Shane Warne recently picked the top 50 players that he has played with or against, as per his ranking, in his column in The Times. While it is HIS ranking, and hence I should not be the one commenting on it, being an avid follower of the game, I can’t resist the temptation of talking about this. I think this list should have been more like the top 50 cricketers to watch, rather than the top 50 players to play the game. A few examples… Let me begin with Indian choices first.
- He ranks Sachin No. 1, and I am happy about that. But that is more because I am an Indian, and Tendulkar is awesome to watch when on song. But is he the best player when you want your team to win? I think most people would want a Ponting or a Lara or even Dravid ahead of Sachin, at least based on his form after 2002. He is a great player, but I think he finds a place here more because Warne never played against Ponting. Ricky Ponting averages 71.9 in test matches after 1st January 2002!!! Six years and 58 tests, and he averages close to 72, with 24 hundreds and 21 fifties. Not many players can boast of such a stretch in their careers. In the same period Sachin averages 49 in 51 test matches with 10 hundreds and 15 fifties. And If I remove matches played against Bangladesh in the same period, with all due regards to the team, Ponting’s average goes above 72 while Sachin’s drops to 44. Moreover, even as a spectator, Ponting’s aggressive attitude makes far better viewing than anyone else (ofcourse when he is not playing against
- Ravi Shastri comes in at No 42, and Dilip Vengsarkar at No 46. Any pointers to how Ravi Shastri came ahead of Laxman?
- Steve Waugh at No 26? Hello? Again I think Waugh was a victim of not being able to play against Shane Warne. And probably he was not the best batsman to watch. But he being 26 in Top 50, behind Darren Lehmann, Bret Lee and Stephen Fleming is what baffles me.
- I am as surprised to see Inzamam missing from the list
- Graham Thorpe? He probably was the only English batsman who gave a semblance of fight against
- How can Shoaib Akhtar, Merv Hughes and Craig McDermott be ahead of Allan Donald?
- Andy Flower was far too good a player to be kept at No 36. And his record against the bigger teams is outstanding.
Having said all this, there are a few good selections, which do not find any mention in a lot of other lists. Courtney Walsh, Ambrose, Langer, Hayden, Robin Smith, Andu Flower, Aravinda De Silva, Mohammad Yousof, Saeed Anwar to name a few.
The issue I think is comparing players across eras. I think the concept is incorrect. Players should be compared in a maximum span of 10 years, and even that is a stretch. Conditions change, teams change, players change, even playing styles change. Then how can we compare. I cannot think of comparing Tendulkar post 2002 to himself pre 2002. If I had written this in 2001, I would have said Sachin is the best player. Maybe Ganguly would also have made the cut. Dravid probably would have missed the list. Hence it is unfair to compare players across eras. And the speed at which the game is developing, every 5 years see such a large change, that it seems like an era. Maybe once 20-20 evolves, we will have even shorter test matches. Hence to compare Sunil Gavaskar to Mahendra Singh Dhoni is unfair to both the players. It is not an apples to apples comparison. But then such comparisons keep happening, and such lists keep being made. And as I said in the beginning of this post, it is Warne’s observation, and he is entitled to have his opinion. Hence all due respect to his opinion.
3 comments:
Lovely opinion/observation of why Ponting was at Number 8. Secondly, the issue as you mentioned, comparing players across time periods, is treading on the lines of absurdity. But, once again, he is entitled to his rankings(again as you mentioned) and any inclusion or exclusion from that list would become the list of players whom we think that Warne should think of the best people he has played with.
Sorry for that rather complicated, "kyunki saas bhi.." type statement.
I dont understand why Ponting should be better than Tendulkar.. just because he has been a better player than Sachin in the last 4-5 years.
When we say better player. we talk about being the better player considering the numbers/style/ contributions across the span of the career.
If you are saying Ponting has been a better player in 'the last few years'.. then i will not argue.. but if you are saying.. that he is generally a better player, then i'll definitely do!.
And when you consider the records of these players across the choice is not as obvious as you have put it here.
And btw, maybe Ponting and Waugh actually rank as high as they are.. only because they did not get to play against Warne.. or any of the Australian bowlers for that matter!
And I also dont understand... why should people remove records against Bangladesh or any other so called 'weak team'.. when you are doing analysis?.. Nobody asked 'other' people to not play well against them!
Ok..i shud stop here.. lest the comment gets bigger than the blog itself :)
~ A hardcore Sachin fan :)
@ rajendran : agreed :)
@void zone: When we talk about a player being greatest ever, what are the key parameters one looks at?
1)We look at loads and loads of runs or wickets. Sachin scores above anyone else easily here.
2)We look at consistency over long periods in the career. Sachin scores as a one-day player, but i do not think he scores here as a test player. His average may be high, but all of us know that if we are chasing 200 in the final innings of a match, as Indians we all want Sachin to fire, but we are far more comfortable when Dravid is on the crease. This nervousness on our part can't be true for the greatest player ever.
3)We look at match-winning performances. While I agree that Sachin has numerous match winning performances, I still am waiting for him to show once that when the chips are down, he can single handedly do it. The closest he came in a Test Match was against Pakistan in this match (http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63828.html) battling against a strong bowling line up, some useless batting by his partners and his own back ache. This I think remains his greatest test knock to date. I agree that we are being a bit harsh on him, since all his performances in the first innings of a test match are being forgotten in this analysis, but the greatest player in the world needs to show that he can win matches batting in each innings (chasing included), and a lot of the times when most others falter, he can do it himself.
Moreover, I removed the performances against Bangladesh only because i feel that for a player with caliber as high as Sachin's, the highest test score of 248* against Bangladesh would always rankle. I would have been far happier had this remained 241* against Australia. Again the idea of removing this performance is that for the greatest player in the world, his performance should not be dependent on the quality of the opponent, which we clearly see is the case here.
Ponting and Waugh are better players because they win more matches, and are more consistent. And I do not agree with the argument that Ponting is great because he did not have to play against Australia's bowlers. They have played against better bowlers, and scored equally well.
Hence, again as I said in my post about Sachin's 15000 runs, no doubt he is one of the greatest players that India and the world has produced, and that even I am a die hard Sachin fan, this may not necessarily mean that he is the best and greatest player in the world. I am a die hard fan of Shahrukh Khan, but that does not make him better than Al Pacino.
Post a Comment