The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

[Johnners]

Richard/Ikki, the personal stuff, please cut it out. If either of you have a problem with what each other is saying, use the report button (It's there for a reason!) and let the mods sort it out instead of going tit for tat and boring the crap out of everyone else in the mean time.

 

[Richard]

Richard/Ikki, the personal stuff, please cut it out.

Thanks, maybe he'll take some notice this time. Trouble is the possible lack of realisation that "you speak non-sense all the time" (and many similar comments) is "personal stuff"; hopefully maybe this realisation might come now.

 

[Ikki]

I don't care what you have to say. Let it go and move on.

 

[Ikki]

Richard/Ikki, the personal stuff, please cut it out. If either of you have a problem with what each other is saying, use the report button (It's there for a reason!) and let the mods sort it out instead of going tit for tat and boring the crap out of everyone else in the mean time.

Thanks, I'm done. Next time he plays forum-cop I'll formally complain.

 

[zaremba]

Please both of you don't try to have the last word or this one will run and run...

 

[Richard]

Think manufacturing a post of the CryBaby smiley is about the most pathetic excuse for an attempted last-word you'll see for a fair while, so it's a perfectly acceptable one in my book.

 

[Furball]

One question I have is how much does this have to do with the pitches and how much to do with the bowlers themselves?

It seems like a chicken and egg thing. All of McGrath, Murali, Akhtar, Steyn, Pollock and Warne would have been champions in other eras. Who knows whether Ntini, Lee, Gillespie, Hoggard etc... might have been revered like Waqar, Bishop et al are these days had the pitches been more favourable in the 00s?

I'm tempted to say it's down to the bowlers to be honest, having thought about it.

Glenn McGrath averaged 20.53 in the decade, as did Murali.

Warne's record in the 90s and 00s is strikingly similar, although his strike rate in the 00s is a massive improvement on his 90s SR.

Pollock, despite being in decline for much of the decade (compared to his earlier peaks) still has a good record.

Steyn and Shoaib also have pretty great records (admittedly Shoaib has missed a lot of Test cricket).

Guys like Asif and Bond also have excellent records, although with a small statistical sample size.

IMO bowlers of the calibre of Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim, Walsh and Donald would still have been epic this decade, despite the flat pitches.

 

[James]

Think manufacturing a post of the CryBaby smiley is about the most pathetic excuse for an attempted last-word you'll see for a fair while, so it's a perfectly acceptable one in my book.

Just let it go please Richard....

 

[stephen]

I'm tempted to say it's down to the bowlers to be honest, having thought about it.

Glenn McGrath averaged 20.53 in the decade, as did Murali.

Warne's record in the 90s and 00s is strikingly similar, although his strike rate in the 00s is a massive improvement on his 90s SR.

Pollock, despite being in decline for much of the decade (compared to his earlier peaks) still has a good record.

Steyn and Shoaib also have pretty great records (admittedly Shoaib has missed a lot of Test cricket).

Guys like Asif and Bond also have excellent records, although with a small statistical sample size.

IMO bowlers of the calibre of Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim, Walsh and Donald would still have been epic this decade, despite the flat pitches.

The question though, is if those players would not have had a higher average in this decade. I mean with some "flat pitch inflation", would we revere Waqar so much? What if he averaged around 28?

Looking over the records, there were a lot more bowlers in the 90s who were 2nd and 3rd bowlers who averaged near or under 30. Today a bowler averaging under 30 is hard to find outside the leader of the attack for each respective country.

I mean look at Australia, which probably has the most well rounded fast bowling attack in the world today. Johnson and Siddle average 28-29 and Hilf averages a shade over 30. I personally think that at least Johnson and Siddle are better than someone like Reiffel and yet their averages are very similar. I am unsure of what to make of this.

 

[bagapath]

I mean look at Australia, which probably has the most well rounded fast bowling attack in the world today. Johnson and Siddle average 28-29 and Hilf averages a shade over 30. I personally think that at least Johnson and Siddle are better than someone like Reiffel and yet their averages are very similar. I am unsure of what to make of this.

all these guys are still in the early stages of their careers. if you look at the careers of past greats like marshall or mcgrath or ambrose they were understudies to more experienced (in some cases, already great) pacers for 3-4 seasons before they came on their own. their averages came down from early thirties to mid twenties within a season or two and steadily came down to early twenties where they finished their careers. the SR and ER also became better and better with experience. i think it is difficult to slot test cricketers until they complete 4 full seasons in international cricket. to use a batsman as example, imagine how highly hussey would have been rated if he had finished his career in 2007. as sunil gavaskar said, for any cricketer who tastes success early in his career the second season, when the other teams sort him out, and the third season, when he has to do something to bounce back, are crucial in determining the path his career would take.

 

[Richard]

The question though, is if those players would not have had a higher average in this decade. I mean with some "flat pitch inflation", would we revere Waqar so much? What if he averaged around 28?

Looking at what we know made bowlers like Waqar, Donald etc. so good I'd say flat decks would have minimal impact. Obviously they were deadly on a dicey deck, but they were also quite capable of being almost as lethal on a flat one, because they had so many tools at their disposal.

The same is not true for the Andersons, Hoggards, Ntinis, etc. The best of the best post-2001/02 has by-and-large been not merely fewer in number but lesser in calibre than those of 1992-2001 (to pick the period start merely because that's when international cricket became what it was, with the re-addition of South Africa and addition of Zimbabwe).

Certainly with lesser numbers of ridiculously lifeless decks the post-2001/02 era would've been less run-laden, but I still think there'd have been some sort of rise in scoring, simply because any number of outstanding bowlers disappeared from the game almost precisely simultaneously. The ****tail of almost instantaneous uniform confirmation to type of flat decks and almost instantaneous vanishing of any number of outstanding bowlers to be replaced by a mixture of the decent and the very poor has combined to make batting far easier than at any point in cricket history post-2001/02, IMO.

 

[Furball]

Looking over the records, there were a lot more bowlers in the 90s who were 2nd and 3rd bowlers who averaged near or under 30. Today a bowler averaging under 30 is hard to find outside the leader of the attack for each respective country.

I think that one's down to the pitches - the guys who in the 90s who averaged 28, 29 would this decade probably have averaged 30-32 with the ball.

However, the top talents - as proven by the likes of McGrath, Pollock, Steyn, Warne, Murali, Sohaib, Asif, Bond - would still be able to average mid to low 20s this decade.

 

[arcane]

It would be nice to see the poll with all the votes.

Anyways..

I think its Sachin - Akram. I cant say more than what has already been said, but I will say that I chose them because I feel the ODIs were HUGE part of 90s cricket and they ruled them too with tests.

 

[Athlai]

Okay my rough count has:

Warne: 10
Ambrose: 19
Tendulkar: 27
Lara: 14
Donald: 3
S Waugh: 5
Wasim: 10
Waqar: 2
Crowe: 1
Inzamam: 1
M Waugh: 3

Lots of people voted multiple times though, but we can still take Tendulkar and Ambrose as leaders comfortably I think.

 

[stephen]

I think we can comfortably say that the top two batsmen were Tendulkar and Lara and the top two bowlers Ambrose and Warne.

It really goes to show how valuable a top class bowler is to a side. Look at how the WIndies crumbled at the loss of Ambrose and Walsh.

 

[Athlai]

I think we can comfortably say that the top two batsmen were Tendulkar and Lara and the top two bowlers Ambrose and Warne.

It really goes to show how valuable a top class bowler is to a side. Look at how the WIndies crumbled at the loss of Ambrose and Walsh.

Well they crumbled because it went from Walsh to Powell.

 

[Athlai]

Personally I think its Tendulkar in the batting by a mile. Gooch is a man who should have been mentioned at some stage as well.

In the bowling I'd say Waqar, pretty surprised at how underrated he is.

 

[subshakerz]

I think we can comfortably say that the top two batsmen were Tendulkar and Lara and the top two bowlers Ambrose and Warne.

It really goes to show how valuable a top class bowler is to a side. Look at how the WIndies crumbled at the loss of Ambrose and Walsh.

The only comfortable one there is Tendulkar. Lara has to battle with Steve Waugh for second spot.

There's very little to chose between Ambrose, Akram and Donald, all of their records are superb. I would go slightly for Akram as he was excellent in almost all conditions.

 

[Richard]

Personally I think its Tendulkar in the batting by a mile. Gooch is a man who should have been mentioned at some stage as well.

Gooch may have been better than anyone else but he was so for only 4 years (well, 4 years plus 1 innings) out of the 10. His excellence in the time in question led me to idolise him and he remains my inaugural cricketing hero, but I'd never claim he could be considered for best batsman of the 1990s because he was so for less than half of said decade.

 

[honestbharani]

The only comfortable one there is Tendulkar. Lara has to battle with Steve Waugh for second spot.

There's very little to chose between Ambrose, Akram and Donald, all of their records are superb. I would go slightly for Akram as he was excellent in almost all conditions.

I don't see why Tendulkar is comfortably ahead of Lara at all, tbh...