Who are world cricket's current GREAT players?

JGK wrote:ABDV is a bit soft though. Again, like Kallis. Smith is the key player in that line up.

Why is Devilliers soft? Because he's a nice bloke? Didn't you see his ton in Johannesburg? No other Saffie batsman made 50, and the series was very much alive at that point. Oh yeah, and you seem to have forgotten his innings at Perth as well.

No, I saw all those innings. Look he can bat, no doubt, but he isn't a player I fear.


Maybe he's turned the corner and is starting to step up to be a key player in their line up (which he should be after 50+ tests). I think the jury is still out. Certainly I don't think is he any better than Clarke.

A year ago, Hussey would have been on most people's lists.

as a future great, maybe. only the naive would have rated him as a great after a handful of years in international cricket. seen too many not able to sustain early form. thats why kp is also far from one, need to assess him in 8-10 years

Sorry if it wasn't already clear, JGK, my 'in recent years' rider is the only reason Border isn't on my short list above. IMO he is a great for many reasons, not just for his batting, which was usually best when the conditions were worst and support was almost absent, but also for his ability to drag a dismal mid-80's Australian team back to competitiveness. He may not have been an instinctive tactical captain like Taylor or Chappelli, but he was a leader in many other ways and he dragged even the unwilling or unbelieving from the sewer back to respectability. He was an absolute legend.

JGK wrote:No, I saw all those innings. Look he can bat, no doubt, but he isn't a player I fear.


Maybe he's turned the corner and is starting to step up to be a key player in their line up (which he should be after 50+ tests). I think the jury is still out. Certainly I don't think is he any better than Clarke.

I think think AB's stats over the last 2 years are superior to Clarke's.

AB has also made runs in tough situations for SA. Clarke's really big scores only tend to come when the Aus top order has already put 200+ on the board.

Clarke's best test innings remains his first- The 151 on Bangalore. I think Aus were about 80-4 when he came to the crease.

Taipan: that sounds a bit selective.

lardbucket wrote:Sorry if it wasn't already clear, JGK, my 'in recent years' rider is the only reason Border isn't on my short list above. IMO he is a great for many reasons, not just for his batting, which was usually best when the conditions were worst and support was almost absent, but also for his ability to drag a dismal mid-80's Australian team back to competitiveness. He may not have been an instinctive tactical captain like Taylor or Chappelli, but he was a leader in many other ways and he dragged even the unwilling or unbelieving from the sewer back to respectability. He was an absolute legend.

Lardy - my post was in response to Trev's claim that Ponting is on a par with GSC and superior to Waugh and AB. I don't think any Australian on this forum would disagree with you about AB.

lardbucket wrote:Taipan: that sounds a bit selective.

That's why I quoted JGK's post about turning the corner.

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:No, I saw all those innings. Look he can bat, no doubt, but he isn't a player I fear.


Maybe he's turned the corner and is starting to step up to be a key player in their line up (which he should be after 50+ tests). I think the jury is still out. Certainly I don't think is he any better than Clarke.

I think think AB's stats over the last 2 years are superior to Clarke's.

Since Jan 07 AB has played 28 tests for 1872 runs at 49, 6 tons; Clarke 21 tests for 1703 runs at 53, 6 tons.

Pretty even really.

Clarke was poor in this series but had been hugely consistent since the start of last summer.

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:No, I saw all those innings. Look he can bat, no doubt, but he isn't a player I fear.


Maybe he's turned the corner and is starting to step up to be a key player in their line up (which he should be after 50+ tests). I think the jury is still out. Certainly I don't think is he any better than Clarke.

I think think AB's stats over the last 2 years are superior to Clarke's.

Over the last two years, AB's average is 58.02 compared to Clarke's 47.82

Clarke averages less than 40 away from home.

The One wrote:as a future great, maybe. only the naive would have rated him as a great after a handful of years in international cricket. seen too many not able to sustain early form. thats why kp is also far from one, need to assess him in 8-10 years

The way he's going, KP'll have 30+ tons in three years. Given that he's scored a couple of tons against everybody he has played against so far I don't think there's much wrong with placing him amongst the lesser greats at the moment. It's a provisional list and can always be revised when the qunt goes on another sook begins to wane.

Lara and Tendulkar were considered great after their first 20 or so tests.

There's a surprise: L & T > C.

Who's 'C'? Ponting?

FFS. Clarke. Keep up, dori. It only requires you to read back 2 posts.

Yeah well given Ponting was the one being compared (and preferred by some people FFS) with L&T, and Clarke with AB, maybe you should be the one who should read back.

Added to that, Ponting is a 'C'.

Henry wrote:Lara and Tendulkar were considered great after their first 20 or so tests.

considered almost dead-certs for ATG status once they finished. doesnt mean their greatness was already established after 20 tests. also they were child prodigies with a very long career ahead of them. by the age of 30 srt had almost 9000 runs and 31 tons

he's one of the current crop with potential. but we are talking about ATG status here not the merely great, so there's quite a bit more that needs to be done to prove it

doremi wrote:Yeah well given Ponting was the one being compared (and preferred by some people FFS) with L&T, and Clarke with AB, maybe you should be the one who should read back.

Added to that, Ponting is a 'C'.

Hehehe, dori is a jock who can diss Ponting, even though he couldn't understand the direction of the thread. Everyone knows what a nancy-Mummy's-boy SRT is.

It's hard to distinguish between the G's and the ATG's IMO. You could try and put boundaries in between them, but I reckon they blur. All these G's and ATG's were of their time and whilst I recognise that the calibre betwixt the eras may vary no-one could truly say whether someone would fail were they to be put back/forward an era or two. For example, someone like Pietersen has smashed the better attacks of his generation so far and it could be argued that in a different era, he would've consistantly lifted his game rather than been bored and not up for it against someone weaker in this generation.

Two seem to have been penalised so far - Kallis and Murali.

Kallis seems to have been penalised quite simply for slow scoring. No-one wants to recognise his wickets either(albeit that he loves to bowl at shit and can't necessarily be relied on for a chunk of overs). Were he in a different era, he'd be judged as he should be. Someone who has scored over 10,000 runs at a great average and taken over 200 wickets at an OK average. I personally think it's a joke.

Murali - even more disdain for him. He chucks. There is NO doubt about it. He chucks. Anyone saying otherwise is an Asia-centric tosser. HOWEVER - so what? I can chuck the ball. Everyone can. It does aid him, no doubts at all, but that doesn't mean that everyone who chucks could pick up 800+ sticks. His place in the hall of fame is undeniable.

To conclude, it's great that with cricket you could have these sort of discussions and whilst I understand that harsh scrutiny is required for this subject, I find some of the commments rich.

p.s. Why is thread space being wasted on such middling tossers as Clarke and AB DeV? May as well talk about chicken giblets and their relative merit to cricketing greatness.

Are there some muppets seriously saying Murali & Kallis aren't greats?

Mainly Aussies. You know what they're like.

Yeah.

They eat children.