All time best player of all teams

[Richard]

Of course, this thread was before tooextracool's time.

 

[Richard Rash]

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.

Out of interest why did you go for Crowe over Hadlee.. I rate them on a par but would be interested to know what your reasoning was?

 

[Richard Rash]

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

I think there are two ways about it. In his first game he got run out for five. The second time he batted he made 37 against a strong South African side. He then made a duck in his next match then made 29 the game after that. I wouldn't call that terrible richo. I would say it is an average start to a promising career. Back to the cricket text books for you son

 

[Richard]

Both of these hardly-compelling innings (37 and 29... wow), you might recall, were littered with edges backward of square. These rather flattering innings were then followed by three against a very weak England attack where his scores reflected much better the quite shockingly poor way his innings unfolded.
Sorry, there's no way around it - McCullum when first selected was a very, very poor player.
But he's nowhere near as poor at present so it doesn't really matter much, now, does it?

 

[tooextracool]

Out of interest why did you go for Crowe over Hadlee.. I rate them on a par but would be interested to know what your reasoning was?

i rate crowe extremely highly as a captain, and i dont rate hadlee highly for his batting. so IMO crowe was not just a good batsman but also a good captain, while hadlee was just an exceptional bowler. however it must be said that NZ probably relied more on hadlee than they did on crowe.

 

[Richard Rash]

Both of these hardly-compelling innings (37 and 29... wow), you might recall, were littered with edges backward of square. These rather flattering innings were then followed by three against a very weak England attack where his scores reflected much better the quite shockingly poor way his innings unfolded.
Sorry, there's no way around it - McCullum when first selected was a very, very poor player.
But he's nowhere near as poor at present so it doesn't really matter much, now, does it?

Maybe not compelling but definetly not terrible as you claim he started his career. No he is not poor at present. He is the brightest star of the future for NZ cricket and no it doesn't matter i spose but you are wrong and i had fun proving that you were

 

[Richard]

It must be really satisfying manufacturing these instances of proving me wrong - happens so often.
McCullum was a very, very poor player at the start of his ODI-career - anyone who watched could tell that quite clearly, and Rich was obviously one of them. Which is why he included McCullum in the list he did.

 

[Richard Rash]

It must be really satisfying manufacturing these instances of proving me wrong - happens so often.
McCullum was a very, very poor player at the start of his ODI-career - anyone who watched could tell that quite clearly, and Rich was obviously one of them. Which is why he included McCullum in the list he did.

He posted it at the start of 04 and you agreed with him which proves to me that you really don't have a good cricket brain if you couldn't see the promise McCullum showed after the length of time he had been playing for NZ

 

[Richard]

He posted it with referral to the most of McCullum's career.
Indeed, it's only since he's been introduced to Tests that anyone's really started to take him that seriously.

 

[Richard Rash]

He posted it with referral to the most of McCullum's career.
Indeed, it's only since he's been introduced to Tests that anyone's really started to take him that seriously.

I took him seriously from his debut because obvously unlike you i could see talent in him from the get go..end of argument i win.

 

[Richard]

No, you thought you did. You were proved right.
Had McCullum gone on doing as terribly as he did at the start you'd have been proven wrong.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

I can only name players who I have seen in action in my lifetime.

Australia - McGrath
England - Thorpe
India - Tendulkar
South Africa - Pollock
Pakistan - Wasim Akram
New Zealand - Fleming
Sri Lanka - Muralitharan
West Indies - Lara
Zimbabwe - Andrew Flower

 

[bryce]

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.

i'm sure averaging 100 in a under 19 'test' series means at least something - no reason to throw them into international cricket though but enough to know that he is to be watched closely

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.

no, it's the above quoted post which is ridiculous

 

[Craig]

Because at the time he posted it it was true?

If he was out worst at that time then that is a pretty big compliment on the ability of our players then?

I guess Ian Butler would have been a better bet some of the flops from the New Zealand ('A') tour of Pakistan

 

[Craig]

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

Hello amits.

Although your stay will more then likely be brief.

 

[Craig]

Hanif Mohammad would be unlucky not to make the all-time list.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Or is it the case that the reporting of dropped catches is now far more prevalent than the incidences of dropped catches?

I find it very hard to believe someone with little to no memory of cricket pre 90 can come out with something like this.

I totally agree. It is ridiculous to suggest that players pre-80's were better fieldsman than today's professional cricketers. The opposite is more likely.

 

[shaka]

SA's all time best player should be Graeme Pollock, not to be confused with his nephew Shaun Pollock, or his brother Peter. Although all are very good cricketers.

 

[Deja moo]

Aus-Bradman (if Bradman wasnt around, probably McGrath)
Ban-Mortaza
Eng-Botham/Hammond/Hobbs
Ind-Dravid
Nzl-Hadlee
Pak-Imran
SA-Graeme Pollock
SL-Murali
WI-Richards
Zim-Andy Flower

 

[Richard]

I totally agree. It is ridiculous to suggest that players pre-80's were better fieldsman than today's professional cricketers. The opposite is more likely.

Although if you've actually looked at the situation you'd think otherwise, rather than based the thing purely on assumption.