knows little about cricket who just go towards stats and does not understand the batting technique and footwork kind of thing which is the essence of batting. Pieterson is a different kind of player. One can't compare him with greats like Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar and Inzamam.

So you want more on stats, read this. You also forget that Inzamam was the second player to get to 10,000 runs in One day Cricket and that was against India I remember, Plus He was ahead of Sachin in half-centuries till his retirement.

He was not only a great player in the Batting surfaces but also a very good batsman in the bowling support wickets and that is said by Sanjay Manjeraker and a lot like others.

we did not start wars but we had a right to have our own view and if someone comes up and disrespect our player we have definitely the right to support him with logic and reasons enough.

Nevertheless, I have had enough of this discussion, In my book and most others, Inzamam was among All-Time Match Winner Greats standing beside Ponting, Lara and Steve Waugh.

Footwork and technique isn't the only thing bud. The grit and determination is way more important. Player with crappy footwork and teechnique have been highly successful just because of the determination.(read: Chanderpaul,Katich,Sehwag etc) And some player with all the talent in the world have wasted it just because they have no temper or sense (Read: Afridi,Agarkar,Kambli etc) I'm not a Inzy hater. I used to admire him because he always had so much time when he batted. I still remember his century against India when he was struggling with a back Injury. Hats off to him. But his record in twilight of his career wasn't all that mighty. Yeah there were one of two great innings but that Inzy was nowhere near the Inzy of 90's. Moreover, Did you read your our words dude. That ODI XI is for last 40 years. Surely Inzy would be in there. Here we are concerned with last decade only. If we were talking about last 20 years, even i would have definitely selected Inzy.

Lets come to the stats, he had more half centuries than Tendulkar because he had a poor conversion rate. Piss poor logic tbh.
Once again, we are not talking about All time XI dude.

If it makes you feel any good, Inzy is in my all time XI
( but not in the XI for the last decade. )

 

[Rehan_24]

Footwork and technique isn't the only thing bud. The grit and determination is way more important. Player with crappy footwork and teechnique have been highly successful just because of the determination.(read: Chanderpaul,Katich,Sehwag etc) And some player with all the talent in the world have wasted it just because they have no temper or sense (Read: Afridi,Agarkar,Kambli etc) I'm not a Inzy hater. I used to admire him because he always had so much time when he batted. I still remember his century against India when he was struggling with a back Injury. Hats off to him. But his record in twilight of his career wasn't all that mighty. Yeah there were one of two great innings but that Inzy was nowhere near the Inzy of 90's. Moreover, Did you read your our words dude. That ODI XI is for last 40 years. Surely Inzy would be in there. Here we are concerned with last decade only. If we were talking about last 20 years, even i would have definitely selected Inzy.

Lets come to the stats, he had more half centuries than Tendulkar because he had a poor conversion rate. Piss poor logic tbh.
Once again, we are not talking about All time XI dude.

If it makes you feel any good, Inzy is in my all time XI
( but not in the XI for the last decade. )

Hmmmm...... Determination, Temperament is indeed very important aspect. In my book, Chanderpaul and Kaitch, Both are very limited players, They didnt have that kind of class talent which great players have even temperament wise. Chanderpaul always struggled against good bowling plus He just saves his own wicket. No Offense, But he is a pretty ordinary player.

Well I don't think I need to say more on the determination of Inzamam. That was simply unquestionable. In the last decade, Inzamam had consistently good 2 to 3 years. I don't think scoring more runs is a criteria of selection, rather than one should see How the player has scored runs, What kind of shots he had played. but anyhow, Thats my understanding of cricket. It may be right or wrong for individuals so doesn't matter.

Conversion Rate??? Well You got to understand that Tendulkar also has limitations just like every other batsman dude. In some aspects Tendulkar was ahead of him and in some aspects Inzamam was ahead of Tendulkar. Anywayz thats an entirely different discussion altogether

Well I dont care whether you include Inzamam in your list or not. And about that "Our" Thing, I meant the supporters of that great player.

 

[AngryPixel]

I feel like I'm banging my head to a wall . I can't do this discussion with you anymore. Adios

 

[cricket_icon]

I think one of the reasons that Inzy had a "poor" conversion rate is because he batted very low down, 5 or 6 most of his career and often had to bat with the tail, especially in the tail end of his career.