The 100 Greatest Cricketers of the Last 31 Years
At my desk at home, directly in my eyeline, every day, I see the evidence of my life's pursuit, the yellow covers of the 32 almost identical Wisden Cricketers Almanacks for every year from 1984 to 2015. These are my own years of watching and loving cricket; that's why this list will encompass the slightly awkward figure of 31 years. It could just as well have been 30. There'd have been no change.
I haven't found much about sport to write about lately, and since I'm always happy considering and compiling a list, this seemed the obvious task for me to get the ball rolling again.
I put together something similar for Football a few months ago, though I limited that to post-2000, to avoid going out of my depth in pretending to remember players from the 80s and early 90s I couldn't actually recall that well. I didn't feel that would be a problem for cricket - I've watched huge amounts of cricket since 1984, as much as could be watched, really, and there is less to watch than football, so less to fall through the cracks - really, we're just talking about selecting from 10 teams.
Also, cricket is much easier to read directly via the numbers. We don't deduce that a random footballer who scored a goal every 3 games is necessarily, straightforwardly, a better player than one who scored a goal every 4 games, but we are usually prepared to accept a batsman who averaged 10 more runs in test cricket than another is the superior player. It's not always true, but it's essentially true.
For that is the point, the very meaning of test cricket, to average more per wicket than the opposition. I'm always puzzled by cricket writers who suggest there are more accurate ways of judging the greatness of test cricketers than their batting and bowling averages. No, the average isn't a gauge, a guide, amongst other gauges, it is "it".
Which is not to say that there aren't many variables - eras, state of wickets, position in order, strike rate, ability to form partnerships etc. Sure, they all matter. I'm all for "scientific studies" which find, for example, that Matthew Hayden was actually the greatest batsman of all time or that Matthew Hoggard was England's greatest ever bowler. It's all interesting stuff into the mix.
It's different in the shorter forms, of course, where time is limited, and it's not just a case, fundamentally, of making your alloted 20 wickets count for as much as you can. In ODI and T20 cricket, scoring rate and economy rate are "it", of the essence, even more than average.
And what of those two interlopers, those modern concoctions? Perhaps I should have limited this to "Test Cricketers", for how can you compare across formats fairly? It's bad enough comparing across eras, some would say.
For me, that's part of the fun, that comparison. In comparing across formats, or, in other lists I've made, across sports or eras, I'm stating my terms, I'm saying what I think is better and worth more. This list will give due consideration in its rating of cricketing greatness to both ODI and T20 cricket, which is to say - a bit to the former, not much to the latter.
That approach betrays my background a little. In England, we've long scorned the shorter formats, only for that scorn to come back and bite us with our own ineptitude. Only now is that changing. In other countries ODI cricket has long held more prestige. Take Sanath Jayasuriya - his slightly underwhelming test record is hardly one for a true great, for a god of Sri Lankan cricket, but few have influenced or dominated the one-day format as he did. That can't be discarded. He changed cricket. Nevertheless, there are few truly great cricketers who have failed to thrive in test cricket.
As for T20, well, I have a bit of a get-out clause. When I did my list of The 100 Best Footballers of This Century, I only considered action that took place during this century, so those who'd had prominent careers before 2000 were lower down the list than they might have been (Scholes, Del Piero, Zidane etc). This time, I took a different approach. The thought of seeing, e.g. Viv Richards ranked 64 seemed too silly. So my criteria is to consider a player's whole career, but a player can only be considered if their test career lasted five years beyond the starting point i.e. to 1990.
So, likewise, sparing myself the awkward task of judging the likes of Root, Kohli, Smith and Williamson against the greats, let alone the likes of Finch, Maxwell and Pollard, I considered only those whose test career started more than five years ago (the eagle-eyed will notice that Steve Smith, on time-frame, sneaks in ... ok, well I'm making an executive decision to leave him out, he's only played 33 tests, let him be one of the greatest, if he will be, in a few years, rather than the 98th greatest now.).
So, basically, T20, as a serious form (which it still hardly is at international level) is pretty much still too young for serious consideration. I can't see Andre Russell going ahead of Courtney Walsh.
It was quite an easy list to make. Statistics lead the way. I'd be a fool to disregard them. Style is important in cricket, but being able to hit every shot beautifully doesn't make you a great batsman, nor does the ability to bowl every variation make you a great bowler.
Look, here's my list. Then I'll write a bit more at the bottom.
The Number 1 I've chosen is, compared to the next 6, notably less iconic, notably less of a star. Any one of those others might be considered by others - I think Sachin Tendulkar would be the popular choice. Shane Warne would choose Sachin Tendulkar (if he wouldn't choose Shane Warne), and what do I know?
Some cricket pundits talk respectfully of Kallis but not with such love. "Well, he's got the stats" they say, almost grudgingly. I understand that. Kallis was one of my least favourite cricketers for a long time, so thoroughly did he seem like a dream-crusher who did the exact opposite of what I wanted him to do. But once I acquired Sky and started watching more matches from around the world as a neutral, so that I wasn't always hoping he was out or that he didn't take a wicket, I was able to see him for what he was - with so many brave, perfectly apposite game-changing innings, so many vital wickets and great catches. Yes, he wins on stats, because stats are the key thing, he wins because he's the only player who'd be in the Top 100 twice over (and without the batting, he'd have, conservatively, taken 500 not 300 test wickets), but also because to me he's the definitive unselfish selfish-looking cricketer, just doing his job relentlessly as instructed without fuss, the rock on which his team made the ascent to World Number 1.
Really, the first 20 in my list, and a few beyond, are all transformatively great cricketers, there could be plenty of switching around within there, but I feel like I've got it right (of course).
It made me think about my favourite cricketers in a way I haven't before, as well. Who did I naturally veer towards and tell myself to consider more harshly?
My favourite players are David Gower, Phil Tufnell (no place for the Cat!), Sangakkara, Ambrose, Lara, Gilchrist, Marshall, Bevan, Atherton (just missing out, sadly), Bell, Flintoff, Dravid, Amla, Vettori, Shakib al-Hasan.
Bevan and Shakib might be higher than people think, but both are unique, influential cricketers, Bevan as the first true ODI specialist, the best in the world even when test cricket discarded him too early, Shakib as his country's first and only world-class player, carrying them diffidently with both his batting and bowling across all formats.
I think I can make a case for all my judgements - I think Azharuddin might have crept in if he hadn't disgraced the game, and part of me considered putting Graeme Hick in. Who else? Richie Richardson, Jeff Dujon, Trescothick, Samaraweera, Cullinan, Mushtaq Ahmed. Lots of good players.
There have been a glut of great players in the last 20 years - I wonder, with the dispersal of formats, if the current stars will make such claims for greatness, In years to come, the essence, the "it" of cricket will change from accumulation and runs per wicket to speed and distance ... part of me wonders if, without realising it, we've been watching, for the last 20-30 years, cricket's true golden age.
I haven't found much about sport to write about lately, and since I'm always happy considering and compiling a list, this seemed the obvious task for me to get the ball rolling again.
I put together something similar for Football a few months ago, though I limited that to post-2000, to avoid going out of my depth in pretending to remember players from the 80s and early 90s I couldn't actually recall that well. I didn't feel that would be a problem for cricket - I've watched huge amounts of cricket since 1984, as much as could be watched, really, and there is less to watch than football, so less to fall through the cracks - really, we're just talking about selecting from 10 teams.
Also, cricket is much easier to read directly via the numbers. We don't deduce that a random footballer who scored a goal every 3 games is necessarily, straightforwardly, a better player than one who scored a goal every 4 games, but we are usually prepared to accept a batsman who averaged 10 more runs in test cricket than another is the superior player. It's not always true, but it's essentially true.
For that is the point, the very meaning of test cricket, to average more per wicket than the opposition. I'm always puzzled by cricket writers who suggest there are more accurate ways of judging the greatness of test cricketers than their batting and bowling averages. No, the average isn't a gauge, a guide, amongst other gauges, it is "it".
Which is not to say that there aren't many variables - eras, state of wickets, position in order, strike rate, ability to form partnerships etc. Sure, they all matter. I'm all for "scientific studies" which find, for example, that Matthew Hayden was actually the greatest batsman of all time or that Matthew Hoggard was England's greatest ever bowler. It's all interesting stuff into the mix.
It's different in the shorter forms, of course, where time is limited, and it's not just a case, fundamentally, of making your alloted 20 wickets count for as much as you can. In ODI and T20 cricket, scoring rate and economy rate are "it", of the essence, even more than average.
And what of those two interlopers, those modern concoctions? Perhaps I should have limited this to "Test Cricketers", for how can you compare across formats fairly? It's bad enough comparing across eras, some would say.
For me, that's part of the fun, that comparison. In comparing across formats, or, in other lists I've made, across sports or eras, I'm stating my terms, I'm saying what I think is better and worth more. This list will give due consideration in its rating of cricketing greatness to both ODI and T20 cricket, which is to say - a bit to the former, not much to the latter.
That approach betrays my background a little. In England, we've long scorned the shorter formats, only for that scorn to come back and bite us with our own ineptitude. Only now is that changing. In other countries ODI cricket has long held more prestige. Take Sanath Jayasuriya - his slightly underwhelming test record is hardly one for a true great, for a god of Sri Lankan cricket, but few have influenced or dominated the one-day format as he did. That can't be discarded. He changed cricket. Nevertheless, there are few truly great cricketers who have failed to thrive in test cricket.
As for T20, well, I have a bit of a get-out clause. When I did my list of The 100 Best Footballers of This Century, I only considered action that took place during this century, so those who'd had prominent careers before 2000 were lower down the list than they might have been (Scholes, Del Piero, Zidane etc). This time, I took a different approach. The thought of seeing, e.g. Viv Richards ranked 64 seemed too silly. So my criteria is to consider a player's whole career, but a player can only be considered if their test career lasted five years beyond the starting point i.e. to 1990.
So, likewise, sparing myself the awkward task of judging the likes of Root, Kohli, Smith and Williamson against the greats, let alone the likes of Finch, Maxwell and Pollard, I considered only those whose test career started more than five years ago (the eagle-eyed will notice that Steve Smith, on time-frame, sneaks in ... ok, well I'm making an executive decision to leave him out, he's only played 33 tests, let him be one of the greatest, if he will be, in a few years, rather than the 98th greatest now.).
So, basically, T20, as a serious form (which it still hardly is at international level) is pretty much still too young for serious consideration. I can't see Andre Russell going ahead of Courtney Walsh.
It was quite an easy list to make. Statistics lead the way. I'd be a fool to disregard them. Style is important in cricket, but being able to hit every shot beautifully doesn't make you a great batsman, nor does the ability to bowl every variation make you a great bowler.
Look, here's my list. Then I'll write a bit more at the bottom.
| 100 | Matthew Hoggard | ||
| 99 | Javagal Srinath | ||
| 98 | Michael Bevan | ||
| 97 | Clive Rice | ||
| 96 | Ian Bell | ||
| 95 | Saqlain Mushtaq | ||
| 94 | Shoaib Akhtar | ||
| 93 | Merv Hughes | ||
| 92 | Lasith Malinga | ||
| 91 | Ian Bishop | ||
| 90 | Shahid Afridi | ||
| 89 | Nasser Hussain | ||
| 88 | VVS Laxman | ||
| 87 | Chris Cairns | ||
| 86 | Mark Waugh | ||
| 85 | Heath Streak | ||
| 84 | Gary Kirsten | ||
| 83 | Desmond Haynes | ||
| 82 | Arjuna Ranatunga | ||
| 81 | Abdul Qadir | ||
| 80 | Sourav Ganguly | ||
| 79 | Rangana Herath | ||
| 78 | Andrew Strauss | ||
| 77 | Tillakaratne Dilshan | ||
| 76 | Zaheer Khan | ||
| 75 | Darren Gough | ||
| 74 | Aravinda da Silva | ||
| 73 | Jason Gillespie | ||
| 72 | Craig McDermott | ||
| 71 | Martin Crowe | ||
| 70 | Graham Thorpe | ||
| 69 | Stephen Fleming | ||
| 68 | Gordon Greenidge | ||
| 67 | Ian Healy | ||
| 66 | Michael Vaughan | ||
| 65 | Justin Langer | ||
| 64 | Shakib al-Hasan | ||
| 63 | Misbah ul-Haq | ||
| 62 | Brendon McCullum | ||
| 61 | MS Dhoni | ||
| 60 | Brett Lee | ||
| 59 | Andrew Flintoff | ||
| 58 | Mark Boucher | ||
| 57 | Mohammed Yousuf | ||
| 56 | Chris Gayle | ||
| 55 | Alec Stewart | ||
| 54 | Mike Hussey | ||
| 53 | David Boon | ||
| 52 | Graeme Gooch | ||
| 51 | Graeme Swann | ||
| 50 | Inzamam ul-Haq | ||
| 49 | Mark Taylor | ||
| 48 | Mitchell Johnson | ||
| 47 | Kevin Pietersen | ||
| 46 | Harbhajan Singh | ||
| 45 | Mahela Jayawardene | ||
| 44 | David Gower | ||
| 43 | Michael Clarke | ||
| 42 | James Anderson | ||
| 41 | Makhaya Ntini | ||
| 40 | Stuart Broad | ||
| 39 | Andy Flower | ||
| 38 | Hashim Amla | ||
| 37 | Alastair Cook | ||
| 36 | Allan Donald | ||
| 35 | Younus Khan | ||
| 34 | Courtney Walsh | ||
| 33 | Chaminda Vaas | ||
| 32 | Shiv Chanderpaul | ||
| 31 | Sanath Jayasuriya | ||
| 30 | Dan Vettori | ||
| 29 | AB De Villiers | ||
| 28 | Matthew Hayden | ||
| 27 | Kapil Dev | ||
| 26 | Graeme Smith | ||
| 25 | Anil Kumble | ||
| 24 | Dale Steyn | ||
| 23 | Steve Waugh | ||
| 22 | Shaun Pollock | ||
| 21 | Rahul Dravid | ||
| 20 | Javed Miandad | ||
| 19 | Virender Sehwag | ||
| 18 | Waqar Younis | ||
| 17 | Adam Gilchrist | ||
| 16 | Brian Lara | ||
| 15 | Allan Border | ||
| 14 | Ian Botham | ||
| 13 | Ricky Ponting | ||
| 12 | Curtly Ambrose | ||
| 11 | Glenn McGrath | ||
| 10 | Wasim Akram | ||
| 9 | Malcolm Marshall | ||
| 8 | Richard Hadlee | ||
| 7 | Viv Richards | ||
| 6 | Muttiah Muralitharan | ||
| 5 | Imran Khan | ||
| 4 | Sachin Tendulkar | ||
| 3 | Kumar Sangakkara | ||
| 2 | Shane Warne | ||
| 1 | Jacques Kallis |
The Number 1 I've chosen is, compared to the next 6, notably less iconic, notably less of a star. Any one of those others might be considered by others - I think Sachin Tendulkar would be the popular choice. Shane Warne would choose Sachin Tendulkar (if he wouldn't choose Shane Warne), and what do I know?
Some cricket pundits talk respectfully of Kallis but not with such love. "Well, he's got the stats" they say, almost grudgingly. I understand that. Kallis was one of my least favourite cricketers for a long time, so thoroughly did he seem like a dream-crusher who did the exact opposite of what I wanted him to do. But once I acquired Sky and started watching more matches from around the world as a neutral, so that I wasn't always hoping he was out or that he didn't take a wicket, I was able to see him for what he was - with so many brave, perfectly apposite game-changing innings, so many vital wickets and great catches. Yes, he wins on stats, because stats are the key thing, he wins because he's the only player who'd be in the Top 100 twice over (and without the batting, he'd have, conservatively, taken 500 not 300 test wickets), but also because to me he's the definitive unselfish selfish-looking cricketer, just doing his job relentlessly as instructed without fuss, the rock on which his team made the ascent to World Number 1.
Really, the first 20 in my list, and a few beyond, are all transformatively great cricketers, there could be plenty of switching around within there, but I feel like I've got it right (of course).
It made me think about my favourite cricketers in a way I haven't before, as well. Who did I naturally veer towards and tell myself to consider more harshly?
My favourite players are David Gower, Phil Tufnell (no place for the Cat!), Sangakkara, Ambrose, Lara, Gilchrist, Marshall, Bevan, Atherton (just missing out, sadly), Bell, Flintoff, Dravid, Amla, Vettori, Shakib al-Hasan.
Bevan and Shakib might be higher than people think, but both are unique, influential cricketers, Bevan as the first true ODI specialist, the best in the world even when test cricket discarded him too early, Shakib as his country's first and only world-class player, carrying them diffidently with both his batting and bowling across all formats.
I think I can make a case for all my judgements - I think Azharuddin might have crept in if he hadn't disgraced the game, and part of me considered putting Graeme Hick in. Who else? Richie Richardson, Jeff Dujon, Trescothick, Samaraweera, Cullinan, Mushtaq Ahmed. Lots of good players.
There have been a glut of great players in the last 20 years - I wonder, with the dispersal of formats, if the current stars will make such claims for greatness, In years to come, the essence, the "it" of cricket will change from accumulation and runs per wicket to speed and distance ... part of me wonders if, without realising it, we've been watching, for the last 20-30 years, cricket's true golden age.
Comments
Post a Comment