Players who were indisputably the best of their time

[WindieWeathers]

Here is a question I have on my mind. Marshall is widely considered to be the best pacer of all time right? So does it make sense to suggest that he wasn't indisputably the number one of his era? I know he played with and against great pacers but still...if he's looked upon in those terms then something has to give.

 

[Zinzan]

Here is a question I have on my mind. Marshall is widely considered to be the best pacer of all time right? So does it make sense to suggest that he wasn't indisputably the number one of his era? I know he played with and against great pacers but still...if he's looked upon in those terms then something has to give.

Disagree, I personally do think Marshall was the best pace bowler, but it isn't unanimous compared with the likes of Bradman the batter, Sobers the allrounder, & Gilchrist the keeper in their time. Indisputably being the key word.

 

[listento_me]

Basically, who can you think of who has been just flat-out better than everyone playing at the same time as them?

I'm not expecting to hear of a gulf like there was between Bradman and everyone else, but anyone head and shoulders above.the rest is a good answer assuming that they remained so for a reasonably extended period.

Question applies to batsmen and bowlers.

Edit: Sorry about the typo in the title

This is a tough one.

Cricket, unlike most sports has very distinct roles which differ so much, I've always found it difficult to say so and so was the best players of his generation. It's a lot fairer to break it down into different roles: batsman, bowler and all rounder (including keepers).

So, for the first decade of the new millennium, Ponting is indisputably the best bat, McGrath the best bowler and Gilly the best all rounder. They're all Aussie but what can you do eh?

Going beyond that, Akram the best bowler of the 90s, Tendulkar gotta be the best bat and ... it's tough in terms of all rounders. I dunno who I'd say.

 

[listento_me]

Here is a question I have on my mind. Marshall is widely considered to be the best pacer of all time right? So does it make sense to suggest that he wasn't indisputably the number one of his era? I know he played with and against great pacers but still...if he's looked upon in those terms then something has to give.

Says who? A recent Sky discussion had Akram as best, with Lillee, Marshall and a couple others has runners up.

You could argue he was the best bowler of the 80s but then again, you had Khan, Akram himself and Hadlee around that time. Consequently, two of those names were also pure all rounders and would probably be talked about as the best of the 80s in terms of all round cricket and thus, rank higher than Marshall.

As great as Marshall seems, I don't think he was undisputed.

 

[Gob]

Shania Lee Swart

 

[ImpatientLime]

haha akram being the best fast bowler of all time is complete and utter ****

he's great but he is second tier great

 

[Gob]

haha akram being the best fast bowler of all time is complete and utter ****

he's great but he is second tier great

Who said such things?

 

[ImpatientLime]

Who said such things?

sky apparently

 

[Slifer]

No, Ian was talking about being indisputably the best in their side.

In which case Lara was indisputably the best player in his side, especially after Ambrose retired.

 

[viriya]

Murali? Hell, no. Maybe for the last year of his career when Warne had retired. Otherwise he wasn't comfortably the best.

Yeah the Murali one is weird given he and Warne cancelled one another out in this respect.

No bowler has dominated a decade like Murali did the 2000s.

http://www.cricrate.com/cricinsight...tQualFrom=&resultQualTo=&sortBy=Wickets taken

Murali 565 wickets at 21.
Warne 357 at 25.

Although Warne did well he didnt have anywhere near the impact (he had a better 90s).

 

[viriya]

Murali? Hell, no. Maybe for the last year of his career when Warne had retired. Otherwise he wasn't comfortably the best.

haha akram being the best fast bowler of all time is complete and utter ****

he's great but he is second tier great

Maybe the poll considered ODIs as well.

 

[viriya]

Here is a question I have on my mind. Marshall is widely considered to be the best pacer of all time right? So does it make sense to suggest that he wasn't indisputably the number one of his era? I know he played with and against great pacers but still...if he's looked upon in those terms then something has to give.

Steyn > Marshall

 

[viriya]

Ponting was voted the players of the 00's

Murali had 565 wkts at 21.
Posting had 9458 runs at 58.

Going by the 100 wkts = 2000 run equivalence seen historically Murali made 11200+ runs. A 21 bowling average was also much tougher than a 58 batting average in the 2000s.

Conclusion: don't trust cricinfo polls.

 

[Slifer]

Steyn > Marshall

Possibly

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali had 565 wkts at 21.
Posting had 9458 runs at 58.

Going by the 100 wkts = 2000 run equivalence seen historically Murali made 11200+ runs. A 21 bowling average was also much tougher than a 58 batting average in the 2000s.

Conclusion: don't trust cricinfo polls.

Yeah but it's not like Ponting needed the ICC to pass a law that let him use a bigger bat than everyone else or something similar

 

[indiaholic]

Why ruin a thread with an invitation to jonbrooks?

 

[TNT]

Murali had 565 wkts at 21.
Posting had 9458 runs at 58.

Going by the 100 wkts = 2000 run equivalence seen historically Murali made 11200+ runs. A 21 bowling average was also much tougher than a 58 batting average in the 2000s.

Conclusion: don't trust cricinfo polls.

Do we have more experience, knowledge and insight than the panel below that came to this conclusion. Its not like it was a poll open to couch cricketers but only people involved professionally over the decade.

Jonathan Agnew, BBC cricket correspondent; Mushtaq Ahmed, former Pakistan legspinner; Sambit Bal, Cricinfo editor; Scyld Berry, editor, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack; Rahul Bhattacharya, writer; Harsha Bhogle, writer and TV presenter; Geoff Boycott, former England opener; Alex Brown, deputy editor, Cricinfo; John Buchanan, former Australia coach; Ian Chappell, former Australia captain; Tony Cozier, writer and commentator; Martin Crowe, former New Zealand captain; Peter English, Australasia editor, Cricinfo; Graham Gooch, former England captain; Tony Greig, former England captain, and commentator; Gideon Haigh, writer; Rob Houwing, chief writer for Sport24.co.za; Athar Ali Khan, former Bangladesh opener; Rashid Latif , former Pakistan wicketkeeper; Geoff Lawson, former Australia fast bowler; David Lloyd, former England coach; Ranjan Madugalle, ICC match referee; Pradeep Magazine , writer; Sanjay Manjrekar, writer and former India batsman; Neil Manthorp, broadcaster and writer; Ayaz Memon, writer; Suresh Menon, writer; Andrew Miller, UK editor, Cricinfo; Tom Moody, former Australia allrounder, former Sri Lanka coach; Dileep Premachandran, associate editor, Cricinfo; Ramiz Raja, former Pakistan batsman; Mark Richardson, former New Zealand opener; Peter Roebuck, writer; Christian Ryan, former editor of Wisden Australia; Osman Samiuddin, Pakistan editor, Cricinfo; John Stern, editor of the Wisden Cricketer; Javagal Srinath, former India fast bowler; Daniel Vettori, New Zealand captain

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do we have more experience, knowledge and insight than the panel below that came to this conclusion. Its not like it was a poll open to couch cricketers but only people involved professionally over the decade.

come on you don't actually think a poll or panel of a few people is definitive evidence that one player is better than another

 

[viriya]

Do we have more experience, knowledge and insight than the panel below that came to this conclusion. Its not like it was a poll open to couch cricketers but only people involved professionally over the decade.

Jonathan Agnew, BBC cricket correspondent; Mushtaq Ahmed, former Pakistan legspinner; Sambit Bal, Cricinfo editor; Scyld Berry, editor, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack; Rahul Bhattacharya, writer; Harsha Bhogle, writer and TV presenter; Geoff Boycott, former England opener; Alex Brown, deputy editor, Cricinfo; John Buchanan, former Australia coach; Ian Chappell, former Australia captain; Tony Cozier, writer and commentator; Martin Crowe, former New Zealand captain; Peter English, Australasia editor, Cricinfo; Graham Gooch, former England captain; Tony Greig, former England captain, and commentator; Gideon Haigh, writer; Rob Houwing, chief writer for Sport24.co.za; Athar Ali Khan, former Bangladesh opener; Rashid Latif , former Pakistan wicketkeeper; Geoff Lawson, former Australia fast bowler; David Lloyd, former England coach; Ranjan Madugalle, ICC match referee; Pradeep Magazine , writer; Sanjay Manjrekar, writer and former India batsman; Neil Manthorp, broadcaster and writer; Ayaz Memon, writer; Suresh Menon, writer; Andrew Miller, UK editor, Cricinfo; Tom Moody, former Australia allrounder, former Sri Lanka coach; Dileep Premachandran, associate editor, Cricinfo; Ramiz Raja, former Pakistan batsman; Mark Richardson, former New Zealand opener; Peter Roebuck, writer; Christian Ryan, former editor of Wisden Australia; Osman Samiuddin, Pakistan editor, Cricinfo; John Stern, editor of the Wisden Cricketer; Javagal Srinath, former India fast bowler; Daniel Vettori, New Zealand captain

That panel is heavily big 3 weighted so it's not surprising. Ponting is aussie and he dominated vs India in Aus during that period. Smaller countries like SL are ignored in panels like that.

Also there is pressure to pick a player from the dominant team of that decade.

 

[indiaholic]

Viriya reasonable case for Tendulkar between 1 Jan 1993 to 31 Dec 2004? Or would you give that to Murali?