my mistake re: Dravid

Cricketing sadism aside, they say the Bastard was a perfect British gentleman (!), and Nick says Bradman was a twat (same difference, maybe)

Who'd you rather have a beer with?

heh, yes, I've heard you hail from the same land as I do

Also, nah, just make one man. it doesnt have to be official, but if you can put in some work, do it. use the original list as a reference point if necessary. Then, we can discuss how legit it is, and whether some of your changes can be represented in the main list.

the work behind doing it would be worth it only if we could have the kind of big discussion that this thread has generated.

Wait for a few of the other guys to weigh in, but I'd be happy to put one together.

If anything, you me and shahnoor could have a discussion.

Just chiming in to throw my support for a revamp. I don't have a great deal of knowledge on placements but I enjoy reading the discussions.

Don't really understand the connection you're making here.
He was a pain in the arse in the dressing room, Botham (if he is to be believed) was instructed to deliberately run him out in a test match because he was scoring so slowly. He was also found on the golf course when he claimed to be too ill to field in a test in the 81/82 series against India and then when he left the tour the players got him to put it in writing (allegedly). A great batsman, but also a rather selfish batsman. What exactly makes his controversies influential? And how is that relevant?

As for Gooch I think I probably agree with you actually.

I'm fine with Lloyd, Gooch and Boycott in any order that's possible. not much between them.

Re: selfishness of cricketers... its an area I tread on very carefully, because it involves what goes on in someone's head, as opposed to whats done on the field.

Compton was a dreadful runner between the wickets, no one calls him selfish, just careless, ha-ha-that-was-just-Denis.

Zaheer has been criticized for playing for his average, not the team. What the hell does that mean? How is making your average the best you can do anything but benefit your team? And Zaheer was a fluent player, quick scoring.

Bill Lawry was a painfully slow scorer. No one calls him selfish.

Also, I think its impossible to clearly differentiate between "selfishness" and what I'll call "inflexibility of style".

Batsmen like Viv Richards and Botham himself have gotten themselves out playing aggressive shots when their teams was playing for a draw - and their respective teams went on to lose the match. Selfish? Or just that's-just-their-style?

Boycott was self-absorbed (try reading any of his books. Its all "i did this, I did that") and probably a selfish man, but the degree to which he's criticized for being a "selfish player", is in my opinion, unfairly stressed.

Would love to hear more from you Nick. Your posts are interesting and makes for lively discussion

You raise a good point, waspsting, and for what it's worth I like Boycott - he's an excellent analysist for TV and radio. No mealy mouthed nonsense from him. The thing with Boycott though is the story of his isolation within a side, or selfishness if you prefer, are legion. And not just with England. With Yorkshire, towards the end of his career he was at the heart of a civil war, and was often seen to be warming up alone before a day's play. I recall Simon Hughes, ex Middlesex, remarking that Boycott used to ask him for throw downs before matches between Yorkshire and Middlesex because he wasn't talking to his teammates, much less practising with them. He had a captaincy complex (ie he felt he merited it over a lot of other players - Mike Denness springs to mind). I'm not so much going to damn him, or others for slow scoring, although in the same way as batsmen who couldn't move through the gears the other way it would be a minor black mark against them I suppose.

Good to have a new input, we get so few useful new members even less ones knowledgeable about cricket!

My favorite commentary exchange ever

There was a LB shout that was turned down, and after watching replays, it was even more apparent that the wrong decision had been made.

Tony Lewis, in his polite, slow voice : "That was... verrry close. Maybe, juuuust missing off stump"
Boycott, in his blunt, even paced voice: "I agree, it would have hit middle"

This is cracking too:

Good points and there is a danger of getting bogged down in Lara v Tendulkar & Warne v Muralitharan while ignoring some other parts of the list. But I personally would like to see Lara & Tendulkar as close together as possible on the list. While Tendulkar bests Lara in terms of longevity and sheer volume of runs over tests and ODIs and comfortably in the 100s stakes, there is an area where Lara bests Tendulkar (and everyone else on this for that matter). 375, 400, 277, 501* (FC match). As well as 6 other test double centuries. Tendulkar has 4 test double centuries and a best score across tests and FC of 248*.

I agree. I'd slot them both ahead of Viv Richards. They have more solid credentials. Lara at any least, is Viv's equal in aethetics, and Tendulkar's numbers are what they are

Bit more on Boycott's charming ways.

- he was dropped after scoring 246* against India for slow scoring, and the implications of selfishness that go with it.
Going into the match, he'd played 7-8 innings in first class cricket for the season and reached double figures once.
On day 1, he grinded his way to little over a 100, and on day 2, he doubled his score in half the time, which (he says) brought on more criticism for selfishness along the lines of "he can score fast when he wants to, see, he was just playing for himself that 1st day".
Boycott's view, that he grinded because he wasn't batting well and out of form, and felt better the next day sounds completely reasonable to me. And England won comfortably with time to spare. And Boycott was punished for slow scoring and dropped for the next match

-They say he ducked fast bowling, esp. Lillee and Thomson in 74/75. Tony Greig was fined and and stripped of the Sussex captaincy for making claims like this, and he wasn't the only one.
No one knew who Thomson was going into the tour, and no one knew what Lillee, returning after 2 years, was capable of.

He tells a good story about Botham, too. Says Botham was as gung-ho to join the first rebel tour to South Africa as anyone and repeated his commitment (while on vacation in Antigua with Viv Richards) months after the initial process of seeing who was interested and who wasn't. Then Botham had some commercial/sponsorship deals fall his way and backed out last minute.

He told the press that he chose not to go because "I would never be able to look Viv in the eye again".
Boycott quotes Gooch as saying, "I'll never trust Both again", after this episode.

waspsting,

I certainly am not one who looks at Both through rose tinted glasses. I definitely think there is a duplicitous streak running through him juxtaposed with his what you see is what you get persona that he is very keen to push publicly. I am very familiar with the double ton and dropping and I agree with you entirely.

I can't let discussion of Boycs go without this little personal gem of mine. When I was about 12 or 13 I wrote off to dozens of old England cricketers asking in a roundabout way for their autographs having first flattered their egos by waxing lyrical about their playing careers (I was as odd then as I am now, clearly). Boycs replied to me using the same envelope and the same stamp, merely crossing over his name and address for mine and instructing me within to "enclose a stamped addressed envelope next time" but stating that he appreciated my kind words and agreed with them all