Player of the Decade

[S.Bond]

Test batting : Gayle 165 * vs australia... hesitate with umar and sehwag... Test bowling : Bond vs pakistan, hesitated with flintoff 5 for... ODI batting : Tendulka 175 vs australia no hesitation but still malik, graeme smith and sangakarra's perforances were brilliant... But that tendulkar innings was one of my fav... ODI bowling : Afridi 6/38 vs australia no great hesitaiton too on that one... T20 batting : Afridi 51 vs south africa hmmmmm gayle's 88 was fantastic, maybe even better than this afridi innings, but maybe it's the stage at wich afridi produced the performance T20 bowling : Umar gul 5/6 vs new zeland easy one...

[graphic23]

Ignoring T20, my picks for the test knocks are Sehwag 293, Test bowling is Bond, ODI batting is Tendulkar (if he doesn't win for the 175, :mad: ), and ODI bowling is Bollinger vs. India.

[king2be98]

I'm afraid it's a disgusting choice. Even if McGrath didn't play all 10 years, what he did as a strike bowler, set him apart. In fact I think even Gilchrist being a keeper has been overlooked. So sad that batsmen are favoured time and time again. It's the same in test cricket, bowler takes 5-80, batsman score 110 out, and the batsman far more likely to get m.o.m.

[Guest Hiten.]

I'm afraid it's a disgusting choice. Even if McGrath didn't play all 10 years' date=' what he did as a strike bowler, set him apart. In fact I think even Gilchrist being a keeper has been overlooked. So sad that batsmen are favoured time and time again. It's the same in test cricket, bowler takes 5-80, batsman score 110 out, and the batsman far more likely to get m.o.m.[/quote'] Problem is,Ricky was the captain and had a good performance in WC final (which added an extra weight). No doubt, Gilly and Mcgrath had similar impact if not more (as players).

[thevortex]

After reading that Ponting had been voted as the player of the decade, I was not surprised. It was par for the course really. Here is my reasoning as to why I dont agree with that decision and why: A subjective list benefiting from the overreaching wisdom of Ian chappell. Good. It is upto individuals to believe what they want. Ian Chappell was the same man who said : 1) Tendulkar was past his prime and was playing in the team for reasons other than for the good of the team. 2) Sehwag does not have a brain in his head. It is another matter that he has recanted these statements now and is now in positive awe of Sehwag. But what is said, remains said. I do recognize that he was only part of this jury. Still... If you go by stats, it is an easy thing to anoint Ponting as player of the decade. What is the point of these elite commentators doing a ranking if we were to go by stats. We could get it done ourselves. There is such a thing as assessing situations and extraordinary circumstances and such. To me, Lara would come up on top. His defiance of Australia in Australia and utter, astounding brilliance over Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka will always remain etched in memory. In fact he was the one who showed that Mcgrath could be mauled and Murali could be mastered. It is also another small thing to note that after these pastings, the career of these two giants of bowlers was never the same. These are the things that this 'elite jury' must consider. To me, Lara is the cricketer of this decade, even if he was not around till its end. Time and statistics come next only to unmeasurable brilliance and incandescent performances. That is what we watch the game for. ________ Monique_Amore

[akshayxyz]

If you're intent on picking statistical holes in careers of cricketers, you're bound to find something no matter what. This isnt the award for the most flawless player of the decade, its the award for the outstanding player of the decade. All the other players being discussed in this post like Gilly, Sehwag, Kallis, have, at some point of this decade or the other, experienced significant slumps in their career. Does that automatically eliminate them from the discussion? Of course not. As I have said repeatedly, what Murali has done in this decade has no parallel in the combined 130-odd years of the sport. Thats how great a player he is. And, he has managed such feats in a decade that has been kindest to the batsmen in a long time. What more do you need?

If someone has done something not done in 130 years - he has to be most deserving. Ok - I am not talking about stats like - "fastest fifty by a right handed batsmen against Bangladesh on a Sunday"

[Bradman99]

I'm afraid it's a disgusting choice. Even if McGrath didn't play all 10 years' date=' what he did as a strike bowler, set him apart. In fact I think even Gilchrist being a keeper has been overlooked. So sad that batsmen are favoured time and time again. It's the same in test cricket, bowler takes 5-80, batsman score 110 out, and the batsman far more likely to get m.o.m.[/quote'] It's the same with football, the defenders are at such long odds against attackers. It's just the way it is, I don't think it's fair to compare a batsmans performance levels to that of a bowlers.