All time best player of all teams

[C_C]

heh.
i am surprised that many folks have overlooked Mike Procter.
Had it not been for politics,Procter would likely be rubbing shoulders with Sobers/Imran as the best allrounder ever.

 

[bryce]

yeah i was suprised aswell, no doubt he would of been one of the greats

 

[The Baconator]

he's one of many unlucky South Africans who could have been great
but it's hard to put him in a list like this due to lack of international matches

 

[amit_s]

aus - mcgrath
bd - rafique
eng - flintoff
ind - sehwag
nz - hadlee
pak - imran khan
sa - kallis
sl - muralitharan
wi - sobers
zim - andy flower

 

[ian671]

best of the best

australia bradman without question england hobbs india gavaskar (although tendulka is brilliant) pakistan imran khan (closely followed by akram) new zealand hadlee west indies viv richards (though almost picked walsh) south africa kallis sri lanka murrili pure genius zimbabwe andy flowers this is my opinion anyway.

 

[Anil]

australia - don bradman(obvious)
west indies - garfield sobers(obvious)
india - sachin tendulkar(obvious for me)
england - ian botham(that i have seen)
pakistan - imran khan(obvious)
sri lanka - muthiah muralitharan(obvious)
new zealand - richard hadlee(obvious)
zimbabwe - andy flower(obvious)
south africa - barry richards(from what i've heard)

 

[Richard Rash]

Because at the time he posted it it was true?

It was posted at the start of 2004 just after they had played the pakistan series and within a month he took over the gloves for the test matches from Robbie Hart.. He has always showed glimpses right from the beginning of his career that he is going to be a special player for NZ

 

[Richard]

Sean's thunder has been stolen again!

Part of the reason why Grace might have had a better batting average is his refusal to leave the crease when out.

Which are mostly exaggerated stories.

 

[Richard]

It was posted at the start of 2004 just after they had played the pakistan series and within a month he took over the gloves for the test matches from Robbie Hart.. He has always showed glimpses right from the beginning of his career that he is going to be a special player for NZ

He has still shown nothing to suggest he's going to be a special player - good, possibly, yes.
Certainly the early stages of his ODI-career suggested nothing but that he was a terrible mis-selection.

 

[bryce]

averaging almost 35 this year batting at seven and eight aswell as keeping very soundly is a mis-selection?

 

[Richard]

Nope - no-one could dispute his place in 2004.
In 2002, though, he was one of the worst players I've ever seen picked for ODIs.

 

[bryce]

which is precisely why he has improved so much, they knew he had talent despite not playing well and persisted with him - NZ cricket is the winner at the end of the day

 

[Richard]

No, they did not know anything - you can't know someone has talent.
They did, however, make the right guess - it turned-out he was capable of improving from the terrible player of 2002.

 

[bryce]

before he was picked in the national side he hit 142 opening the batting against a full strength canterbury bowling attack as a 20 year old after averaging almost 100 in the under 19 series against south africa the year before, i'd say they knew he had talent - you might not and i'm not going to argue with you

 

[Richard Rash]

No, they did not know anything - you can't know someone has talent.
They did, however, make the right guess - it turned-out he was capable of improving from the terrible player of 2002.

I think the NZ selectors do more than guess. He has excelled through all the grade cricket.. and yes you can know he has talent. Probably why you are not a selector Richo.. are you suggesting that you agree with Langevedt that McCullum at the start of January this year was the worst NZ player? He was not terrible in 2002 either he was just finding his feet after beeing thrust in to the big time at such a young age.

 

[indie2]

No, they did not know anything - you can't know someone has talent.
They did, however, make the right guess - it turned-out he was capable of improving from the terrible player of 2002.

I think you very definitely can know that someone has talent.

What you can't know, until giving them a try, is if they have the determination or temperament to utilize that talent to the full.

 

[Richard]

Well if you look at it like that, I know I've got talent.
Everyone's got talent - some people have rather more than others.
Some people misunderstand what to have talent means - some people would label Ian Blackwell talented.
All to have talent means is to be able to score runs - the more runs you score, the more talent you have.
Nothing to do with how good you "look".

 

[Richard]

I think the NZ selectors do more than guess. He has excelled through all the grade cricket.. and yes you can know he has talent. Probably why you are not a selector Richo.. are you suggesting that you agree with Langevedt that McCullum at the start of January this year was the worst NZ player?

If I'd disagreed you might have noticed me saying "nah, Rich, you're having a laugh!"
You cannot know he has talent - as I've mentioned, some people think Ian Blackwell has talent.
Excelling at club\grade levels doesn't mean a thing unless you perform at First-Class and List-A-One-Day level. Yes, it can be a good indicator, but equally doing well at club level cannot make anyone automatically know they have talent.

He was not terrible in 2002 either he was just finding his feet after beeing thrust in to the big time at such a young age.

He was terrible - there is no two ways about that.
Maybe he was terrible because he was finding his feet - maybe he was terrible because he was a very poor player and turned into a much, much better one in a short time.

 

[Richard]

before he was picked in the national side he hit 142 opening the batting against a full strength canterbury bowling attack as a 20 year old after averaging almost 100 in the under 19 series against south africa the year before, i'd say they knew he had talent - you might not and i'm not going to argue with you

Under-19 cricket certainly doesn't mean much, I'll assure you of that one.
They can make a good guess - but they cannot know for certain.
To suggest that it's possible to know for certain whether a player has talent before he's played at the national level is quite ridiculous.

 

[tooextracool]

ok lets give this a try....
india- dravid/dev
pakistan- imran khan/miandad
NZ- crowe
zimbabwe - andy flower
australia- bradman
england- hammond
WI- headley
SL- murali
SA - kallis or donald probably considering that richards and proctor werent exactly proven test players.