Best Cricketer of the Past Twenty Five Years

[Gwylan]

I can't believe this, I clicked on the thread expecting The Little Master to have 95-100% of the vote. Good job the peple within cricket treat him with the respect he deserves.

Bowlers win matches though - there are plenty of decent batsmen around but for me it was a toss-up between Warne and Murali as they won so many games for their teams. I voted for Warne, partly because he made leg-spin fashionable again and partly because he was an all-round better cricketer: a decent batsman, an excellent field and a sharp cricket brain.

I do have sympathy with the support for Steve Waugh - he didn't have the talent of Tendulkar or Lara (or any number of cricketers, including is own brother) but I've never seen any cricketer more determined nor any cricketer who has squeezed out every last drop of ability. If I had a pick a cricketer to play for my life, Tugga would be the man

 

[crodonilson]

Bowlers win matches though - there are plenty of decent batsmen around but for me it was a toss-up between Warne and Murali as they won so many games for their teams. I voted for Warne, partly because he made leg-spin fashionable again and partly because he was an all-round better cricketer: a decent batsman, an excellent field and a sharp cricket brain.

I do have sympathy with the support for Steve Waugh - he didn't have the talent of Tendulkar or Lara (or any number of cricketers, including is own brother) but I've never seen any cricketer more determined nor any cricketer who has squeezed out every last drop of ability. If I had a pick a cricketer to play for my life, Tugga would be the man

Do they? Bowlers only win matches with scores behind them to bowl to attacking fields. The Little Master was the best, everyone within cricket has said that. There's no argument really.

 

[Gwylan]

Do they? Bowlers only win matches with scores behind them to bowl to attacking fields. The Little Master was the best, everyone within cricket has said that. There's no argument really.

"Bowlers win matches" is a pretty well-established cricketing phrase. And yes, Tendulkar was the best of the modern batsman but the best cricketer? As has been pointed out already, he wasn't in the top 5 cricketers of the century, even though he was at his peak when that list was chosen; Warne was - even though he'd yet to reach his best. So, it's certainly not true that "everyone in cricket" has said he was the best

 

[Mackenzie]

Do they? Bowlers only win matches with scores behind them to bowl to attacking fields. The Little Master was the best, everyone within cricket has said that. There's no argument really.

Sunil Gavaskar?

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Warne for me. His control and frustration of batsman must have resulted in a fair few wickets for the bowler at the other end.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Jacques Kallis for me. I don't know why his talent is so under appreciated in this country. As of 2013 he is the only cricketer in the history of the game to score more than 11,000 runs and 250 wickets in both one-day and Test match cricket. 55 run test average, 44 centuries, the man is a machine. Throw 288 test wickets into the mix at 32.43, and you simply have one of the greatest players to have ever played the game, let alone in the past 25 years.

This is no disrespect to the incredible talents of the others listed of course, but in the modern game, for an allrounder to be this good in both disciplines is astonishing.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Jacques Kallis for me. I don't know why his talent is so under appreciated in this country. As of 2013 he is the only cricketer in the history of the game to score more than 11,000 runs and 250 wickets in both one-day and Test match cricket. 55 run test average, 44 centuries, the man is a machine. Throw 288 test wickets into the mix at 32.43, and you simply have one of the greatest players to have ever played the game, let alone in the past 25 years.

This is no disrespect to the incredible talents of the others listed of course, but in the modern game, for an allrounder to be this good in both disciplines is astonishing.

Totally, totally agree. The man is incredible. The ravages of time have reduced him to a decent fourth seamer now, but at his peak he was one of the best fast bowlers in the world, AS WELL as one of the top batsman. I don't think anyone else in cricket HISTORY has ever really achieved that.

The only others I can think of worthy of consideration would be Sobers (but not in the same league as a FAST bowler) and Botham (supremely talented, but didn't achieve anything close to what Kallis has done, over a sustained period). the likes of Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee and Imran were all top class all rounders, but none were good enough to be worthy of a top order batting place alone. This debate excludes wicket-keepers of course. Gilchrist, Sangakarra and Boucher, for example have been brillinat performers in two disciplines.

 

[crodonilson]

"Bowlers win matches" is a pretty well-established cricketing phrase. And yes, Tendulkar was the best of the modern batsman but the best cricketer? As has been pointed out already, he wasn't in the top 5 cricketers of the century, even though he was at his peak when that list was chosen; Warne was - even though he'd yet to reach his best. So, it's certainly not true that "everyone in cricket" has said he was the best

I understand the phrase, you can't win a match without taking 20 wickets. However you can't win a game without producing runs either, if you have a poor batting line up then you put pressure on your bowlers and can't set the attacking fields to take those wickets. I think only now are people realising just how good Tendaukar was, how much the sport will miss him, more so than Warne, Walsh, Murali etc. He leaves a huge hold not just in the India side but in the sport of cricket which is going to be impossible to fill.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Voted Warne from that list but I would actually have chosen Glen McGrath if he was on there.

Of all the many great players England have faced over the years he was always the one I feared the most.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

I understand the phrase, you can't win a match without taking 20 wickets. However you can't win a game without producing runs either, if you have a poor batting line up then you put pressure on your bowlers and can't set the attacking fields to take those wickets. I think only now are people realising just how good Tendaukar was, how much the sport will miss him, more so than Warne, Walsh, Murali etc. He leaves a huge hold not just in the India side but in the sport of cricket which is going to be impossible to fill.

Bowlers are more important. If you only score 100 runs in each innings you still have a chance of winning a match, if you can't take 20 wickets you won't, simple. My top 5 players of the last 25 years would probably all be bowlers.

On the subject of Tendulkar, I also feel that Lara was the better batsman.

 

[crodonilson]

Bowlers are more important. If you only score 100 runs in each innings you still have a chance of winning a match, if you can't take 20 wickets you won't, simple. My top 5 players of the last 25 years would probably all be bowlers.

On the subject of Tendulkar, I also feel that Lara was the better batsman.

Absolute poppycock.

Even Lara acknowledges the Little Master as the greatest ever.

Lara: Tendaulker was the best EVER

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Jacques Kallis for me. I don't know why his talent is so under appreciated in this country. As of 2013 he is the only cricketer in the history of the game to score more than 11,000 runs and 250 wickets in both one-day and Test match cricket. 55 run test average, 44 centuries, the man is a machine. Throw 288 test wickets into the mix at 32.43, and you simply have one of the greatest players to have ever played the game, let alone in the past 25 years.

This is no disrespect to the incredible talents of the others listed of course, but in the modern game, for an allrounder to be this good in both disciplines is astonishing.

Its exactly because he'a a machine he's under appreciated. Just boring really, doesn't blow people away with his bowling, rarely is the difference between victory and defeat with his batting. Just a steady accumulator. Not denying he'sa great player but will never feature in debates about the greatest.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Not denying he'sa great player but will never feature in debates about the greatest.

He's featuring in THIS one.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Its exactly because he'a a machine he's under appreciated. Just boring really, doesn't blow people away with his bowling, rarely is the difference between victory and defeat with his batting. Just a steady accumulator. Not denying he'sa great player but will never feature in debates about the greatest.

You sure about that!?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/why-jacques-kallis-is-the-greatest-ever-cricketer-7953464.html
http://zeenews.india.com/sports/cricket/jacques-kallis-is-the-best-cricketer-the-world-has-ever-seen_751250.html
http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cricket/proteas/kallis-is-the-greatest-cricketer-waugh-1.1551305#.UouKoGSgbq8
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/9399673/All-round-greatness-of-South-Africas-Jacques-Kallis-faces-a-real-test-against-England-says-Michael-Vaughan.html

 

[Bold Seagull]

I can't believe this, I clicked on the thread expecting The Little Master to have 95-100% of the vote. Good job the peple within cricket treat him with the respect he deserves.

I understand the phrase, you can't win a match without taking 20 wickets. However you can't win a game without producing runs either, if you have a poor batting line up then you put pressure on your bowlers and can't set the attacking fields to take those wickets. I think only now are people realising just how good Tendaukar was, how much the sport will miss him, more so than Warne, Walsh, Murali etc. He leaves a huge hold not just in the India side but in the sport of cricket which is going to be impossible to fill.

Absolute poppycock.

Even Lara acknowledges the Little Master as the greatest ever.

Lara: Tendaulker was the best EVER

Hopefully with the reverence and respect you hold for the great man, you'll spell his name right eventually!

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

That's all fine, but we're looking at his success over his whole career, not just the couple of years before Australia became the best side. So I'm just saying he was helped by being in a great side (and he was the best bowler in that side), and the fact that the side wasn't as great when he started isn't really relevant.

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.

And to be perfectly honest, if Murali had played for Australia instead of Shane, the same thing would have happened - Australia would still have become number 1 and stayed there.

 

[Berty23]

Absolute poppycock.

Even Lara acknowledges the Little Master as the greatest ever.

Lara: Tendaulker was the best EVER

If sachin is the best ever why is he 29th. Yes twenty ninth for highest career test ranking. Some odd names are higher due to a crazy purple patch but.....can anyone be the best ever who has 28 players with a higher pb rating?

Dravid won more matches Ffs.

Lara has said that Tendulkar best batsman but kallis the greatest cricketer.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24941869

Ps. How much of bradman did Lara see?

 

[big nuts]

Prime for prime I think Lara was the better and more destructive batsman over Tendulkar. Tendulkar had the greater longevity but Lara had less to bat with and that makes a big difference.

Kallis has the stats but I voted for Warne an unbelievable cricketer.

 

[matthew]

My vote goes to Sangakkara.

Averaging 57.83 in test match cricket and the fastest player ever to get to 11,000 runs.

When he's not wicketkeeper he averages something like 75...

Only the Don can beat stats like that!