The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

[stephen]

Indeed not. He'd have had to bowl against the South Africans instead. And, unless you're suggesting that that (bowling at the South African batting) would have been some sort of tea-party, then quite why bowling at South Africans rather than Australians is so funny is beyond me.

Because Donald's record is poor against Australia. Most Australians don't rate him particularly highly. In fact Steve Waugh didn't rate him very highly in his autobiography either.

 

[Ikki]

Except it's not really poor.

 

[Notorious1]

Akram and Lara.

 

[Sir Alex]

Among the bowlers I think it is between Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath and Donald. It is purely subjective and I tend to go with Ambrose.

Among batsmen it is between Lara, Tendulkar and Steve Waugh. I think it is easily Tendulkar, despite the fact that Waugh had a brilliant run in the mid 90s.

 

[morgieb]

Batsman: Lara, Tendulkar, S Waugh. As much as I love Lara & Waugh, it has to be Tendulkar
Bowlers: Interesting. Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Warne and Walsh all have strong cases. McGrath & Pollock were both very good too. Probably Ambrose on the face of it, although it probably always changes.

 

[Richard]

Because Donald's record is poor against Australia.

Aside from the fact that it isn't really (in the four series' of significance Donald came out with an average of 27, which is merely good rather than the superlative he was against all other sides), it could just as easily have been had he faced South Africa rather than Australia. Whether it was Australia or South Africa it'd still be the same case.

Most Australians don't rate him particularly highly.

So?

In fact Steve Waugh didn't rate him very highly in his autobiography either.

Ian Chappell has never rated Stephen Waugh that highly, anywhere, either. Doesn't stop Waugh being a fantastic batsman. What one player thinks of another isn't particularly important. In any case, Waugh not thinkng Donald was that good was more a case of playing mind-games with himself to improve his own chances of success than anything else.

 

[Cruxdude]

Tendulkar and Akram

 

[stephen]

Aside from the fact that it isn't really (in the four series' of significance Donald came out with an average of 27, which is merely good rather than the superlative he was against all other sides), it could just as easily have been had he faced South Africa rather than Australia. Whether it was Australia or South Africa it'd still be the same case.

So?

Ian Chappell has never rated Stephen Waugh that highly, anywhere, either. Doesn't stop Waugh being a fantastic batsman. What one player thinks of another isn't particularly important. In any case, Waugh not thinkng Donald was that good was more a case of playing mind-games with himself to improve his own chances of success than anything else.

The point is, in comparison of two all time greats, seeing what their contemporaries thought about them is important. Waugh rated Ambrose much more highly than he rated Donald. And let's face it, one of the two bowlers averaged closer to 30 vs Australia and the other averaged closer to 20.

Donald was very good but he was countered much better by the best batting side in his day than Ambrose was. Watching the cricket at the time I always feared when Ambrose had the ball in his hand that we were going to lose wickets and fast. I never got that fear when Donald had the ball in his hand.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Brian Lara & Wasim Akram.

 

[SJS]

I am surprised no one has mentioned Waqar Younis. He was the predominant fast bowler in Test matches between 1991 and 1999 followed by Donald.

Even in ODI's Waqar and Donald were the most destructive fast bowlers by far although here they are almost neck to neck. In ODI's one would give more importance to the economy rate also where Ambrose(3.48) is the best and Waqar (4.6 the worst). But then again look at the number of wickets he and Donald take per ODI (1.7 and 1,6 respectively) against 1.2 per match by Ambrose (1,4 by Wasim) and you can see who you might chose as your spearheads for the attack.

Just looking at those four names and those one discarded (Walsh, McGrath, Pollock) and one gets such a fabulous feeling. Its just ten years ago and look at the bowling standards all around the world. Add Warne, Kumble, Saqlain and Murali and its an amazing list. Its futile to argue that the current bowlers are anywhere close to these giants and yet another ten years later another generation might doubt whether the bowlers of the nineties were as good as they are made out to be

 

[SJS]

Here are the Test bowling figures for the top four fast bowlers

[B]Player        	Tests	W	5w	10w	 Avg	 S/R	 E/R	W/T[/B]

Waqar       	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]56[/B][/COLOR]	273	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]21	5[/B][/COLOR]	21.7	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]41.0[/B]	[/COLOR]3.18	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]4.88[/B][/COLOR]

Donald      	59	284	19	3	21.8	45.8	2.86	4.81

Wasim      	62	289	17	3	21.5	48.9	2.63	4.66

Ambrose   	71	309	21	3	20.2	52.3	2.31	4.35

The ODI figures . . .

[B]Player	ODI's	 W	 4w	 Avg	 S/R	 E/R	W/M[/B]

Waqar	163	275	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]20[/COLOR][/B]	23.1	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]30.0[/B][/COLOR]	4.6	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]1.69[/COLOR][/B]

Donald	125	206	11	21.1	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]31.3[/COLOR][/B]	4.0	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]1.65[/COLOR][/B]

Wasim	195	279	16	23.4	36.7	3.8	1.43

Ambrose	135	160	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]5[/COLOR][/B]	25.9	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]44.6[/COLOR][/B]	3.5	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]1.19[/COLOR][/B]

 

[subshakerz]

For bowlers, I would have to say Akram. Warne was only really good between 93-97, and his failures against India have been discussed before. Waqar had his peak between 90-94 but was nowhere near good for the rest of the decade. That leaves Donald, Ambrose and Akram for true contenders.

There isn't much to choose between them, but I think Donald lags behind compared to Ambrose and Akram in making his mark against Australia. Between Akram and Ambrose, I would go for Akram for a few reasons. First, he was successful in the subcontinent in the decade, whereas Ambrose never played in India, had a poor series in Pakistan and a single test against an average Sri Lankan side. Second, and this is pure speculation, but I would argue that the majority of his peers would rate Akram better during this time, simply for being more versatile and awkward a proposition to face.

 

[The Sean]

What are the figures for McGrath, Walsh and Pollock?

 

[subshakerz]

For batsmen, I would choose Tendulkar, even though overall I rate Lara higher. Tendulkar simply was more consistent in the decade and unlike Lara never had a prolonged period of loss of form. Tendulkar just got better and better as the decade progressed.

 

[aussie]

The best at their peak:
Waqar c1991
Lara c1994

The best overall during the decade:
Ambrose
Tendulkar

Seconded.

 

[SJS]

What are the figures for McGrath, Walsh and Pollock?

Here you are. . .

For Tests

[B]Player	Tests	 W	 5w	 10w	 Avg	 S/R	 E/R	W/T[/B]

McGrath	58	266	15	1	22.9	52.5	2.6	4.59

Pollock	38	161	10	0	20.5	52.6	2.3	4.24

Walsh	78	304	13	1	26.0	59.5	2.6	3.90

For ODI's

[B]Player	ODI's	 W	 4w	 Avg	 S/R	 E/R	W/M[/B]

McGrath	101	147	8	24.8	37.1	4.0	1.46

Pollock	83	118	6	23.4	36.8	3.8	1.42

Walsh	119	128	2	30.6	48.1	3.8	1.08

And the leading spinners in the world in the 90's
Test Matches

[B]Player	Tests	 W	 5w	 10w	 Avg	 S/R	 E/R	W/T[/B]

Warne	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]80[/COLOR][/B]	351	16	4	25.7	64.3	2.4	[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]4.39 (corrected)[/COLOR][/B]

Saqlain	24	107	9	2	29.2	65.0	2.7	4.46

Murali	48	227	17	2	27.1	65.6	2.5	4.73

Kumble	58	264	15	3	27.8	69.0	2.4	4.55

ODI's

[B]Player	ODI's	 W	 4w	 Avg	 S/R	 E/R	W/M

[/B]Saqlain	111	210	14	19.4	27.6	4.2	1.89

Warne	133	212	12	24.3	34.8	4.2	1.59

Murali	129	177	6	27.4	39.5	4.2	1.37

Kumble	184	244	8	28.1	40.5	4.1	1.33

 

[The Sean]

Thanks SJS - geez Pollock was good. Massively underrated cricketer for mine.

 

[SJS]

Thanks SJS - geez Pollock was good. Massively underrated cricketer for mine.

Absolutely.

I consider Pollock as the last top bracket all rounder the game has seen. Add that to the fact that he was one of the finest fast bowlers produced by South Africa and its easy to se how we have underestimated this cricketer.

I am a firm believer that with the predominance of the electronic media, the glamour quotient has become an important criteria by which the average fan rates the top cricketers. Thus players like Pollock suffer for having a low-glamour index and the Warney's of the world are celebrated (this is not to deny Warne's great attributes as a bowler)

 

[zaremba]

I am surprised no one has mentioned Waqar Younis.

I did!

If you look at the Waqar of the mid to late 90s, though, he was a good but not outstanding fast bowler, particularly when compared with the astonishing ability and pace that he had at the start of the decade.

 

[asty80]

Another vote for Tendlya and Warney - the 2 visitors to Sir Bradman's house.
The great man blessed them. Who am I to oppose.