Wisden's 10 players who will "define" cricket in the next decade

manee

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Location
England
Online Cricket Games Owned
I did a search and nothing came up and am wondering what you people thought of the list which was made about six months ago.

Michael Clarke (Aus)
Shaun Tait (Aus)
Shane Watson (Aus)
Kevin Pietersen (Eng)
Mohammad Asif (Pak)
Lasith Malinga (Sri)
Suresh Raina (Ind)
Dwayne Bravo (WI)
Ross Taylor (NZ)
Mohammad Ashraful (Ban)

To be honest, I think that it is quite poor but with a few good picks.

Michael Clarke is certainly a good fielder (world's best infielder) and is only getting better with the bat in both ODIs and tests. Likewise, Ross Taylor ooses potential with the bat and is a good pick too to carry New Zealand in the future with the bat.

Shaun Tait and Malinga's unusual bowling styles are certain to redefine cricket to some extent but whilst Tait is arguably the fastest bowler in the world; Malinga has lost about 10kph of pace and once the novelty has worn off, he is played quite comfortably by batsman.

Watson is very talented and his agressive batting - which is very successful in Australian FC cricket especially, and efficient RFM bowling is useful, but won't injuries surely tarnish any chance of a prolonged international stint. He seems to get injured every other day, in the hamstring region especially.

Dwayne Bravo is an interesting pick because he is improving quickly and is a useful bits and pieces player but is he really among the 10 best future prospects? I think not - he is more good than great.

Ashraful is a good innovator but will he ever get that consistancy which has eluded him in the ODI game? (And test cricket seems a bit beyond him tbh.) With an ODI average of just 21.79 in the sizeable sum of 97 innings, it seems not.

Suresh Raina is the most baffling pick but potentially a good one. He dominates at Indian domestic level and if his confidence has improved since he first played for India, he could be a good one. He is a strange pick though considering he is not certainly ever going to have an extended run in the Indian team with people like Badrinath, Tiwary and Kaif fighting for that middle order place with him in both forms of the game.
 
One of the young Indian lads on the surroundings most definitley will. Which one is a much harder question to answer though. It could be any from; Raina, Tiwary, Uthapa, Bandrinath etc.
 
I don't think Watson, Raina or Ashraful will "define" cricket in anyway. I just don't see any sort of genius in them.
 
I dont see Tait as defining Cricketing though either, I don't see him being a genius.
 
I'm not sure that list screams defining talent to me either.

I suppose when you look at the likes of Bravo, although he certainly isn't going to set the world alight he is I suppose the most promising West Indian cricketer so in that respect I suppose he will define West Indies cricket.

The thing about genius is it usually blasts onto the scene so I guess its hard to make a list for the future as there are certainly players waiting to make their mark and they will do so with a bang, if that bang is to be sustained that's also hard to tell.
 
Watson, lol. I'm not even gonna bother laying into him again. The only ones I completely agree with are Kelv, Asif and Taylor. Maybe Michael Clarke as well.
 
Alastair Cook should be there imo. Averages 45 at the age of 22, thats pretty impressive and he's only going to get better. Watsons a dumb one, he hasn't actually done that much and he's injured so frequently we don't know he'll veer get a consistent run in cricket any more. Plus I imagine there will be some young player come through who's amazing, there usually is at least 1 every decade
 
I find it funny that the only thing Watson can actually match Flintoff at is his amazing ability to get injured a lot.
 
Plus I imagine there will be some young player come through who's amazing, there usually is at least 1 every decade

Suresh Raina is an outside pick for that person. Taking away ODIs (which he played when he was 19 and younger!), he averages over 60 in List A cricket with a high strike rate too and he averages around 45 in FC cricket: He is only twenty! He is a fantastic fielder too.

Watson, lol. I'm not even gonna bother laying into him again.

Can't argue with the statistics at Australian domestic cricket which is quite a high level.
 
Last edited:
Watson, lol. I'm not even gonna bother laying into him again. The only ones I completely agree with are Kelv, Asif and Taylor. Maybe Michael Clarke as well.

Fully agreed.

KP has been brilliant for England in both forms of the game and one of the worlds best batsman.

Mohammed Asif has proved himself as an excellent bowler with nagging accuracy and will probably end up the best bowler in the world if he stays out of trouble in the next few years.

Ross Taylor has been really good for New Zealand in the ODI's and its only a matter of time until he makes his test debut too.

Michael Clarke is one I have always rated and he was unlucky really to be dropped from the test squad after the ashes in 2005 in which a lot of his team mates suffered the same fate but he has scored runs in ODI's and got himself back into the test squad and made 2 hundreds in the last ashes series against England last winter.
Good performances as well as India which personifies his ability against spin and why he will be useful for Australia in the middle order when India and Sri Lanka come to Australia.
 
I agree with the Scouser's list, but also I tend to agree with Wisden about Ashraful. He's got a great game for a young guy and with a bit of consistency and the growing maturity that you need when becoming a captain, he could be a big part of the growing Bangladesh side, with their brand of attacking cricket.

From what I've seen of Taylor, he looks the real deal, while Pietersen and Clarke are proven.

Tait could go either way for me, he's got the raw talent and pace, but he needs to put it in as often as he can. I'm not too sure why Bravo's on that list, he's one of the best of a bad crop for the West Indies at the moment, but he won't "define" cricket. Watson's another that shouldn't be on there.
 
I agree with the other two but Salman Butt?!

he is still only 22,
already has nearly 1000 runs and has done the hard part by scoring 100's against aussies and england in test matches arguably the top 2 sides at that time.

he could get 10000 runs in each format of the game by the time he is finished,
he just needs alittle help
 
I don't think Watson, Raina or Ashraful will "define" cricket in anyway. I just don't see any sort of genius in them.

I agree, add Bravo to that too. All admirable cricketers, but nothing that jumps out at you which makes your mouth water.
To say someone will define the next ten years is to put a 'Lara' 'Tendulkar' tag on them, we're talking the super special here. I think Monty can be the best spinner in the world (Certainly at test level). I think we might actually struggle with super players.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top