Best Cricketer of the Past Twenty Five Years

[The Mole]

Shane Warne changed cricket. Until then spinners were playing an increasingly minor role and leg spin had all but disappeared

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

You can be the best batsman in the past 25 years
You can be the best bowler in the past 25 years
You can be a game changing batsman that keeps wicket.
But there is only one best all rounder, scores loads of runs consistantly, gets loads of wickets consistantly and is a great slip fielder.
The others are great in their specialist field, only Kallis fits the complete picture.

 

[Mackenzie]

You can be the best batsman in the past 25 years
You can be the best bowler in the past 25 years
You can be a game changing batsman that keeps wicket.
But there is only one best all rounder, scores loads of runs consistantly, gets loads of wickets consistantly and is a great slip fielder.
The others are great in their specialist field, only Kallis fits the complete picture.

Unfortunately for Kallis he hasn't got the personality to match his cricketing talent, he just quietly goes about his business. Had he got the extrovert personality of a Warne I'm sure his ability would be appreciated more widely.

He's a useful bloke to have in your team, he'll grind you out a 50, take 2 for 30 odd and catch a couple at slip. Every innings.

 

[joeinbrighton]

I don't think you necessarily have to be an all-rounder in order to be the greatest cricketer. I mean, using that analogy, is Daley Thompson the best track and field athlete of all time because he won 2 Olympic gold medals competing in 10 disciplines? That's not denigrate Kallis who has been awesome for South Africa for a decade and a half, but I'd say Warne and Tendulkar have turned in probably more match winning performances in test matches over the years despite specialising in one area (although Warne was also a fine slip catcher, pretty able lower order batsman and an innovative captain) than Kallis has done where he has contributed in all departments.

In terms of the options in the list, I wonder if Ricky Ponting's standing in the game would be greater if it wasn't for him captaining Australia to 3 Ashes series defeats. Because as a batsman, he was imperious, scoring 41 centuries in test matches in his career and often composing big knocks when his country needed them and doing so with a lot of flair.

 

[joeinbrighton]

Murali for me. Warne had the benefit of playing for the best side.

Australia were not the best side when Warne started playing for them. He was the catalyst for them becoming the great side in the years that followed as he was in the team and winning test matches quite some time before their other standout players, McGrath, Ponting, Hayden and Gilchrist came along.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

Its a loaded question.
The best bowler will not be the best batsman, likewise, the best batsman will not be the best bowler.
But, IMHO, if you are one of the best in the world in both categories, then that swings it for me.

 

[Berty23]

I don't think you necessarily have to be an all-rounder in order to be the greatest cricketer. I mean, using that analogy, is Daley Thompson the best track and field athlete of all time because he won 2 Olympic gold medals competing in 10 disciplines? That's not denigrate Kallis who has been awesome for South Africa for a decade and a half, but I'd say Warne and Tendulkar have turned in probably more match winning performances in test matches over the years despite specialising in one area (although Warne was also a fine slip catcher, pretty able lower order batsman and an innovative captain) than Kallis has done where he has contributed in all departments.

In terms of the options in the list, I wonder if Ricky Ponting's standing in the game would be greater if it wasn't for him captaining Australia to 3 Ashes series defeats. Because as a batsman, he was imperious, scoring 41 centuries in test matches in his career and often composing big knocks when his country needed them and doing so with a lot of flair.

Sachin won fewer matches than both laxman and Dravid. If it is match winning batting you want then your man is Brian Charles Lara.

 

[Bring back Bryan wade!!]

Excellent question, has to be warne for me, an absolute magician of a bowler who could get turn on even the most placid of wickets. His test wicket total combined with his often underrated batting stats make him the strongest contender on the list.

Also it makes you realise that England have never had a player who has been able to sustain brilliance over a long period. Yes Freddie at times (notably 2005 ashes) and KP when on top form is as dangerous as any batsman in test cricket (Vaughan's 600 runs in Australia in 2003 also deserves a mention) but none of them have done it year in, year out.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

There was a time when Hoppo would have walked this poll.

How quickly people forget.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Kallis certainly has the stats; but its hard to consider him the very best of the past 25 years. For when thing I can't recall him ever winning a test match in the way all the others have repeatedly done; and for the other, he's just not that exciting. He's a solid, technically excellent but unflamboyant batsman; he's a steady, nagging bowler who picks up wickets with a good mastery of swing but without ever blowing anyone away.

Sangakkara, Jayawardene and Dravid are all omissions from your list perhaps for the same reasons. But for me the best bowler of the past 25 years is Glenn McGrath and I can't believe you've left him out. so I voted for Warne instead.

 

[grawhite]

For me Raul Dravid was a better batsman than Sachin, always putting the team first over runs scored, but still ended up close to Sachins runs.

 

[Trigger]

There was nobody better than Brian Charles Lara.

 

[Elvis]

For me its Warne. He could of turned a ball on my tiled kitchen floor. Truly remarkable bowler, personality wise he's a **** but with no shadow of a doubt the best cricketer I've ever seen.

Lara was a beautifully crafted batsman. Ability to score all around the ground. The only negative for BCL is I have a nagging doubt that he put his personal achievements above that of his team!!!

 

[Triggaaar]

Australia were not the best side when Warne started playing for them. He was the catalyst for them becoming the great side in the years that followed as he was in the team and winning test matches quite some time before their other standout players, McGrath, Ponting, Hayden and Gilchrist came along.

With Warne, we're talking about either the best, or second best bowler over the last 25 years, so of course he was a part of Australia's success. But he was far from the only great player Australia had. I just think he gets more recognition than Murali because the side he played for were the best, and the spotlight is always more on Australi/England than a team like Sri Lanka.

 

[knocky1]

If murali was Australian and Warne Sri Lankan he would be accepted as the best bowler ever.

Not in Sri Lanka!

 

[Lewes' best seagull]

Sub-continent pitches tend to take spin as the pitches are drier and dustier plus it's bloomin hard to steam in in 40 C heat.However, all the sub-continent batsmen are weaned on spin and as such in order to winkle them out you have to be a really good spinner. You can't just turn up and expect wickets down there, you have to work at it so Murali really was a king amongst spinners.

But Murali wasn't playing against other subcontinent batsmen, when he played at home he's more likely to have played against England, Australia, West Indies etc than India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Batsmen who are used to the quicker, pace-friendly pitches.

 

[Billy the Fish]

The Warne Murali debate is a good one. There are pros and cons either way

Warne was a much better all round cricketer than Murali. If Murali had spent most of his career playing outside the spin friendly subcontinent like Warne did I don't think he'd have got as many wickets.

**I was looking for Murali's record in Australia and found this article. No point in me banging on when this is a proper analysis, when everything is weighed up it really is neck and neck between them!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/466589.html

 

[Trevor]

It would have been interesting if their situations had been reversed. Murali would bowl marathon spells - whereas Australia had other good options - which meant more opportunity for Murali but more protection for Warne. I think towards the end of Warne's career his cricketing skills diminished although his brain didn't.

 

[joeinbrighton]

With Warne, we're talking about either the best, or second best bowler over the last 25 years, so of course he was a part of Australia's success. But he was far from the only great player Australia had. I just think he gets more recognition than Murali because the side he played for were the best, and the spotlight is always more on Australi/England than a team like Sri Lanka.

My point was that he was the first of their 'Golden Generation' that broke through (well, other than Steve Waugh) and so when he started playing for Australia, they were definitely not the best team in the world. His breakthrough series was Australia's Ashes win in England in 1993 with the 'Ball of the Century' to Gatting etc but Australia were not the best team in the world at that point, they had lost a home series to the West Indies the previous winter. It was not until Australia went to the West Indies in around about 1995 and won the series that they became number 1 and then spent the next decade there. Warne was instrumental in being the catalyst in taking Australia from number 2 or 3 in the world to undisputed number 1 and then keeping them there.

 

[melias shoes]

With the retirement of Sachin Tendulkar, I wanted to get opinions on the best cricketer of the past twenty five years. For my money there are six contenders:-

Shane Warne
Sachin Tendulakar
Murali
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist
Brian Lara

Pollock & McGrath close but missing out on the shortlist.

What about the opening pairing of Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer? Those two could score some runs and quickly too. Then when you finally got them out Ponting would arrived. Then Gilchrist at number 6 would Quickfire a century. Glen McGrath and Bret Lee would rip through the opening order especially Atherton,I think McGrath got him practically every time. Then warne would mop up the innings. That was a bloody good side. Glad they're gone to be honest. Although Gilchrist was an honest batsman and would wall most times,how many catches did he claim that hadn't been edged.