DDD Home Page
DDD Music Lists Page
DDD Movie Lists Page
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:24 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 400 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 27  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
Viv Richards reputation is based on the manner of his batting (given his outstanding success). I take him down a notch for inconsistency - to me, consistency is vital.

Everyone talks about 1976 where he scored 1,710 runs, but you take that away, his career record falls from average 50.23 to 45.23.

There's no reason to take it away, but the point is, if you take out 1 year in a 17 year career, and get a drop like that... it speaks to the batsman's general inconsistency. Pretty sure no other top player's record is that affected by the removal of a single year (assuming the career is 15+ years).

Can't top Viv for aesthetic value, though.

Hammond, I guess I'm ok with in the top 10. He held the top run scorer for decades, and still holds the joint record for most 100s for his country (will be overtaken soon, though)

Agree with Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs and Imran wholeheartedly. Glad to see Imran get his due in particular. Grace is... well, Grace, can't argue with that one either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
Nick-ola wrote:
Clive Lloyd should be above both Boycott & Gooch.


Wouldn't say that.

Lloyd had great fast bowlers popping out from every corner in every West Indian island, gave them the ball and told them to bowl. "Do you want a 7th slip, or another short leg?" was probably the extent of what he had to do as captain.

Boycott was the leading run scorer in test cricket for a brief time and is still the joint highest century maker for England. The endless series of controversies revolving around him probably add to his influence.

What Gooch did to his career in later years was staggering. He turned himself from talented stroke player to out and out professional. Scored more runs against genuine West Indian "Fearsome Foursome" attacks then anyone, and is England's leading run scorer. As captain, he stopped England's losing trot against West Indies. England might even have won a series in WI if Des Haynes hadn't gone in for time wasting (something Lloyd also propagated)

Gooch and Boycott over Lloyd sounds fair to me


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
Avery_Island wrote:
rockvirtuoso wrote:
Avery_Island wrote:
rv - How come you think Imran should ahead the star centre-back? I know you've said that before, but I don't think you ever really gave your reasons, I'm curious.
well i thought it was rather obvious. Imran - arguably the greatest bowler of all time - reached the highest rating at cricketratings.com of any bowler after WW1, also a pioneer of reverse swing. also and excellent batsmen ave of 37. one of the greatest captains in history, and also and even more effective cricketer ave 50 with bat and 19 with the ball in his last 50 tests as captain. almost single-handedly keeping the dominant windies side to 3 series draws when everyone else was getting flogged. no other cricketer save perhaps keith miller is in this class. Hobbs - a great batsmen but there are several in his class.


I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Kahn as the greatest bowler of all-time before. In fact I've rarely seen him feature in the top 10. The cricketrankings is based on a short period of a players career, although he may have reached a peak above other bowlers, I'm not sure that means much toward his career as a whole.


Allan Lamb rated him the best bowler he faced. Gavaskar named him amongst the best besides Marshall and behind Roberts.
His overall record speaks for itself - 362 wickets, ave 22.81. He's the guy who put reverse swing on the map (though Sarfraz pioneered it), and that's changed the whole game. Fast bowlers hated bowling with the old ball, and just went through the motions if they had to before that. In '79, before Imran hit his top pace he finished second in a speed contest - ahead of Holding, Roberts, Lillee amongst others and behind only Thomson.

Look what he did as captain. Beat India in India - almost unthinkable at the time, given the umpiring in Indo-Pak series', beat England in England, and held the West Indies to 3 series draws, home and away (and they'd have won in WI with accurate umpiring). Look at the difficulties Pakistani captains had just man managing before Imran took over and after Imran left to get some idea of how hard a job it is to lead Pakistan. And his team wasn't even that good on paper!

Batting's a bonus, but a pretty solid one, too. One of the worst fielders ever, though


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
Adding on to MintCondition and Nick-ola's discussion on Warne and Murali -

When the ball is turning sharply the ball coming in is harder to play than the one going away. In Warne and Murali's case, it was almost always turning sharply, so on technical grounds, I think Murali has the edge as a wicket taker.

From run saving perspective, its hard to hit against the spin of a sharply turning ball, but the sweep made that possible for Warne. By contrast, Murali virtually shut out the off side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
MintCondition wrote:

Today's bowlers have a lot more stamina than those of yesteryear, they'd be considered machines if they just popped up in the late 70's...but especially if they popped up in the 30's.

And today's batsmen all score a lot quicker than the typical player of previous decades.

I think the real professional era started around the mid 90's, though it has increased significantly even since then. Cricket is obviously not as reliant on athletic ability as other sports, but I still think the extra athleticism and strength, and professionalism would make a good player in 2010 a great player in 1980.


Hi MC,

First off, let me say I like your posts very much.

I agree with most of what you say about stamina and conditioning etc. improving over time. However...I think batting technique might have suffered some (blame ODIs, i guess) and that might balance things out.

Look at Glenn McGrath and the astounding success he had by just putting the ball in the right area. Wasn't express pace, and not particularly a master of movement. Batsmen - from the technician Atherton to the dashing Lara - just couldn't deal with classic good lenght, outside off stump stuff.

Compare that to Brian Statham, who was faster, moved the ball more and just as accurate. McGrath's record puts Statham in the shade.

Maybe techniques in general have gotten worse?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
Georgi wrote:
Interesting stuff Waspsting - I look forward to seeing what the other cricket regulars have to say about your points. Welcome to the forum.


Thanks Georgi.

Should stop posting now before i create an entire page!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:47 pm
Posts: 1694
Location: Australia
Hi Waspsting...welcome and thanks for the excellent posts!

You make a lot of very good points. I think re Warne and Murali, the thing that will always count against Murali is the controversy over his action (which I actually don't have a problem with personally). He also loses in every aesthetic measure. Warne had a beautiful action, swagger, arrogance etc. A larger than life player. This sticks out over the humble, shy Murali. You can say he was hyped up sure, but that hype and image he had adds something to his greatness as a cricketer, and I think he's pretty commonly rated above Murali. That said, the difference in placement on this list is too great. Actually I think the list on the first page would be different if Avery had edited it following discussion at the time. For example Pollock would be lower, Tendulkar and McGrath a little higher etc.

Good points on Viv...but you're ignoring his record in one day matches. Being probably the greatest ever one day batsmen pushes him up a bit I think. And again, the aesthetics are all in his favour. It's not just about your results...it's also about how you play! If it wasn't, Kallis would not be thought of as a level below Sachin, Brian and Ricky.

I think you underrate McGrath. He didn't move the ball much, but he could move it just enough both ways with perfect control. Move the ball too much and it misses the edge. His bounce was also a very big factor. Re Statham...his first class average was 16 so hard to say batting techniques were any better when he played. Sure he averaged 24 in tests, but it's not much worse than McGrath's average and you can't always say X is a better bowler than Y because they're faster, move the ball more etc. Maybe McGrath was just a tiny bit better at figuring out the top batsmen?

Agree with you on Inzamam...surprised we didn't realise he was missing. Thomson also. I love Jonty but don't think he should make it on fielding alone. His batting record isn't good enough. Colin Bland only played 21 tests (due to apartheid) but he averaged 49. He might be a little lucky to be on the list though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:47 pm
Posts: 1694
Location: Australia
Waspsting wrote:
Lloyd had great fast bowlers popping out from every corner in every West Indian island, gave them the ball and told them to bowl. "Do you want a 7th slip, or another short leg?" was probably the extent of what he had to do as captain.


Lloyd built that aura. He turned the West Indies from a team that wasn't taken seriously (calypso cricketers) to the most intimidating side in cricket history. Watch the documentary 'Fire in Babylon' and tell me if your opinion is still the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:47 pm
Posts: 1694
Location: Australia
Waspsting wrote:
Lillee's stats are on the same field as a host of his own contemporaries - Holding, Croft, Garner, Imran, Marshall, Hadlee (actually, they're fractionally worse). Influence? I cling to the view that Thomson was more influential in terms of the fast bowling dominance that sprang from the mid-70s. Lilllee never bowled an official ball of test cricket in the Carribean or India, and fell flat in Pakistan. Great as he is (IMO, in the top 6 fast bowlers ever), Lillee being ranked 7 is probably just the same hype that works in Warne's favor operating. I would rate Hadlee - a cricketing oasis in a desert for New Zealand - higher. Leaving aside equal bowling stature, Hadlee was an all rounder.


Good argument. Hadlee probably should be higher and maybe Marshall. Don't think any other pure fast bowlers deserve to be ahead of him though, but it is closer than the list would make it seem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
Nick-ola wrote:
I will say, and I've said it before, I don't see a great advantage in being a batsman surrounded by dross in the rest of your top order. Batting at test level is such an extraordinary mental challenge which can only be intensified by knowing that you cannot rely on your teammates a la Lara's situation for much of his career. I think we can surely all agree on this basic principle before we look at anything.


Well...

Ted Dexter noted how when he was up against Gary Sobers, the bowlers didn't even try to get him out because bowling at the other batsmen was so much easier. Dexter is a melodramatic type of raconteur, but this is somewhat substantiated by Sobers recollection and Cowdrey's explanation of how (and why) the field would be spread for Sobers as soon as he came in.

And that Sobers team had guys like Hunte and Kanhai in it.

I'd imagine many bowling sides would take the foot off the pedestal on Lara or George Headley, Allan Border etc. thinking along similar lines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
MintCondition wrote:

We should make a most elegant/stylish all time XI ...



how's this?

1. Lawrence Rowe
2 Sayeed Anwar
3. Zaheer Abbas
4. David Gower
5. Mark Waugh
6. Frank Worrell
7. Imran Khan (that bowling action was really beautiful)
8. Jeff Dujon (batting as graceful as anyone; acrobatic keeping looks nice too)
9. Ray Lindwall
10. Michael Holding
11. Bishen Bedi

can we have them play a "Dynamic 11"?

1. V. Sehwag
2. C. Macartney
3. V. Richards
4. B. Lara
5. D. Compton
6. G. Sobers
7. A. Gilchrist
8. I. Botham
9. D. Lillee
10. A. Mailey
11. Waqar Younis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
Nick-ola wrote:
My XI:

1. Barry Richards
2. Len Hutton
3. Don Bradman
4. Brian Lara
5. Gary Sobers (captain)
6. Keith Miller
7. Imran Khan
8. Alan Knott (wk)
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Jim Laker

A few notes - I always like a spin partnership and basically for me it was a question of Warne or Muralitharan not both (I didn't want an overload of modern players) and obviously I lean more towards Warne in that match up, which partly explains Jim Laker's call up (though there's no doubt he's an excellent bowler in his own right). I picked Barry Richards partly for his Hampshire connections & pure batting skills, though don;t forget no lesser judge than the Don picked him in his XI. I've made Sobers captain because I think he'd best skipper a side of all time greats (I feel Imran is better leading lessers, and the Don is just there for his batting not for his character or captain, because in many ways he seems like the Australian answer to G Boycott in the team building stakes). I like my team's balance batting down to number 9 at a push and having 4 seamers and 3 spinners (Sobers being both).


I think the balance is perfect - 5 bowlers (excluding Sobers), two spinners. This way, whatever the conditions require, the bowling can best suit, and there are enough guys around that the bowlers are never tired. Depth in batting makes up for the 5 specialists. Wonderful team.

my team would be

1) Gavaskar
2) Hutton
3) Bradman
4) Sobers
5) Tendulkar
6) Gilchrist
7) Imran Khan
8) Hadlee
9) Marshall
10) Warne
11) Murali

pretty similar structure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
MintCondition wrote:
rv, I agree with most of what you say re Gilchrist (though probably to a slightly lesser degree...I think he was a better gloveman than what you seem to). However, for this list I see him as a lock for top 30.

Gilchrist has been an incredibly influential cricketer. Every team in world cricket, since Gilchrist, has tried to find their own Gilchrist - a highly aggressive wicket keeper batsmen. Dhoni, McCullum, Akmal, Sangakkara, Haddin, Prior etc all play like Gilchrist. The role of the wicket keeper has changed, it's no longer the best gloveman who gets picked, it's the best overall package...and an aggressive batsmen who can take the game away from the opposition at number 7 seems to be a requirement.

Sorry but in terms of this list, there is no other wicket keeper that deserves to be ahead of him...despite the fact there have been several better gloveman.

[/i]


Agree with every word.

Also, I think criticism of Gilcrhist' glovework is grossly exaggerated. Healy was better looking because he was shorter, and looked elegant taking the ball. But did he really make more errors? I'd love to look at the stats for byes, since sadly, we don't record dropped catches/missed stumpings.

Gilchrist also kept to everything. Pace (including express pace in Lee), vicious spin (Warne, MacGill), and in ODI, he even got to showcase standing up to pace (including Kasporwicz and McGrath, who he has a stumping off).

I can think of two game losing misses from Healy off the top of my head; dropped Lara at the tail end of that 153* and missed a standard stumping off Inzamam (taking which would have ended the match in Aus favor, missing it which did end the match in Pakistan's)

Batting? As MC says, he changed the game. Look at todays keepers - Haddin, Prior, Jayawardena, Dhoni (even Kamran Akmal). He even made it to world #1 as a test batsman, and don't forget hitting a 100 6s.

Keepers are the begins-with-'b'-rhymes-with-'witches' of cricket. You only notice them when they mess up, they're last to be looked at in making a list of great players.

For influence and value, I'd put Gilchrist in the top 10, possibly top 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 am
Posts: 114
MintCondition wrote:
rockvirtuoso wrote:
and also thought it was hilarious that he wouldnt play NZ unless hadlee was playing (an approach that still should be used today :lol: )


I haven't heard that one! :lol: Is that actually true or just something he said as a joke?



no joke. Imran Khan never joked (and probably hasn't started since). Said he valued the game in terms of quality of opposition. asked whats the point of playing New Zealand if Richard Hadlee isn't playing? - echo answers, that type of thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:36 pm
Posts: 2903
:lol: imran, so dry.
great posts waspsting, keep it up mate.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 400 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:

DigitalDreamDoor.com   

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

DigitalDreamDoor Forum is one part of a music and movie list website whose owner has given its visitors
the privilege to discuss music and movies, and has no control and cannot in any way be held liable over
how, or by whom this board is used. If you read or see anything inappropriate that has been posted,
contact webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com. Comments in the forum are reviewed before list updates.
Topics include rock music, metal, rap, hip-hop, blues, jazz, songs, albums, guitar, drums, musicians...


DDD Home Page | DDD Music Lists Page | DDD Movie Lists Page