Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot

[Cevno]

Yep, Very.

Even if you go one decade back to the 90s, You had four batsman who averaged in the 50s:-Gooch, Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh. Gooch played only the initial four years. So It's basically three batsman through the decade

The exceptional bowlers of that period were:- Warne, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Donald, Waqar, McGrath and Pollock.

3 vs 8. You decide.

Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes, Larwood, Bedser, Lindwall, Davidson, Trueman, Statham, Miller, Adcock, Hall, Mahmood, Snow, Voce, Tate, Peter Pollock to name a few (excluding the spinners, and those who 'also' played in the 80s)...

Yes, 90s was the best era for fast bowlers, followed by the 80s and the 70s...but saying that there were not many great fast bowlers before that will not be right. In fact, I would say every decade of the twentieth century produced at least as many great fast bowlers as the 2000s. Every decade has had its Steyn, if not more.

Agreed.

This whole bowlers being more rare thing or them winning matches while batsmen don't doesn't cut it for me at all.

Add to the fact that bowlers have a shorter careerspan too and i don't see any reason to beleive that they ought to have a advantage.

And the 90's example shows it and that is why the likes of Waugh ,Lara and Tendulkar were so great in that decade and Tendulkar has carried it into the next two decades too plus having a decent advantage in the 90's too.

 

[Uppercut]

My order would probably be Imran, Hadlee, Murali, Kallis, Pollock for the last 30 years. All-rounders always seem to be underrated unless they are absolutely superlative in one area like Sobers and Imran. Pollock in particular has suffered because of this and Kallis too until recently.

Murali is the exception because his achievement of taking 7 wickets per test at 21 over 9 years is so extraordinary he deserves to be in the mix.

Yeah, Murali's contribution to Sri Lankan cricket is just obscene. One thing that's often forgotten about Murali and Warne when comparing them statistically to the ATG quicks is that they took wickets at times when few other bowlers could, when against most sides batsmen would be looking to cash in.

 

[Zinzan]

I voted Imran, but ffs, is McGrath that much better a cricketer than Hadlee with 7 votes to Hadlee's 1 ?

 

[Zinzan]

As an aside, guys reckon Imran would be the popular choice as "Best ever Asian Cricketer" marginally above Murali?

 

[Cevno]

Personally, I don't think anyone except Kallis, Imran, Hadlee and S. Pollock belongs to this debate.

However, Since people are suggesting specialists, Get Waqar in, IMO.

Aaprt from that, Shaun Pollock is the glaring omission. 400 wickets @ 23 is as good or negligibly worse than pretty much any other pacer on the list and then the bat comes in. While It is often pointed out that McG deserves extra credit for doing his thing through the 00s too, Pollock most certainly does too, IMO. Despite being done with the peak of his career, He still averages 24(?) in the 00s.

If we are talking about omissions ,Kapil dev is another one.

Bowled with even less support than hadlee ,was a inspirational captain and was a better batsmen also in tougher conditions for fast bowling.
Never really missed a match or had a dip in performance due to injury like many others who get excused for it.

 

[Cevno]

I voted Imran, but ffs, is McGrath that much better a cricketer than Hadlee with 7 votes to Hadlee's 1 ?

What's even more bewildering is Murali 0 votes?

While Warne has 4.

 

[Zinzan]

What's even more bewildering is Murali 0 votes?

While Warne has 4.

True, lack of Sri Lankan voters me thinks Also, I think the fact Warne was voted one of the 5 cricketers of the century (rightly or wrongly) helps his case.

 

[slog sweep]

More importantly, where is this guy?

Agreed, where is he ?

If you are talking about the greatest cricketer post 1980, then Malcolm Marshall is the most glaring omission. As the greatest bowler of all time, I probably would have voted for him. If it was just an oversight, then it is no big deal.

In the end, I voted for 'Smokin Joe', who wasn't too bad himself. But, the likes of Warne, Murali and Imran, are all in the conversation.

 

[morgieb]

17 yr old with a man crush on a 6 yr old.

Reminds us of a certain moderator.....

 

[Uppercut]

I voted Imran, but ffs, is McGrath that much better a cricketer than Hadlee with 7 votes to Hadlee's 1 ?

I don't know if many of the people who voted for McGrath could make much of a case for him. He played and was successful in a much more batsman-friendly era than Hadlee. But that's about it.

Hadlee's horrendously underrated, basically.

 

[Jono]

Haha @ "that's about it".

I love Hadlee, so if someone thinks he's better than McGrath because of his batting, fine. But to downplay that teeny weeny fact about McGrath is ridiculous.

 

[ankitj]

My order would probably be Imran, Hadlee, Murali, Kallis, Pollock for the last 30 years. All-rounders always seem to be underrated unless they are absolutely superlative in one area like Sobers and Imran. Pollock in particular has suffered because of this and Kallis too until recently.

Murali is the exception because his achievement of taking 7 wickets per test at 21 over 9 years is so extraordinary he deserves to be in the mix.

It's actually 7 wpm for 11 years at under 20.

 

[Teja.]

Tbh I can't think of one reason Glenn McGrath's a more valuable cricketer than Hadlee or Imran. If people have their subjective definitions of greatness, that's fine.

 

[GotSpin]

Tbh I can't think of one reason Glenn McGrath's a more valuable cricketer than Hadlee or Imran. If people have their subjective definitions of greatness, that's fine.

It was just mentioned a couple posts before you

 

[Cevno]

It was just mentioned a couple posts before you

Agree.

 

[ankitj]

A pure hypothetical question but worth contemplating - If they were Kiwis, would McGrath or Marshall have been able to do what Hadlee did for NZ?

 

[Teja.]

It was just mentioned a couple posts before you

Yep but the difference between them as batsman is too huge even if you consider McG a league ahead as a bowler.(Which I disagree with anyway)

I agree if McG's feats in this era are awe-inspiring and hence can be seen as 'greater', You can't ignore the direct value 30-37 runs gives with the bat though.

 

[GotSpin]

A pure hypothetical question but worth contemplating - If they were Kiwis, would McGrath or Marshall have been able to do what Hadlee did for NZ?

McGrath would have been a handy 3rd drop for the kiwis

 

[Jono]

!

 

[Teja.]

That question ignores the reality that McG and MM's bowling was shaped by the fact that they had good support and Hadlee's bowling shaped by the fact that he did not. Directly mentally replacing one with the other without accounting for these adjustments is not a very good way to go about it.