The 4-year cyle theory

Considering the ever-changing nature of the sport, especially in recent times (rules, technology introductions, commercialism, increased no. of matches, competition), I came to the conclusion a while ago that the scenario changes drastically in cricket over a period of ± 4 years.

I’m a firm believer of this theory and this logic also lends some sort of benchmark and background structure to “best player” discussions and the sort. For me, a “best player” is only as good as his current game and the situation(s) he is playing under (team-wise and his own physical condition). His performances of 4+ yrs ago are remembered but are no reason to reconsider him as superb player of the time. Cases in point: Saeed Anwar and Brian Lara. Noone doubts their immense talent and awesome game. But they have not always been the “best player” at every given time throughout their career. (A rare honor reserved for the all-time greats). Which is why it seems a bit silly to still refer to Anwar to the “best left-handed opener” and Lara as “the WI’s cornerstone” before WC’03 (and a long period at that- dating back to at least 96-97).

And then, there are the greats. Bradman, Tendulkar, Wasim etc. Who will always be remembered for who they were: giants of the game.

Why 4 yrs? It’s not to do with the World Cup’s scheduled roll-around, although it’s a good measuring stick. But 4 yrs seems to be a period during which matters do take a dramatic enough shift to define them collectively as a seperate “mini-era” if you will. It’s not only the players’ performances, but also the nature of the game that’s a big variable in the equation. Rule changes (bouncer etc.), use of technology (3rd umpire, speed gun) and of course ODI totals. The “reasonably good total” seems to creep up by 15-20 odd runs every 4 yrs as well. Today’s 280 was 1999’s 265, which was 1995’s 250 and so on.

Any views/suggestions on this? I’d especially like to hear from those who’re versed with the game before the early 90’s (when I started following it), and pre late 80’s which I’ve only read about and seen clips and highlights of. Exhibits A and B here would be Alan Knott and Zaheer Abbas - 2 players who I’ve heard so much about but have never seen the games of.

I consider true greats who are best in the world in both forms of the game, not one dayer specialist or test specialist, players who can adopt to both forms of the game, their are quite alot but their are only few who can be given the status of greatness in both test and one dayers, guys like Wasim, Steve Waugh, and Tendulkar come to mind.
I barely remember test cricket in the 80s but I do remember the likes of Richards being great in one dayers, don't have fond memories of his test career.
But I agree with you, being great doesn't mean being in good form for couple years, you have to be on top of the world through out your whole career.
You will have guys like Ponting, Hayden, Gibbs will come around every 4 or 5 years when they dominate world cricket but very few stay dominate their whole career.

Following that, here are the players I'd nominate for exceptional performances during the respective periods that I've been familiar with and of the top of my head.

1991-1995:
Bats: Richie Richardson, Haynes, Martin Crowe, Border, Miandad, Malik, Azharuddin, Border
Bowlers: Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh
All-rounders: Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Wasim
Keepers: Dujon, Saleem Yousuf

1995-1999:
Bats: Lara, Anwar, Tendulkar, Inzamam, Steve Waugh, Ijaz, Alec Stewart, Hooper, Aravinda De Silva, Mark Waugh
Bowlers: Warne, Wasim, Walsh, Kumble, Gough
All-rounders:Chris Cairns
Keepers: Ian Healy, Moin, Rashid

1999-2003:
Bats: Kallis, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Bevan, Jayasuriya
Bowlers: Warne, Muralitharan, Saqlain
All-rounders: Abdur Razzaq,
Keepers: Gilchrist

And I'm sure there are a lot more to those lists.

agreed Umair, Hayden will probably be remembered as a solid opening bat at best many years from now. Although Ponting, in my mind, is destined for greater things.

Over all Good post just sometime Patriotism got better of you.
Its normal though :slight_smile:

Good thread though.

please don't bring Indo-Pak in this thread, Diablo is only stating his opinion, please don't control him.

Like I said, fair_&_balance, those names were just players I could quickly put down off the top of my head; and I'm sure there were names I'd potentialy miss.

McGrath, Boucher n' Ganguly were three such names, agreed. Others to those lists would include Andy Flower, Donald, Thorpe.

Ones like Wasim and Anwar that you mentioned as missing are in fact, already there, read again.

Haynes didn't last all the way til 95, but what little I saw of him in the early part of that period was enough to nominate him as a great player of those collective years.

I'm curious then, as to who you would nominate as an outstanding all-rounder during 1999-2003 if not Abdur Razzaq?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diablo Kazama: *
I'm curious then, as to who you would nominate as an outstanding all-rounder during 1999-2003 if not Abdur Razzaq?
[/QUOTE]

Jacques Kallis.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
stating his opinion, **please don't control him.
*
[/QUOTE]

did you really just say that?

"the irony is delicious".

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *

Jacques Kallis.
[/QUOTE]

Umair, Kallis has been a class performer throughout that period for sure. But more so with just the bat, than with the bat & ball.

His all-round contribution has been good, but has come in periodic bursts with gaps in between, rather than on a continuing basis. On the other hand, he has continually performed with just the bat.

Hence my reasoning to select him as an oustanding batsman in a team like SA, which has quite a few 'all-round' players as opposed to pakistan, which until recently, had mostly 1-dimensional players (bat or bowl). Whereas Abdur Razzaq has performed better (pre-WC '03), and won more games for his team by contributions through both bat and ball than Kallis.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diablo Kazama: *

1999-2003:
Bats: Kallis,..
All-rounders: Abdur Razzaq..

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
please don't bring Indo-Pak in this thread, Diablo is only stating his opinion, please don't control him.
[/QUOTE]

Where did I mention Indo-pak in thread. Do you use some special glasses?
By the way now onward you can control Diablo ;) if you like him so much.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diablo Kazama: *

Umair, Kallis has been a class performer throughout that period for sure. But more so with just the bat, than with the bat & ball.

His all-round contribution has been good, but has come in periodic bursts with gaps in between, rather than on a continuing basis. On the other hand, he has continually performed with just the bat.

Hence my reasoning to select him as an oustanding batsman in a team like SA, which has quite a few 'all-round' players as opposed to pakistan, which until recently, had mostly 1-dimensional players (bat or bowl). Whereas Abdur Razzaq has performed better (pre-WC '03), and won more games for his team by contributions through both bat and ball than Kallis.

[/QUOTE]

Do you seriously think Razzaq was better all rounder than Kallis during that period.
:)
Care to show some stats.
Just for you rinfo most part of that period Kallis was among top 10 bowler and batsmen on OWC ratings.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fair_&_balance: *

Do you seriously think Razzaq was better all rounder than Kallis during that period.
:)
Care to show some stats.
Just for you rinfo most part of that period Kallis was among top 10 bowler and batsmen on OWC ratings.
[/QUOTE]

Do I think that? From recollection- absolutely.

My nomination's based on an estimate, and that face that A.Razzaq played in a team with far fewer all-rounders than SA. Hence, a heavier responsibility to carry out a dual role than Kallis.

Looks like you're supporting the the opposite with some stats ("Just for you rinfo most part of that period Kallis was among top 10 bowler and batsmen on OWC ratings.").

Let's have a lookie on the numbers, by all means. :)