Search results

Steve Waugh surely would go down as the cricketer who made more of his talent than anyone else in the past 25 years. It took him 26 tests to score a century, but he ended up averaging over 50 and seemed to produce his best when he or his team were under pressure. I remember when he scored a...

He doesn't really bat down the order though. He doesn't bat at number 6 like a traditional all-rounder, he batted at number 4 in the recent series v Pakistan and against England last summer. He often used to bat at number 3 until Hashim Amla started playing for South Africa. Although an...

Stuart Clark?

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...

Australia were not the best side when Warne started playing for them. He was the catalyst for them becoming the great side in the years that followed as he was in the team and winning test matches quite some time before their other standout players, McGrath, Ponting, Hayden and Gilchrist came along.

I don't think you necessarily have to be an all-rounder in order to be the greatest cricketer. I mean, using that analogy, is Daley Thompson the best track and field athlete of all time because he won 2 Olympic gold medals competing in 10 disciplines? That's not denigrate Kallis who has been...

Carl Hooper? He wouldn't even make the West Indies best team of the last 25 years, never mind a debate about the best player of the last 25 years.

He's batted at number 3 for quite a bit of his test career.

Shane Warne is the best bowler of that time and Sachin Tendulkar the best batsman. Adam Gilchrist is arguably the biggest game changer in that time, really meaning thereafter that wicket keepers were expected to score runs down the order on a regular basis as much as being reliable glovemen...