Each team’s most important player over the last 30 years

[jle101]

Dunno where else to post this but, RIP Yashpal

 

[Park cricketer]

Not disputing his pedigree overseas
but I think Dravid gets very undersold in these discussions

At the most basic level, if you remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, the former of which Tendulkar bashed around for fun, their records in away test wins are interesting:

Tendulkar - 13 wins at an average of 60, 5 centuries
Dravid - 15 wins, an average of 65, 4 centuries

Arguably the two most significant wins away from India that they had in that time were Adelaide and Perth - Dravid hit 240, and an unbeaten 60 at Adelaide, and hit 93(?) at Perth in a bowler dominated game.

it is telling that across an entire decade in the 1990s, India won a solitary away match, and even that was in Sri Lanka a hundred km off their south east coast. Tendulkar played that entire decade. Plainly anyone could see that their failure to win abroad was NOT somehow Tendulkar‘a fault. But he didn’t seem to have a great impact on their fortunes. A lot of their monumental away wins - the decider in Pakistan in 2003 or whenever it was, Adelaide, Perth, a few West Indies wins when they were still reasonably good at home, a lot had to do with Dravid.

Their general away records are VERY similar - again I’ve excluded Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.
Tendulkar averaged 52, Dravid a smidgen under 51.
What is interesting is that excepting Sri Lanka, Tendulkar’s averages all hover between 53 and 41 in the other nations he played. He was very consistent.
Dravid meanwhile really battled in South Africa and Sri Lanka, oddly. He averaged 29 in SA and 33 in SL. Though he still managed a century in each.
in Australia he averaged 42 but in each of England, NZ, West Indies and Pakistan he averaged mid to high 60s.

anyway my impression as an outsider looking in is that it was Dravid who became the missing link That they had been looking for and as such that made him the most important player but it wouldn’t necessarily make me say he was a BETTER player than Tendulkar

Dravid was a masterful player of swing and seaming conditions, arguably India's best ever. But he had his struggles in the pace and bounce of Australia and South Africa. Yes Dravid played some great innings in Australia, along with Laxman, but he had his struggles in Australia except for the mammoth tour of 2003.



Dravid had a very good debut tour of South Africa but struggled there afterwards.

Tendulkar was more consistent in all conditions. He averaged 40+ in every major country he played and the most versatile among any batsman we've ever had. Every great batsman has one usp, Lara could win games on his own on his day, Ponting could put an attack to sword, Dravid one of the best ever in swing and seaming conditions, Sehwag probably the most punishing player of spin. Tendulkar didn't have any particular usp that stood out, but he had arguably the best technique out of his peers and so if you needed one batsman who you could count on to score runs for you in an undisclosed venue with unknown conditions, it would be Tendulkar because I think his versatility across conditions was his usp.

The Indian team of 2000s greatest overseas successes in that decade were the

1. Drawn series in England in 2002
2. Drawn series in Australia in 2003/04
3. Won series in England in 2007
4. Won series in New Zealand in 2009
5. Drawn series in South Africa in 2010.

And Tendulkar contributed to nearly all of those series, be it his 193 at Headingley in the only match that we won in 2002, 91 (highest scorer) at Trent Bridge in the only test we won in the series win in 2007, 160 at Hamilton in the only test we won in the series win in NZ in 2009 or his epic battle with peak Dale Steyn in the drawn series in 2010 (111 at Centurion and 146 at Cape Town), he contributed majorly in all our overseas successes in that decade.

Only the drawn series in Australia in 2003/04 was an exception when he struggled throughout but that was the time he struggled with his tennis elbow injury. Still, he made a 241 at Sydney in the last match that was drawn.

India's best ever overseas player is either Tendulkar or Gavaskar. I wasn't born in Gavaskar's era, so it's hard for me to judge who was better, but it's between the two. Kohli and Dravid probably battle it out for the second spot.

 

[Gough]

I always thought the Indian cricketers ofthe 80s and 90s didn't win because their attitude reflected an older India that was still deferential and post colonial in attitude. The Kohli era sides represents a modern more vibrant India where nothing is impossible.

 

[RohitSharma]

I always thought the Indian cricketers ofthe 80s and 90s didn't win because their attitude reflected an older India that was still deferential and post colonial in attitude. The Kohli era sides represents a modern more vibrant India where nothing is impossible.

This is the best post of the decade

 

[Gethelred]

Had a bit of a think, and I've decided that James Anderson deserves a bit of a rev up.

Bloke was at a crossroads about 5-6 years ago; was a good swing bowler and brutally good in England, but rather pedestrian everywhere else and outside of swinging conditions would frequently start to pout and they'd need to rely on other bowlers to take wickets because he was only going to bowl defensive lines and go at 2 and over. Over the past half a decade, he's turned himself into a magnificent all conditions bowler, and has become ultra disciplined to boot. Without him, they'd be subject to Broad occasionally forgetting how to bowl and Graham Swann as their spearheads for that period of time.

He's held their bowling lineup together, and being able to pencil him in for 3 wickets an innings is such a useful thing to have as a captain; it means that you can play your bowling allrounders, that you can experiment with spin options, that you can have a look at some of the lesser lights to see how they come together. It also means that when all else fails, just roll out the greentop and he'll win you a test at home; Australia would've killed for that sort of thing last year.

Longevity's not nearly as valuable as brilliance (I'd have Ryan Harris as a better bowler, for example) but without him you don't get Stokes getting 5 fors or Broad getting Warner out for fun, because both blokes have to shoulder more of the load and bowl more responsibly. You don't get the flash in the pan that was Bresnan, Tremlett or Finn. You don't even really get Panesar.

Without Anderson, England's bowling would've fallen almost completely apart.

 

[katana]

england: chris tremlett
south africa: jp duminy
new zealand: doug bracewell
india: rishabh pant

three players who played roles in breaking australia's aura of invincibility of the aughts and nineties... in australia. yeah, yeah graeme smith was huge in 09, but that series is lost without JP's hundred in melbourne. england's batsman were way on top in 10/11? yeah but where's the charisma with the ball, tremlett put them in that position at a packed G in 2010 on day 1 (anderson was great that day too - that series was 1-1 at the time, he also had the crowning moment of the series doing johnson first ball). new zealand having nuts as a test team goes back to that 2011 win in hobart imo. and doug bracewell got it done under pressure, we've basically owned the kiwis before and since. pant speaks for himself.

yes, i am aware that these are entirely bogus, but i really do think wins against australia and in australia were and are so valuable for a team's confidence and i'm not sure there's anything more 'important' than winning here. all the other guns in this thread got mauled here at various points, either shat themselves under pressure or plain did not fire a shot.

 

[PhatBoy]

england: chris tremlett
south africa: jp duminy
new zealand: doug bracewell
india: rishabh pant

three players who played roles in breaking australia's aura of invincibility of the aughts and nineties... in australia. yeah, yeah graeme smith was huge in 09, but that series is lost without JP's hundred in melbourne. england's batsman were way on top in 10/11? yeah but where's the charisma with the ball, tremlett put them in that position at a packed G in 2010 on day 1 (anderson was great that day too - that series was 1-1 at the time, he also had the crowning moment of the series doing johnson first ball). new zealand having nuts as a test team goes back to that 2011 win in hobart imo. and doug bracewell got it done under pressure, we've basically owned the kiwis before and since. pant speaks for himself.

yes, i am aware that these are entirely bogus, but i really do think wins against australia and in australia were and are so valuable for a team's confidence and i'm not sure there's anything more 'important' than winning here. all the other guns in this thread got mauled here at various points, either shat themselves under pressure or plain did not fire a shot.

Think you’ll find a bloke called Steyn who took 10 wickets and put on 150 for the 9th wicket with duminy in Melbourne played a pretty big role!

 

[Pippen94]

How do you compare Steve Waugh carrying batting in 90's or Gilchrist as icing on cake at no.7 giving team aura of invincibility or Warne bowling quality all day to allow pacemen to rest or McGrath just being a wicket taking monster???! Impossible thread

 

[PhatBoy]

How do you compare Steve Waugh carrying batting in 90's or Gilchrist as icing on cake at no.7 giving team aura of invincibility or Warne bowling quality all day to allow pacemen to rest or McGrath just being a wicket taking monster???! Impossible thread

That’s the whole point. Like comparing Tony Lockett to Greg Williams. It’s bloody hard and everyone will
Have a different view.

the easiest way to look at it is who, if they were removed, would have had the most fundamental impact on what their team achieved during that period.

Even in that tiny little assessment you gave though it probably shows the reverence for Steve Waugh that exists despite evidence to suggest he had plenty of help.

when he first established himself in 89 he had Taylor, Boon and Border all playing great cricket. By the time he had been dropped and had to earn his way back again in 1993, his brother was entrenched in the team, Boon was briefly the best batsman on the planet, Border was still good enough to hit an ashes away double century and Taylor was world class, and slater slotted in seamlessly.

for the next 3 years they lost Border but gained Blewett who at least initially was excellent, Boon was about to depart, slater stayed strong for most of the decade.

Waugh was the best batsman in the team between 95-2000, no question of that, but he almost always had at least 2-3 guys with him averaging 40+

 

[Pippen94]

That’s the whole point. Like comparing Tony Lockett to Greg Williams. It’s bloody hard and everyone will
Have a different view.

the easiest way to look at it is who, if they were removed, would have had the most fundamental impact on what their team achieved during that period.

Even in that tiny little assessment you gave though it probably shows the reverence for Steve Waugh that exists despite evidence to suggest he had plenty of help.

when he first established himself in 89 he had Taylor, Boon and Border all playing great cricket. By the time he had been dropped and had to earn his way back again in 1993, his brother was entrenched in the team, Boon was briefly the best batsman on the planet, Border was still good enough to hit an ashes away double century and Taylor was world class, and slater slotted in seamlessly.

for the next 3 years they lost Border but gained Blewett who at least initially was excellent, Boon was about to depart, slater stayed strong for most of the decade.

Waugh was the best batsman in the team between 95-2000, no question of that, but he almost always had at least 2-3 guys with him averaging 40+

In 1997 in 15 tests only one other batsman averaged over 40 (Blewitt who was hit & miss even at his best). In toughest batting conditions did the best; Third test of 97 ashes scored two centuries when next highest score was 55. 1995 in west indies only player to average over 40 & a lot more runs than next. Almost same for 1999 series if not for Ponting with two games.

Your take is generalized & looks at overall career records rather than a point in time where batting & top order in particular struggled; Taylor went through one of worse slumps in 1996 -97, Slater's record after dropping was poor & his loss + loss of Boon hurt batting until early 2000's. Australia was top team beating all challenges at the time but Waugh was holding the batting together.

 

[PhatBoy]

In 1997 in 15 tests only one other batsman averaged over 40 (Blewitt who was hit & miss even at his best). In toughest batting conditions did the best; Third test of 97 ashes scored two centuries when next highest score was 55. 1995 in west indies only player to average over 40 & a lot more runs than next. Almost same for 1999 series if not for Ponting with two games.

Your take is generalized & looks at overall career records rather than a point in time where batting & top order in particular struggled; Taylor went through one of worse slumps in 1996 -97, Slater's record after dropping was poor & his loss + loss of Boon hurt batting until early 2000's. Australia was top team beating all challenges at the time but Waugh was holding the batting together.

Undoubtedly he was the best and most consistent and rightly he was recognised as the best in the world for a fair chunk of that time. And without doubt there were series at a time where he was very much propping everyone up. But a 5 year section of cricket from January 95 to December 99 shows that while he was head and shoulders above everyone - he averaged 56 himself in that time - there were four other players who played a minimum of 33 tests who averaged 40+ in that period. Taylor, Waugh, Slater and Ponting. Prior to 1998 Blewett averaged over 40 as well. Bring the start forward to 97 and between then and 2000, langer averaged 40 in that period and Ponting’s was closer to 50.
Slater’s average never dropped below 40 until after the turn of the century.

undoubtedly SRW held them together and was the spearhead but he was never fighting a lone battle.

 

[Pippen94]

Undoubtedly he was the best and most consistent and rightly he was recognised as the best in the world for a fair chunk of that time. And without doubt there were series at a time where he was very much propping everyone up. But a 5 year section of cricket from January 95 to December 99 shows that while he was head and shoulders above everyone - he averaged 56 himself in that time - there were four other players who played a minimum of 33 tests who averaged 40+ in that period. Taylor, Waugh, Slater and Ponting. Prior to 1998 Blewett averaged over 40 as well. Bring the start forward to 97 and between then and 2000, langer averaged 40 in that period and Ponting’s was closer to 50.
Slater’s average never dropped below 40 until after the turn of the century.

undoubtedly SRW held them together and was the spearhead but he was never fighting a lone battle.

End of 1996 is a better time to start; slater was dropped (career average fell from 47 at time of axing to finally 41 so no way he averaged over 40 beyond that point), Taylor went through extended slump (your stats includes a 334*), boon retired & no. 3 along with openers spot became revolving door, blewett had only one further outstanding series which was versus sa in 97 & his career average ended at 31!!! That leaves Mark & Steve Waugh with the later averaging from that point a lot more & coming up bigger in important innings. All the while Australia was the best team in the world

 

[RohitSharma]

India - Myself, Kohli, Bumrah, Ashwin, Jadeja, Shami & Ishant

 

[PhatBoy]

End of 1996 is a better time to start; slater was dropped (career average fell from 47 at time of axing to finally 41 so no way he averaged over 40 beyond that point), Taylor went through extended slump (your stats includes a 334*), boon retired & no. 3 along with openers spot became revolving door, blewett had only one further outstanding series which was versus sa in 97 & his career average ended at 31!!! That leaves Mark & Steve Waugh with the later averaging from that point a lot more & coming up bigger in important innings. All the while Australia was the best team in the world

With slater I looked at both 95-2000 and 01 Jan 97- 01 Jan 2000 (so the end of 1996 which is literally what you just said) and his average across both periods was 40+.

Why are you ignoring Ponting in this period? langer who I’ve just shown you averaged 40 from jan 97 to jan 2000?

and yeah australia probably was the best team in the world.

the series against decent opposition in that period (I’ve been incredibly generous to England in that classification) that helped them reach that status were as follows:

Away draw in Pakistan - 8 Australians averaged over 40

Away loss to India - mark Waugh, Lehman and Healy averaged over 40
Home win over SA - both Waugh’s plus Taylor, Ponting and Reiffel averaged over 40

Away draw vs West Indies - Waugh and Ponting averaged over 50, next best Langer (36)

Away win over SA - both Waugh’s and Blewett averaged 40+ (Steve 78)
Home win over Pakistan - both Waugh’s and Taylor averaged 50+ (Taylor 67)

Away win over WI - Waugh averaged 100 and clearly the zenith of his career, albeit he only hit one century (perhaps the most important of the decade). Mark averaged 40, little else from any other player.

Win at home over WI - five players averaged over 40. SRW averaged 31

Away win over England - Elliott and Ponting averaged 55 and 48, Reiffel 59, Waugh averaged 39.

Home win over England - Waugh averaged 83. Mark Waugh, Langer, Slater all averaged 46+.


There is no case anyone can Mount to say Steve Waugh wasn’t the best Australian batsman in that period. But he wasn’t depended on to help australia reach the top nearly as much as is being suggested.

 

[Pippen94]

With slater I looked at both 95-2000 and 01 Jan 97- 01 Jan 2000 (so the end of 1996 which is literally what you just said) and his average across both periods was 40+.

Why are you ignoring Ponting in this period? langer who I’ve just shown you averaged 40 from jan 97 to jan 2000?

and yeah australia probably was the best team in the world.

the series against decent opposition in that period (I’ve been incredibly generous to England in that classification) that helped them reach that status were as follows:

Away draw in Pakistan - 8 Australians averaged over 40

Away loss to India - mark Waugh, Lehman and Healy averaged over 40
Home win over SA - both Waugh’s plus Taylor, Ponting and Reiffel averaged over 40

Away draw vs West Indies - Waugh and Ponting averaged over 50, next best Langer (36)

Away win over SA - both Waugh’s and Blewett averaged 40+ (Steve 78)
Home win over Pakistan - both Waugh’s and Taylor averaged 50+ (Taylor 67)

Away win over WI - Waugh averaged 100 and clearly the zenith of his career, albeit he only hit one century (perhaps the most important of the decade). Mark averaged 40, little else from any other player.

Win at home over WI - five players averaged over 40. SRW averaged 31

Away win over England - Elliott and Ponting averaged 55 and 48, Reiffel 59, Waugh averaged 39.

Home win over England - Waugh averaged 83. Mark Waugh, Langer, Slater all averaged 46+.


There is no case anyone can Mount to say Steve Waugh wasn’t the best Australian batsman in that period. But he wasn’t depended on to help australia reach the top nearly as much as is being suggested.

Without Waugh Australia don't win frank worrall in 1995 so ascension to world title doesn't happen there. South Africa & maybe England tip Aussies in 1997, while 1999 series is lost.

Somewhere around 1999 after west indies series the balance between bat & ball seemed to switch & players who struggled earlier in the 90's like Ponting & Langer became dominant.

Look at stats from & including west indies tours 1995 to 1999 which is one complete test series cycle;
S Waugh 3611 @ 60
M Waugh 3210 @ 43
M Taylor 2673 @ 39
M Slater 1768 @ 38
G Blewett 1754 @ 32
R Ponting 1377 @ 38

Only one outstanding batsman & a lot close test series. Simple reasoning indicates results would be different if you take that player out. That's not taking into account top order struggled throughout much of that time