Aravinda de Silva, Martin Crowe, Mohammad Azharuddin or Saleem Malik? Your order of ranking?

[Harsh Thakor]

4 of the most talented batting stars of the 1980's and 90's were Martin Crowe, Aravinda de Silva,Salim Malik and Mohammad Azharrudin.On their day they devoured the best of any bowling attacks in any conditions.All averaged around 45 apart from Aravinda whose average was 42.

For sheer elegance Azhar and Crowe were supreme taking batting artistry to regions of the sublime..Azhar was the connoisseur of wristy strokes while few batsmen ever executed more velvety drives than Crowe .Aravinda brilliantly blended technical skill with artistry.On his day Salim Malik's strokeplay was simply breathtaking.

Aravinda championed a crisis better than any of them stitching broken threads like very few batsmen of his era.I would have backed Aravinda on a bad wicket as much as even Tendulkar or Lara.Facing sheer pace or on fast wickets Crowe stood out with his near perfect technique like when scoring 188 in the West Indies.Salim Malik was at his best in a crisis and on bad wickets like when scoring 99 at Leeds in 1987,237 v Australia at Lahore in 1994 and 2 fifties at Leeds in 1992.Azhar was the best on flat tracks blazing away like when scoring 120 at Lords in 1990.

Of the 3 only Crowe's record overseas was close to his home batting average.He averaged over 66 in Australia which is remarkable.Aravinda had a 167 in Australia to his credit Malik and Azhar were not at their best in Australia.

With a gun on my head I would select Crowe followed,by Azhar,Aravinda and Mailk in that order.Crowe was the most complete of them while Azhar was the supreme artist.Aravinda was the epitome of consistency while Malik on his day was flamboyance personified.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Crowe was way ahead of the other three, brilliant player of fast bowling, probably one of the best players to combat reverse swing as well.

Malik was a player who always batted well in tough conditions that was shown at headingley in 87 and 92. He was always probably one of pakistans best ever players against Spin, the way he butchered shane warne single handedly in 1994 was a joy to watch.

Azhar would then be 3rd for me as he had more consistent performances over aravinda when it came to test cricket.

Test Rank - Crowe > Malik > Azhar > Aravinda

 

[Hitman]

I think it's doing an disservice to Aravinda De Silva and the late Martin Crowe to be compared with dirty, rotten, scums like Azharuddin and Salim Malik.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I think it's doing an disservice to Aravinda De Silva and the late Martin Crowe to be compared with dirty, rotten, scums like Azharuddin and Salim Malik.

Your choice between Aravinda and Crowe?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe was way ahead of the other three, brilliant player of fast bowling, probably one of the best players to combat reverse swing as well.

Malik was a player who always batted well in tough conditions that was shown at headingley in 87 and 92. He was always probably one of pakistans best ever players against Spin, the way he butchered shane warne single handedly in 1994 was a joy to watch.

Azhar would then be 3rd for me as he had more consistent performances over aravinda when it came to test cricket.

Test Rank - Crowe > Malik > Azhar > Aravinda

You have analyzed well but was not Aravinda master of bad wickets and a crisis .Remember he played for a weak side.Azhar was more artistic and prolific than Malik.I agree Malik could champion a crisis like few could,though.

 

[Hitman]

Your choice between Aravinda and Crowe?

I have very high regards for Aravinda, but I'll go with Crowe.

 

[Hitman]

All Azhar had were artistic abilities. Yes, he did play some really, really good innings even abroad. But his average away from home is 36 odd. That might be okayish for some other players, but for someone like Azhar who is brought into such debates, it's pathetic.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

All Azhar had were artistic abilities. Yes, he did play some really, really good innings even abroad. But his average away from home is 36 odd. That might be okayish for some other players, but for someone like Azhar who is brought into such debates, it's pathetic.

Was not Salim Malik outstanding on ocassionsl ike in Leeds in 1987 and 82,Trinidad in 1988 and Lahore in 1994 against Australia?Championed a crisis?

 

[Amjid Javed]

Azhar for me under achieved to much away from home and even overall didnt really fufil his entire talent that he had.

Aravinda for me was a much better ODI batsmen then a test batsmen. In ODIs id rank Aravinda 2nd behind crowe,

 

[Last Monetarist]

Crowe, de Silva, Malik, and Azhar in that order.

Crowe played well in all conditions, had no weakness apart from a wonky knee, which plagued his career frequently by the end. He is one of my biggest cricket heroes and I still occasionally feel a bit downcast when thinking about his early demise to cancer.

de Silva probably underachieved early on in his career, but he more than made up for it once he was over 30. Circa 96-97, I reckon he was the third best batsman in the world behind Lara and Tendulkar.

The other two had careers tainted by fixing, so I don't really know how good they actually were. Both were demonstrably home track bullies. I'd have Malik ahead of Azhar purely for his record in England.

 

[Realromeo]

Very difficult.

Test - Crowe
ODI - De Silva cause he scored a century on world cup final and played a T20 inning in the semi final vs us. Azhar and Salim were also disgrace to cricket so lol

 

[Ab Fan]

Crowe followed by de Silva.

 

[Bewal Express]

Crowe followed by de Silva.

Martin Crowe was a brilliant player, followed by Aravinda who was also brilliant. Azhar and Malik weren't bad either but their legacy is badly sullied.

 

[Junaids]

Crowe by a vast margin.

Put it this way, he was so good that Somerset sacked Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham to get him!

 

[Rahul1]

I think it's doing an disservice to Aravinda De Silva and the late Martin Crowe to be compared with dirty, rotten, scums like Azharuddin and Salim Malik.

I agree with you.

 

[Rahul1]

Crowe, de Silva, Malik, and Azhar in that order.

Crowe played well in all conditions, had no weakness apart from a wonky knee, which plagued his career frequently by the end. He is one of my biggest cricket heroes and I still occasionally feel a bit downcast when thinking about his early demise to cancer.

de Silva probably underachieved early on in his career, but he more than made up for it once he was over 30. Circa 96-97, I reckon he was the third best batsman in the world behind Lara and Tendulkar.

The other two had careers tainted by fixing, so I don't really know how good they actually were. Both were demonstrably home track bullies. I'd have Malik ahead of Azhar purely for his record in England.

Azhar's 115 in South Africa against Donald, Pollock and Klusener with the score at 58/5 is better than anything Malik has done in England.

 

[Justcrazy]

Playing Pace :

Crowe
Aravinda
Malik
Azhar


Playing Spin:

Malik
Crowe
Azhar
Aravinda

 

[Hitman]

Crowe by a vast margin.

Put it this way, he was so good that Somerset sacked Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham to get him!

During their prime or after their sell off date?

 

[Hitman]

Azhar's 115 in South Africa against Donald, Pollock and Klusener with the score at 58/5 is better than anything Malik has done in England.

And he scored that 115 in 110 balls. I consider that to be his best innings. Sachin scored 169 in that same innings, and I consider that to be his best innings.

Such a shame that I was such a big fan of Azhar back then.

 

[ravisurya]

Fixers Azhar and Malik shouldnt considered along with the like of DeSilva and Crowe

 

[Last Monetarist]

Azhar's 115 in South Africa against Donald, Pollock and Klusener with the score at 58/5 is better than anything Malik has done in England.

Disagree. Malik's 99 on a difficult pitch at Leeds in 87 won the series for Pakistan.

That Cape Town wicket was a featherbed, 58-5 encapsulated Indian top-order ineptness more than anything else.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Overall, Crowe.
In ODI's, De Silva

 

[Hitman]

Disagree. Malik's 99 on a difficult pitch at Leeds in 87 won the series for Pakistan.

That Cape Town wicket was a featherbed, 58-5 encapsulated Indian top-order ineptness more than anything else.

First, no that wicket in Cape Town wasn't a feather bed. Allan Donald spoke about the innings Sachin played in that match and how he considers that to be the best Test innings any batsman has played against him, and also mentioned how difficult that wicket was. Yes, he wrote about it in his autobiography which I have read.

BTW, who were the bowlers that Malik faced in that innings?

 

[Robert]

Azhar was my favourite batsman from the Subcontinent so I’ll say him.

 

[Robert]

Disagree. Malik's 99 on a difficult pitch at Leeds in 87 won the series for Pakistan.

I remember that match. Neil Foster got eight wickets, but it didn’t stop Pakistan winning by an innings.

 

[Robert]

Crowe by a vast margin.

Put it this way, he was so good that Somerset sacked Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham to get him!

Always found Crowe a bit overrated on this board to be honest. Richards, Javed or Border he was not.

Somerset, like all the Counties had to drop down to one overseas player. Garner was in career twilight and not bowling much, while Richards’ run output had dropped. Botham wasn’t sacked, he walked in disgust.

The whole thing was really about Roebuck who became an Aussie journo’s powerplay to become skipper, and how Richards and Garner didn’t rate him and were too influential in the dressing room and had to be removed.

Somerset even with Crowe proceeded to slump down to the bottom of the CC table and took two decades to recover.

 

[Rahul1]

First, no that wicket in Cape Town wasn't a feather bed. Allan Donald spoke about the innings Sachin played in that match and how he considers that to be the best Test innings any batsman has played against him, and also mentioned how difficult that wicket was. Yes, he wrote about it in his autobiography which I have read.

BTW, who were the bowlers that Malik faced in that innings?

Some random English trundlers. Donald and Pollock are better than any English bowler ever and Klusener was better than any bowler who bowled to Malik during his 99.

 

[Robert]

Some random English trundlers. Donald and Pollock are better than any English bowler ever and Klusener was better than any bowler who bowled to Malik during his 99.

Klusener averaged 38 in tests, s/r 86.

Salim faced Dilley and Foster. After returning from his back operation of 1982 Dilley averaged 26 in tests. Imran had a high opinion of Foster, who took 11 wickets in a match in India and won the series for England. Salim did a fine job against good opening bowlers on a horror wicket that day.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Career of 20 years can not be judge on 1 or 2 innings. Salim's match saving double hundred ag best spinner (till yet) on turning track is much better than scoring a hundred against Donald.

 

[Hitman]

Career of 20 years can not be judge on 1 or 2 innings. Salim's match saving double hundred ag best spinner (till yet) on turning track is much better than scoring a hundred against Donald.

At home? BTW, there was a bowler by the name of Shawn Pollock as well.

 

[Hitman]

Klusener averaged 38 in tests, s/r 86.

Salim faced Dilley and Foster. After returning from his back operation of 1982 Dilley averaged 26 in tests. Imran had a high opinion of Foster, who took 11 wickets in a match in India and won the series for England. Salim did a fine job against good opening bowlers on a horror wicket that day.

That's his career average. You conveniently spoke of his career average while bringing in Mr. Didly's performance after returning from surgery. Great going!

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

At home? BTW, there was a bowler by the name of Shawn Pollock as well.

So what if it was at home? It was against two ATGs Warne & McGrath & in third inning after being followed on. It was the inning which Wisden ranked among their top 20 at the turn of the century. So the general narrative of Donald in his book is more worthy or the Wisden.

 

[Hitman]

So what if it was at home? It was against two ATGs Warne & McGrath & in third inning after being followed on. It was the inning which Wisden ranked among their top 20 at the turn of the century. So the general narrative of Donald in his book is more worthy or the Wisden.

Sorry, but McGrath was not there. 10 bowlers bowled against Malik in that innings - McDermott, Fleming, Angel, M. Waugh, Warne, Bevan, S. Waugh, Slater, Boon, M. Taylor.

Warne bowled 25 overs for 56 runs in that innings.

And yes, that was played at home. While the other innings was played in South Africa against their best bowling attack ever, a place where even legends like Dravid has struggled, and where most subcontinent batsman have poor record.


Here is the link to the scorecard to Malik's innings, check it for yourself -

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...a-2nd-test-australia-tour-of-pakistan-1994-95

 

[Hitman]

So what if it was at home? It was against two ATGs Warne & McGrath & in third inning after being followed on. It was the inning which Wisden ranked among their top 20 at the turn of the century. So the general narrative of Donald in his book is more worthy or the Wisden.

You're confusing yourself. Where does Donald and Wisden come here? Donald never made a comment about Malik's innings. All he said is that it was a very difficult wicket, which I referred just to expose your blatant lie when you said that wicket was a featherbed.

 

[Robert]

That's his career average. You conveniently spoke of his career average while bringing in Mr. Didly's performance after returning from surgery. Great going!

Dilley, and yeah, I think so. He was England’s big gun for three years before he got himself banned, and his career test average and strike rate are still a lot better than Klusener’s.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Sorry, but McGrath was not there. 10 bowlers bowled against Malik in that innings - McDermott, Fleming, Angel, M. Waugh, Warne, Bevan, S. Waugh, Slater, Boon, M. Taylor.

Warne bowled 25 overs for 56 runs in that innings.

And yes, that was played at home. While the other innings was played in South Africa against their best bowling attack ever, a place where even legends like Dravid has struggled, and where most subcontinent batsman have poor record.


Here is the link to the scorecard to Malik's innings, check it for yourself -

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...a-2nd-test-australia-tour-of-pakistan-1994-95

Oh my bad but even then mcdermott was better than Pollock any day. You may ask this from anyone who has the understanding of cricket.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

You're confusing yourself. Where does Donald and Wisden come here? Donald never made a comment about Malik's innings. All he said is that it was a very difficult wicket, which I referred just to expose your blatant lie when you said that wicket was a featherbed.

You need to read that again and plz be civil while you are in serious discussion. I know it would be difficult for you nowadays but still ethics need to be follow.

 

[Hitman]

Oh my bad but even then mcdermott was better than Pollock any day. You may ask this from anyone who has the understanding of cricket.

Sure, McDermott with 291 wickets at an average of 28.63 was anyday better than Pollock with 421 wickets at an average of 23.11 )

And yes, I have watched both of them play.

 

[Hitman]

You need to read that again and plz be civil while you are in serious discussion. I know it would be difficult for you nowadays but still ethics need to be follow.

What ethics are you speaking of? You blatantly lied saying saying that wicket in Cape Town was a feather bed. I merely spoke of how Allan Donald writes in his autobiography that that wicket in Cape Town was an extremely difficult one to bat.

If you don't want to be called a liar, stop lying in the first place.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Sure, McDermott with 291 wickets at an average of 28.63 was anyday better than Pollock with 421 wickets at an average of 23.11 )

And yes, I have watched both of them play.

I thought you are the one who could analyze a little but sorry you are just a stats reader.
I have also seen your next comment so in reply of that once again I am sorry I can't do anything except to ignore you.

 

[Hitman]

I thought you are the one who could analyze a little but sorry you are just a stats reader.
I have also seen your next comment so in reply of that once again I am sorry I can't do anything except to ignore you.

Yea, any astute analyzer of the game would definitely say that McDermott with an average of more than 28 was a better bowler than a certified ATG like Pollock with an average of 23 odd. Why don't you ask your fellow Pak posters this question and watch them laughing at you.

And yes, I've watched both of the bowl.

 

[todfod 11]

Azhar always for me. He was master class who underachieved even scoring 9k plus runs.....
De silva best player of hook shots.
Crowe
Salim Malik

 

[Hitman]

Azhar always for me. He was master class who underachieved even scoring 9k plus runs.....
De silva best player of hook shots.
Crowe
Salim Malik

He scored more than 9000 runs in ODI cricket.

 

[todfod 11]

He scored more than 9000 runs in ODI cricket.

I wrote 9k plus bro... may u missed it

 

[todfod 11]

He scored more than 9000 runs in ODI cricket.

Azhar was a better batsmen then VVS + Ganguly.

 

[Hitman]

Azhar was a better batsmen then VVS + Ganguly.

LOL, he wasn't good enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as Laxman as a Test batsman. As for ODI cricket, Ganguly wipes the floor with him.

 

[Hitman]

I wrote 9k plus bro... may u missed it

I'm sorry, I thought you were speaking of real cricket.

 

[Robert]

LOL, he wasn't good enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as Laxman as a Test batsman. As for ODI cricket, Ganguly wipes the floor with him.

Bit Azhar had the higher test average despite Laxman’s many not outs (15% of his innings).

 

[MMHS]

I think, this comparison is for Test only. My order will be

Martin >> Azhar> Hari>Malik

Crowe was truly ahead of the bunch without much doubt. A brilliant player of fast & moving ball who probably was the most comfortable against fast reverse swing because he had so much time to play. A brilliant spin player as well and he performed under pressure. Throughout his career guy struggled with a dodgy knee and hardly could put a run of 10-12 Tests together. Also, being a Kiwi player, he never got the chance to play 4-6 Test series which often made the greats from goods. Had every shot in book and aesthetically he was quite classy as well.

Between Azhar & Hari, Azhar’s conversion was outstanding - a century in every 4.5 Tests and along with Bradman he is probably only batsman with 20+ Test hundreds and more than Test fifties. Azhar struggled with bounce, but on song he was a treat to watch - played some of the most clutch innings game had ever seen - Lord’s 90, Adelaide 92, Eden 93, Kanpur, Eden, Cape Town, Ahmedabad, Auckland, Faisalabad .... the day Azhar was on song, I dare to say he was more difficult to manage than even Tendulkar.

Hari De was a better Test batsman than his stats. Also, he suffered something like Shakib - played for a weak SRL team most of the time and his best efforts were hardly noticed. His 167 at Gabba was one of the best knocks in AUS ever and there are few such against very good attack. A great spin player and a dominator of the bowling, but what let him down often was his over aggression - got out at wrong time from over aggression. A shed of Carl Hooper whose 20-30s are even great and he was like always in, but then found a way to get out. Like many players of an emerging team he started career too early (@ 17 I believe), which pulled down his career stats.

At his peak, Malik was world’s top batsman for couple of years until he ran into trouble. He was the guy first demystified Warne first and between that period of 1992-1994, he was definitely better than other 3 in this list. But, Malik was predominantly a front foot player, who was a complete changed batsman after couple of years in Counties (Essex) in late 1980s. His best effort was probably the Leeds Test 1992, in a defeat. But, Malik’s glory was short lived and he didn’t help his course either.

Interestingly, for a brief period, I think all 4 were top ranked batsman in Test world (not sure), and my ranking is based on their overall career. If I am to rank it based on their best 3-5 years, I probably will exchange between Azhar & Martin, also put Hari & Malik at level. For different reasons, Crowe couldn’t reach to that level Azhar was in between 1990-1993, while Hari had one such peak in mid 90s for ODI, but his Test career was more flatter over a decade. Malik between 1992-1994 was probably as good as it gets, but his fall was sharp (& disgraceful).

In ODI, Hari & Martin we’re comfortably ahead of Malik & Azhar, but I won’t rate among two of each pair.

 

[todfod 11]

I'm sorry, I thought you were speaking of real cricket.

For me one day cricket is real cricket. Test cricket is good but is 90s one day cricket was given more emphasis. Laxman when made his debut was called shadow of azhar due to his wrist flicks. Azhar was a superior batsmen because he could accelerate when required.

 

[Last Monetarist]

First, no that wicket in Cape Town wasn't a feather bed. Allan Donald spoke about the innings Sachin played in that match and how he considers that to be the best Test innings any batsman has played against him, and also mentioned how difficult that wicket was. Yes, he wrote about it in his autobiography which I have read.

BTW, who were the bowlers that Malik faced in that innings?

I watched the 96/97 India tour of South Africa ball-by-ball. The first test in Durban was played on an appalling wicket, where India were bundled out for 100 and 66. Venkatesh Prasad took 10 wickets in that match. That match skews most recollections of that series.

The second test was played on a typical Newlands wicket: flat and conducive for attacking strokeplay. The South African batting lineup had struggled against Srinath and Prasad in the first test, but made hay batting first at Cape Town and scored more than 500. However, the Indian top-order was still shellshocked from the capitulation in the first test, and batted accordingly. It took two experienced and high-class batsmen to realize that there was nothing at all wrong with that wicket and started playing their shots. Don't get me wrong, Azhar and Tendulkar batted brilliantly, but the narrative etched in people's minds is a tad flawed.

Malik's performance in contrast in 1987 was series-defining. That series was generally played on flat wickets, or had matches affected by the weather, but that Headingley test was played in conditions pretty similar to what India encountered on Day 1 of the 2002 test.

At the end of the day, if you think Azhar was a better player than Malik, fair enough, but there's no need to resort to downplaying Malik's record in England, by hyping up a single innings by Azhar.

 

[ShahidDar08]

Arvinda
Salim
Martin
Azharudin

 

[Ab Fan]

Bit Azhar had the higher test average despite Laxman’s many not outs (15% of his innings).

Azhar has a test average of 45 while for Laxman, it is 45.97. Laxman also one of those who stood against one of the greatest team of all-time, i.e. Australia and hardly scored easy runs over his test career.

 

[Hasan123]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Martin crowe for me. The most complete batsman on that list.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I think, this comparison is for Test only. My order will be

Martin >> Azhar> Hari>Malik

Crowe was truly ahead of the bunch without much doubt. A brilliant player of fast & moving ball who probably was the most comfortable against fast reverse swing because he had so much time to play. A brilliant spin player as well and he performed under pressure. Throughout his career guy struggled with a dodgy knee and hardly could put a run of 10-12 Tests together. Also, being a Kiwi player, he never got the chance to play 4-6 Test series which often made the greats from goods. Had every shot in book and aesthetically he was quite classy as well.

Between Azhar & Hari, Azhar’s conversion was outstanding - a century in every 4.5 Tests and along with Bradman he is probably only batsman with 20+ Test hundreds and more than Test fifties. Azhar struggled with bounce, but on song he was a treat to watch - played some of the most clutch innings game had ever seen - Lord’s 90, Adelaide 92, Eden 93, Kanpur, Eden, Cape Town, Ahmedabad, Auckland, Faisalabad .... the day Azhar was on song, I dare to say he was more difficult to manage than even Tendulkar.

Hari De was a better Test batsman than his stats. Also, he suffered something like Shakib - played for a weak SRL team most of the time and his best efforts were hardly noticed. His 167 at Gabba was one of the best knocks in AUS ever and there are few such against very good attack. A great spin player and a dominator of the bowling, but what let him down often was his over aggression - got out at wrong time from over aggression. A shed of Carl Hooper whose 20-30s are even great and he was like always in, but then found a way to get out. Like many players of an emerging team he started career too early (@ 17 I believe), which pulled down his career stats.

At his peak, Malik was world’s top batsman for couple of years until he ran into trouble. He was the guy first demystified Warne first and between that period of 1992-1994, he was definitely better than other 3 in this list. But, Malik was predominantly a front foot player, who was a complete changed batsman after couple of years in Counties (Essex) in late 1980s. His best effort was probably the Leeds Test 1992, in a defeat. But, Malik’s glory was short lived and he didn’t help his course either.

Interestingly, for a brief period, I think all 4 were top ranked batsman in Test world (not sure), and my ranking is based on their overall career. If I am to rank it based on their best 3-5 years, I probably will exchange between Azhar & Martin, also put Hari & Malik at level. For different reasons, Crowe couldn’t reach to that level Azhar was in between 1990-1993, while Hari had one such peak in mid 90s for ODI, but his Test career was more flatter over a decade. Malik between 1992-1994 was probably as good as it gets, but his fall was sharp (& disgraceful).

In ODI, Hari & Martin we’re comfortably ahead of Malik & Azhar, but I won’t rate among two of each pair.

Very well analysed .we agree .Crowe was a class act class close to the most complete of batsmen. Technically Aravinda was close to the best as well as on bad wickets.For sheer class Azhar was great on his day.Malik could be a champion in a crisis.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Martin crowe for me. The most complete batsman on that list.

Absolutely .what is your view on the others?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Martin crowe for me. The most complete batsman on that list.

Agree absolutely.Any view on the others?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Perfect order

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

I think, this comparison is for Test only. My order will be

Martin >> Azhar> Hari>Malik

Crowe was truly ahead of the bunch without much doubt. A brilliant player of fast & moving ball who probably was the most comfortable against fast reverse swing because he had so much time to play. A brilliant spin player as well and he performed under pressure. Throughout his career guy struggled with a dodgy knee and hardly could put a run of 10-12 Tests together. Also, being a Kiwi player, he never got the chance to play 4-6 Test series which often made the greats from goods. Had every shot in book and aesthetically he was quite classy as well.

Between Azhar & Hari, Azhar’s conversion was outstanding - a century in every 4.5 Tests and along with Bradman he is probably only batsman with 20+ Test hundreds and more than Test fifties. Azhar struggled with bounce, but on song he was a treat to watch - played some of the most clutch innings game had ever seen - Lord’s 90, Adelaide 92, Eden 93, Kanpur, Eden, Cape Town, Ahmedabad, Auckland, Faisalabad .... the day Azhar was on song, I dare to say he was more difficult to manage than even Tendulkar.

Hari De was a better Test batsman than his stats. Also, he suffered something like Shakib - played for a weak SRL team most of the time and his best efforts were hardly noticed. His 167 at Gabba was one of the best knocks in AUS ever and there are few such against very good attack. A great spin player and a dominator of the bowling, but what let him down often was his over aggression - got out at wrong time from over aggression. A shed of Carl Hooper whose 20-30s are even great and he was like always in, but then found a way to get out. Like many players of an emerging team he started career too early (@ 17 I believe), which pulled down his career stats.

At his peak, Malik was world’s top batsman for couple of years until he ran into trouble. He was the guy first demystified Warne first and between that period of 1992-1994, he was definitely better than other 3 in this list. But, Malik was predominantly a front foot player, who was a complete changed batsman after couple of years in Counties (Essex) in late 1980s. His best effort was probably the Leeds Test 1992, in a defeat. But, Malik’s glory was short lived and he didn’t help his course either.

Interestingly, for a brief period, I think all 4 were top ranked batsman in Test world (not sure), and my ranking is based on their overall career. If I am to rank it based on their best 3-5 years, I probably will exchange between Azhar & Martin, also put Hari & Malik at level. For different reasons, Crowe couldn’t reach to that level Azhar was in between 1990-1993, while Hari had one such peak in mid 90s for ODI, but his Test career was more flatter over a decade. Malik between 1992-1994 was probably as good as it gets, but his fall was sharp (& disgraceful).

In ODI, Hari & Martin we’re comfortably ahead of Malik & Azhar, but I won’t rate among two of each pair.

How close was Aravinda to Lara or Tendulkar?Or even Crowe for that matter?Did Azhar not relish pace or fast wickets?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Azhar was my favourite batsman from the Subcontinent so I’ll say him.

Azhar was hardly consistent against genuine pace and Ben if a supreme stylist.Crowe was a class act on the quickest surfaces and bowling.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Crowe followed by de Silva.

Why De Siva in 2nd ?Did not Azhar have more class scoring more centuries?Aravinda was better on bad wickets but Azhar had more flair and better st his best.What about Malik?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Disagree. Malik's 99 on a difficult pitch at Leeds in 87 won the series for Pakistan.

That Cape Town wicket was a featherbed, 58-5 encapsulated Indian top-order ineptness more than anything else.

Both were truly great innings.Also. scored in vey difficult situations.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Bit Azhar had the higher test average despite Laxman’s many not outs (15% of his innings).

Laxman much better than Azhar in run chases and in Australia.His best innings overshadowed those of Azhar.Thus overall better?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Crowe, de Silva, Malik, and Azhar in that order.

Crowe played well in all conditions, had no weakness apart from a wonky knee, which plagued his career frequently by the end. He is one of my biggest cricket heroes and I still occasionally feel a bit downcast when thinking about his early demise to cancer.

de Silva probably underachieved early on in his career, but he more than made up for it once he was over 30. Circa 96-97, I reckon he was the third best batsman in the world behind Lara and Tendulkar.

The other two had careers tainted by fixing, so I don't really know how good they actually were. Both were demonstrably home track bullies. I'd have Malik ahead of Azhar purely for his record in England.

Did not Azhar have more class than Aravinda?Scored 22 centuries.Otherwise a very good analysis.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Playing Pace :

Crowe
Aravinda
Malik
Azhar


Playing Spin:

Malik
Crowe
Azhar
Aravinda

Very well analysed Overall how do you rank them?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Fixers Azhar and Malik shouldnt considered along with the like of DeSilva and Crowe

Were they not great batsmen in their own right?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Fixers Azhar and Malik shouldnt considered along with the like of DeSilva and Crowe

Arvinda
Salim
Martin
Azharudin

Why Aravinda at the top?Like your reasons. Appreciate.Even Malik ahead of Crowe?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Crowe
Azhar
De Silva
Malik

Fixers Azhar and Malik shouldnt considered along with the like of DeSilva and Crowe

Azhar always for me. He was master class who underachieved even scoring 9k plus runs.....
De silva best player of hook shots.
Crowe
Salim Malik

No doubt Azhar was the greatest stylist but was he as consistent as Crowe or as complete?Were not Crowe and Aravinda better against pac eand in a crisis?

 

[todfod 11]

No doubt Azhar was the greatest stylist but was he as consistent as Crowe or as complete?Were not Crowe and Aravinda better against pac eand in a crisis?

Azhar and arvinda were specialist in crisis.. i didnt wtch much of crowe and malik was past his age in late 90s

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Agree absolutely.Any view on the others?

Others had their weaknesses against genuine pace . Crowe was the only one in this list who could've become a genuine great /ATG if it weren't for injuries. Also played in a very weak batting lineup.

 

[big_gamer007]

Azhar and Malik are scums who cheated and didn't give their 100%.. At the end of the day it's what they achieved and not what they could have achieved which counts so these guys don't deserve to be in same thread as Crowe and Aravinda

Amongst Aravinda and Crowe, Aravinda was my favourite player for few years in 1990s so he gets nod from me.

 

[PakLFC]

Azhar, Malik, Silva and Crowe. I am talking about their batting ability and stroke play here whilst fully acknowledging that the former Pak and Indian batsman had other issues as well. In simple words they were both cheats!

 

[Justcrazy]

Very well analysed Overall how do you rank them?

Its a tough choice because someone like Aravinda played two gems in semi final and Final of 96 WC.

Talent wise the ease with which Martin Crowe played was best among them.

Probably I would rate them

Crowe
Azhar
Malik
Aravinda

 

[carnish]

Just from impact, I would always have aravinda as my first choice on the side.. he was pure class.. never saw crowe play so would not comment.. Malik and Azhar were different players.. Malik had all-round skills as he could bowl well when required.. as a batsman though Azhar was better, however, I would say Malik played with more responsibility and was more a team man than azhar