Give your criteria for how you assess cricketers

[Coronis]

That's a flawed method bruh. By that definition, Mark Waugh should be superior to J Kallis

What if you enjoyed watching Kallis more than Waugh?

 

[shortpitched713]

apart from that I’ve learned that England have never produced a great bowler or batsman in the last 50 years and any success gained is down to pure good fortune

basically all cricket knowledge gained was wrong and so to answer the thread question , you tell me

Botham, Anderson, Root, off the top of my head.

 

[akilana]

I look at the positives of my favourite player and then use them as the criteria

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Do they add something to a team?
Which piece of the puzzle?

Pace
Class
Poise
Runs
Wickets
Bullet arm
Drying up an end
Bowling tough overs
Dependability
X factor - ball, bat, in field
Consistency
Safe hands
Variety - left handed/left arm / different spin option
Multi skills


But also the 1%s

Are they still keen to bowl another over?
Play hard all day?
happy to bowl into the wind?
Happy to bat anywhere?
Do they keep up the talk in the field?
Do they back up/get to the stumps/follow the ball in the field
Chase the ball all the way to the boundary?
Take strike to help their partner?
Get off strike/look for singles?
Back up?
Run the first one hard?
Turn well?

Give it their all when not playing?
Helping with drinks, giving throw downs, encouraging others etc

 

[Fuller Pilch]

- Strike rate (for batsmen)

High strike rate or low?
Give me a blocker over a slogger any day
Watling >>>>>> McCullum

 

[The Sean]

I keep my criteria fairly simple:

- Bombing missions flown over Germany
- Matches played at full-back for St Kilda
- Princesses slept with (allegedly)

 

[Coronis]

High strike rate or low?
Give me a blocker over a slogger any day
Watling >>>>>> McCullum

High strike rate. I care about it so much. Its so relevant.

 

[Red]

Against most opposition in most conditions over a longish period