Five Cricketers Of The Decade 2000-2009

[sledger]

Tendulkar had 2 bad seasons - 2004-05 and 2006-07. A lot more is made out of it that is required to be very honest. There was the inconsistent 2003-04 but he still averages 51 there. Hell Lara has had several inconsistent spells. Just because it was Tendulkar, people made a furore about it.

I disagree, I don't think anyone is saying he was poor, he just wasn't of the calibre required to make a top five of the decade. If the time span we were covering was say 1994-2004 I would say he would justifiably make most peoples lists. But despite being good since the turn of the decade, I don't think he has been consistantly awesome enough to be categorised in the same bracket as Ponting and Kallis.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I interpreted it as five cricketers who had left their mark on the decade, not necessarily due to pure performance and MVP value, but also on popularity. And on that score, Tendulkar trumps pretty much every cricketer since Bradman.

In hindsight, that probably disqualifies Pollock, a bit of a shame considering his all-round value...maybe McGrath in there.

 

[Pratters]

I don't think he has been consistantly awesome enough to be categorised in the same bracket as Ponting and Kallis.

Disagreed, particularly when you look at his role in tests and ODI cricket, the crucial knocks he has played.

 

[sledger]

Disagreed, particularly when you look at his role in tests and ODI cricket.

Yes, his record is exceptional. If he had kept up with the way he was before the whole tennis elbow business I would be inclined to agree, but as stated earlier I don't think he performances since recovering from that injury have been up there with those of the other players mentioned, despite being above average by any normal players standards.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, his record is exceptional. If he had kept up with the way he was before the whole tennis elbow business I would be inclined to agree, but as stated earlier I don't think he performances since recovering from that injury have been up there with those of the other players mentioned, despite being above average by any normal players standards.

His test stats don't add up but add his ODI performances which never dwindled and the crucial innings he has played in tests and ODI cricket and it adds up IMO for Tendulkar to at least have a case for himself.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Surprised not to have seen Steve Tikolo mentioned yet.

 

[sledger]

His test stats don't add up but add his ODI performances which never dwindled and the crucial innings he has played in tests and ODI cricket and it adds up IMO for Tendulkar to at least have a case for himself.

Oh yeah, I think there is definitely a case, a very strong one in fact, I just think he misses out personally, though not by much.

 

[Pratters]

Oh yeah, I think there is definitely a case, a very strong one in fact, I just think he misses out personally, though not by much.

Yeah I think he misses out too.

 

[SJS]

A few fairly-but-not-absolutely rigid criteria would be:

No-one who debuted after 2001;
No-one whose careers were over before 2008;
No-one who had a lengthy down spell at any time;
Only people who are outstanding Test cricketers, rather than merely decent ones, or outstanding ODI and merely decent Test cricketers.

For example - there's no doubt the performances of Andrew Flintoff between 2003/04 and 2006/07 were outstanding, but far too short-lived to be up there when the entire decade is under consideration, in addition to the fact he only became worthy of selection in 2001/02 and spent lengthy spells out injured, including a whole 18 consecutive months. For another example - Mahendra Dhoni has been undoubtedly the best ODI wicketkeeper-batsman ever from 2005 to 2009-so-far, but didn't play before that and is nothing more than a decent Test player. No way would I consider Tendulkar who was frankly pretty poor, never mind mediocre, from 2002/03 to 2005/06.

If at all a time frame has to be a criteria) I think five years of international cricket in the decade should be good enough to fix eligibility. There is no reason why Shoaib Akhtar (who played/was active right through the decade) should be picked over Steyn with this performance.

Shoaib : 178 wickets at 25.7
Steyn : 170 at 23.7

Note : These are just Test figures I know but I am just trying to make a point not supporting Steyn's case

Many fast bowlers will have ten years at the top. If their careers were split between two decades thats no reason to ignore them for eligibility, for either decade, if the figures are phenomenal.

I think if someone has played for half the period and has fantastic figures besides, he should be eligible.

 

[Ikki]

Tendulkar had 2 bad seasons - 2004-05 and 2006-07. A lot more is made out of it that is required to be very honest. There was the inconsistent 2003-04 but he still averages 51 there. Hell Lara has had several inconsistent spells. Just because it was Tendulkar, people made a furore about it.

If you look at sheer stats the guys like Md. Yousuf deserve more than the credit he has got. Tendulkar has played crucial innings for his team whether it be ODIs or tests and has a case for being among the top 5 players of the 2000s just like any other good player this decade. I am not saying he essentially should be in that top 5. That's why I replied to Hakon's post with an interesting quote.

I'd say from about 2003-2007 he only really had one good year. Take out the minnows and then look at his record year by year.

I am not saying his record is poor, but to crack the top 5? I don't think it's good enough and when you have 5-6 batsmen with records as good, and probably better, who they themselves probably won't make the top 5, then it's a stretch to put his name down IMO.

 

[bagapath]

I'd say from about 2003-2007 he only really had one good year. Take out the minnows and then look at his record year by year.

I am not saying his record is poor, but to crack the top 5? I don't think it's good enough and when you have 5-6 batsmen with records as good, and probably better, who they themselves probably won't make the top 5, then it's a stretch to put his name down IMO.

I agree. i can think of his hundreds in eng, pak, nz and wi and his 71 in perth that had direct bearing on the results. but unless you take the ODIs into consideration sachin is not a top 5 cricketer of this decade. he would possibly be the no.1 player of the 90s but this is what I feel despite his more significant contributions in test victories around the globe in this decade.

 

[Pratters]

I'd say from about 2003-2007 he only really had one good year. Take out the minnows and then look at his record year by year.

I am not saying his record is poor, but to crack the top 5? I don't think it's good enough and when you have 5-6 batsmen with records as good, and probably better, who they themselves probably won't make the top 5, then it's a stretch to put his name down IMO.

2 years or 3.5, that's not the important thing. I took seasons while you took years. Coming to the point -

Ikki, I am perfectly comfortable with some one having the view that Tendulkar didn't even come close. That's what I expect the general consensus will be.

However, I take tests, ODIs and his individual innings into account and believe he has a case to be considered. I don't believe that he would be in the top 5 either.

 

[Ikki]

I can see how someone taking in ODI may reasonably have him in there but personally, I think it's highly questionable anyone putting his name forward with respect to Tests. To the point that I don't think it's very logical, for the reasons I stated, and would begrudge them putting him there. But I guess we're not going to agree.

 

[Athlai]

Not just by who is bestest or anything but also by impact on cricket this decade:


Shakib Al Hasan - Brightest light Bangladesh has ever had

Ponting - Him and his Australians basically led to their total dominance till the late 00's

Murali - Took 547 wickets @ 20.13

Kallis - A machine

G Smith - The next Ponting?

 

[morgieb]

Ponting
Gilchrist
McGrath
Warne/Murali
Kallis

Probably some others, too.

 

[Matt79]

Surprised that no-one has mentioned Matt Hayden yet. In the period specified, 96 tests for 8364 runs at 52.93, including 29 centuries - only Ponting has more in that time (32). I know there are legitimate debates to be had about his place in any all-time considerations of greatness, but few batsmen have dominated the period like that.

My five for that period would be:
McGrath
Muralitharan
Ponting
Hayden
Kallis

Gilchrist would be my sixth. Honestly, I'd probably have him in ahead of Kallis on my gut/heart, but my head is telling me to try and be balanced about it.

 

[subshakerz]

Surprised that no-one has mentioned Matt Hayden yet. In the period specified, 96 tests for 8364 runs at 52.93, including 29 centuries - only Ponting has more in that time (32). I know there are legitimate debates to be had about his place in any all-time considerations of greatness, but few batsmen have dominated the period like that.

My five for that period would be:
McGrath
Muralitharan
Ponting
Hayden
Kallis

Gilchrist would be my sixth. Honestly, I'd probably have him in ahead of Kallis on my gut/heart, but my head is telling me to try and be balanced about it.

Hayden did well but I feel Gilchrist needs the recognition for transforming into the greatest wicketkeeper-batsman of all-time. McGrath, Murali, Ponting, Kallis, and Gilchrist. Also, that covers all categories (top pacer, spinner, batsman, all-rounder, and keeper) nicely.

 

[Migara]

best batsmen (2000-2009) - by average and at least 20 hits at the middle.

Unexpected guy leads, Andy Flower. If his career was not cut short by Mugabe, then would have given Ponting a run for his money. Second place is Md. yousuf. Third is Ponting. Althouh Yoususf averages 60 he has been poor gainst best of three bowling atatcks of the era. For me it's match up between Andy Flower and Ponting.

Bowlers (2000-2009) - minimum of 15 matches. Murali leads as the spinner by far. McGrath has a good record, but Akthar is not far behing with his super SR.

Batsman - Ponting / Flower
Spinner - Murali
Fast bowler - Akthar / McGrath
Wicketkeeper - Gilchrist
All rounder - Kallis

 

[Athlai]

I'd give it to Akthar, his troubled career reflecting the troubles of Pakistan's cricket in this decade. Don't really think this decade should be defined by 'great' bowlers

 

[The Sean]

Not even close IMO - if you're going to give Akhtar a shout out on S/R grounds then you should include Bond and Steyn too. McGrath a class or several above all of them.