• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank the decades in terms of cricket quality

Howe_zat

Audio File
I for one will be shocked when the decades in which various CWers grew up in are deemed to be superior.
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
I based mine purely on how many CW considered ATG batters and bowlers fell in each decade


90s had a crapton of legendary bats and bowlers

30s had Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, Headley, enough said

50s had Davidson/Miller/Lindwall, Trueman/Tyson/Statham/Laker/Bedser/Lock/Wardle etc Ramadhin/Valentine and Fazal Mahmood. Gutpe too

Like more than half the bowlers who even got to play a test for England in the 50s have legend status. It's nuts
 
Last edited:

Howe_zat

Audio File
Like more than half the bowlers who even got to play a test for England in the 50s have legend status. It's nuts
I know you're just 'mirin, but honestly this is bull****.

You could probably reel off half a dozen England bowlers of the time with 'legend status', sure, but players like Tattershall, Loader, Brown and Bailey who were just good make up just as many, and this whole exercise completely ignores the players who didn't make it as Test cricketers. Unless you're saying blokes with a handful of tests and a bowling average north of 50 are legends.

I'm not having a go at you, it just ****s me when people hold up the best of the best from previous eras and decide that's all there was, while not giving modern cricket the same luxury.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Post 1930

Batting :
1930s
1940s
2000s
1950s
2010s
1990s
1980s
1970s
1960s

Bowling :
1990s
1950s
1980s
1970s
2010s
1930s
2000s
1940s
1960s

Not much thought put into it but 90s batting is very overrated imo. Sachin, Lara, Waugh were phenomenal but loads of teams had mediocre lineups. Bunch of teams had crappy openers too.
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Post 1930

Batting :
1930s
1940s
2000s
1950s
2010s
1990s
1980s
1970s
1960s

Bowling :
1990s
1950s
1980s
1970s
2010s
1930s
2000s
1940s
1960s

Not much thought put into it but 90s batting is very overrated imo. Sachin, Lara, Waugh were phenomenal but loads of teams had mediocre lineups. Bunch of teams had crappy openers too.

but nearly every team had one that awesome bat. Gooch, Crowe, De Silva, Flower, the Waughs, Lara and Sachin

you had Ponting and Kallis juuust starting to hit their stride at the back end of the decade

and Slater at the end of 1999 had an awesome record
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
Why ignore the pre-thirties? It has the 'golden age' for a start, of prime Hobbs, Trumper, Woolley, Armstrong, Barnes, Rhodes?
 

SillyCowCorner1

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Overall- 70s
When Windies started firing back at those world beaters.

Bowling-70s
Fire in Babylon

Batting- 00s
Lara, ponting, kallis, jayasuriya, sachin, dravid, ganguly, fleming, trescothick,
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
I know you're just 'mirin, but honestly this is bull****.

You could probably reel off half a dozen England bowlers of the time with 'legend status', sure, but players like Tattershall, Loader, Brown and Bailey who were just good make up just as many, and this whole exercise completely ignores the players who didn't make it as Test cricketers. Unless you're saying blokes with a handful of tests and a bowling average north of 50 are legends.

I'm not having a go at you, it just ****s me when people hold up the best of the best from previous eras and decide that's all there was, while not giving modern cricket the same luxury.

I'm talking strictly tests, yes. And due to that i'll ignore the county legend status most of those bowlers you mentioned had, and people like Appleyard too who didn't get to play enough tests but could have easily been a legend. I'll also ignore any all-rounders(Bailey) and any players who debuted in 59 and were therefore more like '60s players'. Yes that's cheating a bit, but it also leaves me without Illingworth to pad my legends list.

English bowlers who played a test from 50-58

Legends:

Bedser
Laker
Wardle
Statham
Trueman
Lock
Tyson
Titmus


Others(amongst them some county legends)

Loader
Mcconnon
Moss
Shackleton
Hilton
Warr
Tattersall
Jenkins
Ridgeway
Appleyard
Brown

Anyway, everything you said was all well and good Howe. You're probably right. But I still find it fascinating the % of ATG bowlers England used in the 50s.
 
Last edited:

SeamUp

International Coach
I based mine purely on how many CW considered ATG batters and bowlers fell in each decade


90s had a crapton of legendary bats and bowlers

30s had Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, Headley, enough said

50s had Davidson/Miller/Lindwall, Trueman/Tyson/Statham/Laker/Bedser/Lock/Wardle etc Ramadhin/Valentine and Fazal Mahmood. Gutpe too

Like more than half the bowlers who even got to play a test for England in the 50s have legend status. It's nuts
Adcock, Heine, Goddard, Tayfied wasn't too bad an attack in the 50s too
 

Top