The 100 Greatest Cricketers of All-Time - Christopher Martin-Jenkins

[Ali888]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6307539.ece


Don Bradman's star would shine in any era

The former Times Chief Cricket Correspondent identifies his top 100 cricketers of all time


Christopher Martin-Jenkins

1 Don Bradman

From the late 1920s until his retirement in 1949, the greatest of all specialist batsmen had a wider role as a hero of popular culture and the unwitting symbol and unifier of the Australian nation. Bradman's unequalled batting achievements, and the fact that he was playing at a time when his country was asserting its right to complete independence, made him the most famous cricketer since W.G. Grace. Like the champion himself his steely determination, hunger for success and genius for sport put him in a different class from any contemporary. By a whisker, if that is the appropriate phrase, he may be deemed the greatest of all cricketers, because his superiority over all contemporaries was even greater.

He was brought up in the country town of Bowral in New South Wales, where he taught himself to bat by hitting a golf ball rebounding from the brick stand of a water tank in his parents' back yard.

When he came to England as a 21-year-old in 1930, he had already scored the highest Australian first-class score of 452 not out for New South Wales against Queensland. He scored a century in the first Test, a double-century in the second, 334 in the third at Leeds (the world-record Test score at the time) and another double-century in the fifth at the Oval.


At Headingley he had scored a hundred before lunch, another in the middle session and a third between tea and the close.

Against the South Africa touring team in 1931-32, he was still more merciless, scoring 1,190 runs against them in eight innings, three for New South Wales, at an average of 170. In five Test innings his average was 201.5. Such brilliance and remorselessness spawned Douglas Jardine's ruthless strategy in England's return series in Australia.

Bradman was merely scathed by bodyline bowling but his batting average of 56.57 in 1932-33, 14 runs higher than anyone else's, represented failure, embarrassment and defeat for him. Had he not been so cut down to size in that series, his final Test average would have been more than 100. Famously, it was 99.94, and in first-class cricket he scored 117 centuries, on average a hundred every third time that he batted.

He continued to dominate through the 1930s, to some extent a man apart in the dressing room because of his single-mindedness and his controversial move to Adelaide to accept a lucrative job as a stockbroker in 1934. At the end of his tour to England that year, he had an emergency operation to remove an acutely inflamed appendix and only narrowly avoided the peritonitis that might have been fatal.

This was a front-page drama, with his young wife, Jessie, summoned to travel by sea from Australia. He had a long convalescence but in 1936-37, inevitably, became Australia's captain.

When G.O. Allen's England side arrived in Fremantle, Western Australia, they were greeted with the news that the new leader's past seven first-class innings had been 233, 357, 31, 0, 1, 369 and 212. Australia came back from defeat in the first two Tests to win the series 3-2. Bradman had innings of 270, 212 and 169 in the three games that transformed the series.

Used as a PT instructor early in the war, he was invalided out of the Army in 1941, but returned to cricket afterwards almost by popular demand. He captained his unbeaten team to England in 1948 with pragmatism and made a great diplomatic success of his final visit.

Such were his reactions, fitness, keenness, intelligence and deep determination that he would have been a champion in any era since, not least the present one. It is true that the need to change tempo for 50 and now for 20-over cricket against defensive fields and often on slower pitches would have tested even so fast a scorer as the Don, but in his prime he would have relished and risen above the challenge.

His speed of foot and eye, not to mention modern bats, would have enabled him to compensate for a slight physique compared with some of the muscular players of today. His preference for keeping the ball along the ground would either have been tempered by a calculated decision to hit some balls for six - no batsman ever played the percentages so shrewdly as Bradman - or by his skill in finding gaps in the field with full-blooded strokes played late.

Short-pitched bowling would have been no handicap given the extra protection of a helmet. His powers of concentration - he scored 37 double and 12 triple centuries - would have ensured the same prolific achievements in first-class cricket now as then, especially given covered pitches. That he could not bat on wet or sticky pitches was a myth based largely on a couple of failures against Hedley Verity on the drying pitch at Lord's in 1934.

There was another paradox: he was a hero with the masses but not a popular man with most of his team-mates and opponents. He was too private and single-minded for that. Bill O'Reilly, his rival from boyhood, said: “He felt it his bounden duty to reduce every bowler to incompetency.”

2 W.G. Grace

Grace was no saint, sometimes pushing gamesmanship to the limit, but for the last 30 years of the 19th century he had been the country's greatest batsman and most famous sportsman. He made plenty of money from cricket but these days the agents and image-makers would have multiplied his wealth many times.

3 Garry Sobers

No cricketer has so often and so easily reached sublime heights as batsman, bowler and fielder as Garfield St Aubrun Sobers, a lithe Barbadian of sunny temperament who found cricket as easy as walking. There was about him that air of supreme natural talent that has only been equalled in any sport since by Tiger Woods.

4 Shane Warne

Comfortably the most influential Australian cricketer since Don Bradman, he experienced notoriety as well as adulation and fame. The more his fame and success grew, the more he tended to push gamesmanship to the limit in talking to umpires and opposing batsmen. He had such charm that he generally got away with it.

5 Jack Hobbs

No bad word was ever published or, apparently, spoken about a batsman who wearied bowlers for 30 years by the unrivalled mastery of his batting. It marks Sir John Berry Hobbs as little less than a saint, as well as a popular hero. He was the model of cricket's art and spirit.

6 Viv Richards

A proud and passionate man with the physique of a heavyweight boxer, he would saunter to the wicket like a gladiator entering the arena without a thought of failure. The faster his opponents bowled at him, the more fiercely he hooked and drove them.

7 S.F. Barnes

A giant in every sense, Sydney Barnes, of Staffordshire, was to all batsmen like a judge to a convicted felon or a dentist looming over a patient who knows he has neglected his teeth for too long. He extracted 189 batsmen in 27 Tests and his contemporaries knew him simply as the greatest bowler of all.

8 Walter Hammond

Hammond in command at the crease was one of the most majestic sights in cricket: a galleon in full sail. Withal he was England's surest slip fielder and capable of devastating spells as a fast-medium bowler.

9 Sachin Tendulkar

Compact power, perfect timing, the ability to hit good balls for four, humility, discipline and extraordinary concentration have made Tendulkar the highest run-scorer in international cricket. It is doubtful whether any great sportsman has conducted himself better despite a career spent constantly in the public eye.

10 Adam Gilchrist

For the first seven years of the 21st century, indeed, he was the game's greatest match-winner. A keen-eyed, agile wicketkeeper of high quality, he also took control of many a one-day international as a barnstorming opening batsman.







http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6296780.ece

Distinguishing the great cricketers from the goodChristopher Martin-Jenkins
Accepting a commission to select the top 100 cricketers of all time was at once hard to resist and very unwise. It is one thing to try to please some of the people some of the time. To annoy all of them some of the time is probably foolish, even for a broadcaster, for whom “one who irritates people by words or mannerisms” might almost be a definition.

The selection will inevitably offend some. It was a challenge to be asked, however, and a pleasure to sift the assortment presented by the game’s long history, even if it felt a little like choosing between the peppermint and strawberry creams in an irresistible box of handmade chocolates.

How do you compare the worth of bowlers, batsmen, wicketkeepers and all-rounders? How can you evaluate men of different eras playing differing amounts of cricket on different pitches with different equipment under different laws? You cannot, and nor can a computer, because whatever the parameters, a machine cannot assess human qualities: the character, style and aesthetic appeal of a cricketer, all things that are part of the equation.

The hardest aspect is judging between those one has seen playing and those about whom one has only read. To take one relatively obscure example, Sri Lankans who saw him still revere the memory of Mahadevan Sathasivam, who “used his bat like a wand”. He was a hero before his country began to participate in Test cricket and, incidentally, moved to Malaysia, having been falsely accused of murdering his wife. Frank Worrell, the great West Indian, was quoted as saying that “Sathi” was the best batsman in the world, but he had no chance to prove it on a grand stage.

The same is true, alas, of Vintcent van der Bijl, the giant but genial South African who was not allowed to play in Test cricket because of the political sins of his country’s government when he was causing havoc in domestic cricket. One season for Middlesex in 1980 in which he took 85 championship wickets at 14 each, and a first-class record of 767 wickets at 16.54, suggest that he could have been another Ken Farnes (who at 6ft 5in was three inches shorter) or even better.

Black and Coloured South African cricketers before the end of apartheid were even more sadly destined to waste their sweetness on the desert air. No doubt there were many others whose fame remained local because of the social conventions of their time, such as Palwankar Baloo, the Indian left-arm spinner, who took more than 100 wickets on tour in England in 1911.

I made two early decisions: to stick to men’s cricket and to Test cricketers, so I have not attempted to consider players before the dawn of official international cricket in 1877.

Thus there is no Alfred Mynn, John Small, Billy Beldham, David Harris, William Clarke, Fuller Pilch or John Wisden. Would that this had proved the end of my problems. It is a chastening thought for me that I have been alive for about half of the 132 years since Test cricket started. Human nature tends to err towards those of whom one has had personal experience, but so far as natural frailties allow I have tried to be objective in choosing between ancients and moderns, fast bowlers and slow, the pioneers from England and Australia and one-day champions of today hailing in so many cases from the sub-continent.

The sheer volume of contemporary professional cricket and the availability of a variety of statistics add to the difficulty. The main criteria, however, have been character, class, temperament, the ability to entertain and the capacity, above all, to win matches by personal performance in a team cause.

But where do you start and where do you stop? What is a “great” player? Is he one touched by genius, whether completely fulfilled or not? Is he one who has achieved great things? Must he have courage as well as exceptional talent and the hard-learnt qualities of discipline and patience that successful cricket demands? All those selected certainly have great success in common, but all, too, have something else, that special element that sometimes makes both spectators and fellow players catch their breath in awe.

©Christopher Martin-Jenkins 2009. Extracted from The 100 Greatest Cricketers Of All Time, to be published by Corinthian Books on May 21.

[daily_dreamer]

Wasim Akram, a genius with inimitable control over both the old and new ball...hard-hitting batsman and inspirational captain to boot...at 34....

...Glen McGrath, a metronome (admittedly a high quality one) with little to offer with the old ball and no other skills worth mentioning at 12.

Inzamam, Anwar and Yousaf nowhere to be seen...

...Jayawardena at 79 and Pietersen at 60.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by daily_dreamer Wasim Akram, a genius with inimitable control over both the old and new ball...hard-hitting batsman and inspirational captain to boot...at 34.... ...Glen McGrath, a metronome (admittedly a high quality one) with little to offer with the old ball and no other skills worth mentioning at 12. Inzamam, Anwar and Yousaf nowhere to be seen... ...Jayawardena at 79 and Pietersen at 60.

[Cheguvera]

No mention of Hanif Mohammad either...

McGrath higher then both Imran and Wasim is truly a joke of the worst kind...

[ItsMeK1]

Originally Posted by daily_dreamer Wasim Akram, a genius with inimitable control over both the old and new ball...hard-hitting batsman and inspirational captain to boot...at 34.... ...Glen McGrath, a metronome (admittedly a high quality one) with little to offer with the old ball and no other skills worth mentioning at 12. Inzamam, Anwar and Yousaf nowhere to be seen... ...Jayawardena at 79 and Pietersen at 60.

Top10 are not yet revealed ;)

[PlanetPakistan]

these lists are always a waste of time...

Curtly Ambrose at 51 and Mcgrath at 12

[alexjohn_tcr]

Don Bradman,Sachin tendulkar,Shane warne,Vivian Richards

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by Cheguvera No mention of Hanif Mohammad either... McGrath higher then both Imran and Wasim is truly a joke of the worst kind...

Possibly because he took more wickets at a lesser average and was one the driving forces of Australia's decade long dominance of cricket.

[Amjid Javed]

Was the guy drunk when this list was picked?

[the Great Khan]

Typical biased English nonsense..these eng journo's are pathetic..no anwar? So kp the most overated player I've ever seen is better than two legends in inzi and anwar?? This has zero credibility..he'll fill hid top 10 with Indians ozzies and some windians..the man is a joke ..why can't these so called experts acknowledge Pakistan cricket??why do they think the ashes and eng vs windies means more?? All I can say is on what basis is the chicken man above anwar a world record holder??

[Pindiwal]

Christopher Martin-Jenkins you are disgrace, how can you ignore players like inzi and yousaf and put imran and wasim below Glen McGrath.

i sensed from your commentary many times that you come from the R illingworth and mike gatting school of thought, where they tried to slate even a good pakistan player or performance

[Pindiwal]

oh come on please i respect Glen McGrath greatly but he was nowhere near what wasim and imran achieved in the game overall.

why do people have blinkers on when it comes to asian or pakistan players.

[moumotta]

There will be 'more fun' on Monday when top ten list will be published.

[Ali888]

True I never understand why people such as CMJ cannot understand the issue of context. McGrath had Warne at the other end and a brilliant batting and fielding side to support him.

Waqar and Wasim won matches for Pakistan despite the active hindrance of their colleagues most of the time.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by Ali888 True I never understand why people such as CMJ cannot understand the issue of context. McGrath had Warne at the other end and a brilliant batting and fielding side to support him. Waqar and Wasim won matches for Pakistan despite the active hindrance of their colleagues most of the time.

You say Warne had McGrath at the other end.

Then you say Wasim and Waqar etc. Wasim had Waqar at the other end you know. Plus Saqlain, Mushtaq etc.

And Warne and McGrath won a lot more matches for Australia than Wasim and Waqar did for Pakistan.

McGrath achieved more in the game than almost any fast bowler. More wickets, lesser averages, matches won, consecutive Test series wins, consecutive Test wins, 3 consecutive World Cup wins and player of the tournament at age 38 in his final World Cup.

Sure it is unpopular on here but by no means it is a joke that McGrath is rated higher than Wasim or Waqar, it is debatable depending on your point of view. But people who think it is a total joke need to take the nationalistic blinkers off.

[Ali888]

You fail to address the point that McGrath not only had a good bowler at the other end but that he had batting and fielding support. Pakistan never had truly world class batsmen during the Wasim and Waqar era.

Wasim and Waqar in a team with Australian batsmen would have done better than McGrath.

It is you that needs to take the nationalist blinkers off.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by Ali888 You fail to address the point that McGrath not only had a good bowler at the other end but that he had batting and fielding support. Pakistan never had truly world class batsmen during the Wasim and Waqar era. Wasim and Waqar in a team with Australian batsmen would have done better than McGrath. It is you that needs to take the nationalist blinkers off.

You need to stop making excuses for your cricketers:

Oh they never had good slip fielders

Oh they never had a decent keeper

Oh they were denied wickets by an umpire conspiracy

Oh they had to bowl on dead tracks

Oh they were not backed properly by PCB

Oh the batsmen were no good

Oh they were unfit at the time

Oh they would have done better if only they had this that and the other.

Suck it up, their records are their records and that is what they are judged by. Same as McGrath.

I can play your game too, if McGrath had an extra 9kph of pace he would have taken twice as many wickets as Wasim Akram. See?

[iafzal]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie You say Warne had McGrath at the other end. Then you say Wasim and Waqar etc. Wasim had Waqar at the other end you know. Plus Saqlain, Mushtaq etc. And Warne and McGrath won a lot more matches for Australia than Wasim and Waqar did for Pakistan. McGrath achieved more in the game than almost any fast bowler. More wickets, lesser averages, matches won, consecutive Test series wins, consecutive Test wins, 3 consecutive World Cup wins and player of the tournament at age 38 in his final World Cup. Sure it is unpopular on here but by no means it is a joke that McGrath is rated higher than Wasim or Waqar, it is debatable depending on your point of view. But people who think it is a total joke need to take the nationalistic blinkers off.

Question is if you you plant Wasim in place of Mcgrath in the Aussie team would he have done better?
I think most of us know the answer. Playing half your games on a fast bowler friendly pitches of down under would have been quite helpful not to mention the always dependant Aussie batting that delivered most of the time than not.

[dblock]

The Times probably thinks this list is quite inaccurate too but enjoys the debate it attracts similar to the Warne list last year.

I would have thought Imran Khan would make the top 10 and Wasim Akram the top 20 at least. Also Curtley Ambrose so far down?

Ian Botham was charismatic, but not top 20, likewise Pietersen and Flintoff are greatly overated in this list.

[iafzal]

Originally Posted by dblock The Times probably thinks this list is quite inaccurate too but enjoys the debate it attracts similar to the Warne list last year. I would have thought Imran Khan would make the top 10 and Wasim Akram the top 20 at least. Also Curtley Ambrose so far down? Ian Botham was charismatic, but not top 20, likewise Pietersen and Flintoff are greatly overated in this list.

It seems he has given current player (or recently retired players) more weight than the player of 80s or 90's.
You can really forget folks came before them.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Who'll be in top 10 ? Bradman, Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards, Warne, Hobbs ......

[moumotta]

Originally Posted by Ali888 You fail to address the point that McGrath not only had a good bowler at the other end but that he had batting and fielding support. Pakistan never had truly world class batsmen during the Wasim and Waqar era. Wasim and Waqar in a team with Australian batsmen would have done better than McGrath. It is you that needs to take the nationalist blinkers off.

If absence of team support is the crieria then Richard Hadlee should be placed well above Imran. The guy has no other contemporary of his team in the list and yet gets up there all on his own.

[dblock]

I think top 10:

Bradman
Sobers
Warne
Tendulkar
Hobbs
Richards
Hammond
x
y
Gilchrist

I'm still thinking over some positions, maybe WC Grace? S Barnes?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by moumotta If absence of team support is the crieria then Richard Hadlee should be placed well above Imran. The guy has no other contemporary of his team in the list and yet gets up there all on his own.

Good point.

[Amjid Javed]

Am shocked Curtley ambrose is so low down on the list!

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by iafzal Question is if you you plant Wasim in place of Mcgrath in the Aussie team would he have done better? I think most of us know the answer. Playing half your games on a fast bowler friendly pitches of down under would have been quite helpful not to mention the always dependant Aussie batting that delivered most of the time than not.

Well if Wasim was Australian he would not have debuted at age 17. He would have been debuting aournd 24 or 24 at the earliest.

If Wasim was Australian he would not have had Imran Khan there to teach him how to bowl and how to bowl inswing, outswing, reverse swing.

If Wasim was Australian they would have told him to bowl within himself and line and length instead of Imran telling him just bowl fast.

And if Wasim was Australian they most likely would have coached him to bowl with a correct action instead of the now famous Wasim Akram action.

So I don't think your point is as simple as you have put it.

[Ali888]

If Mcgrath had 9kph extra pace he'd have been a medium pacer.

[daily_dreamer]

No doubt McGrath was extremely good at what he did, which was to pitch the ball on a sixpence combined with subtle movement and good lift. His bouncer was aslo excellent and mentally he was also of the highest calibre.

But the fact is Wasim could have done this too if he desired. He was a tall and extremely accurate bowler who could have sacrificed a little bit of speed for metronomic qualities. What separated him from his contemporaries however, was his ambition to do a great deal more. He set out to bowl every delivery that a fast bowler could bowl and that is exactly what he did.

Many players in his and McGrath's era have openly stated that Wasim was the best fast bowler they had played with or against. His ability to confound the opposition is second to none in his era and his statistics (average, economy and strike rate) confirm the same.

[the Great Khan]

So kp just got out to a so so spinner who anwar inzi and yusuf would pound into the ground and he's better?? Nonsense!!

As for the wiki wasim vs mcgrath..they should all be higher but I have bite my tongue and say coin by pure records pigeon would be higher..he was a robot the w's were forces of nature!! And they bowled to the Aussie batting lineup!!

Hey random what do yu think of the high position given to the chicken man and why do yu think the poms are so enamoured by this backyard hero??

[dblock]

Originally Posted by the Great Khan So kp just got out to a so so spinner who anwar inzi and yusuf would pound into the ground and he's better?? Nonsense!! As for the wiki wasim vs mcgrath..they should all be higher but I have bite my tongue and say coin by pure records pigeon would be higher..he was a robot the w's were forces of nature!! And they bowled to the Aussie batting lineup!! Hey random what do yu think of the high position given to the chicken man and why do yu think the poms are so enamoured by this backyard hero??

I think KP is very talented, and in 5 years time he could have broken many England records and taken apart many good bowlers across the world, on the other hand his arrogance or lack of focus or serious lack of form may simply only make him a very good player, much like say Alec Stewart or Graham Thorpe and not a top 100 of all time ahead of Inzamam, Chanderpaul, De Silva.

[siddharth]

Never bothered about such lists. Look at Curtley Ambrose,seriously how Mcgrath is better than him ?

And RA how can any one rate Mcgrath above Imran Khan as a cricketer ?

[12thMan]

Where are Malcom Marshall, Warne, Murali, Viv Richards and Salman Butt?

[asifp]

hahahah this list is a joke

how can Pietersen be there and no MoYO and to have Pietersen over Steve Waugh hahahah

also Barry Richards in the 20s, is he nuts, Barry Richards might have been a great player, but he only played 4 test matches. If this is a list of Test players he should not be anywhere near the top 100

[siddharth]

Originally Posted by 12thMan Where are Malcom Marshall, Warne, Murali, Viv Richards and Salman Butt?

Top ten will be in the reverse order of that list with at number one.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by 12thMan Where are Malcom Marshall, Warne, Murali, Viv Richards and Salman Butt?

Marshall is @ #11, Warne, Murali, Viv will find a place in the top 10 which will be published this Monday. Butt sahib ?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by asifp hahahah this list is a joke how can Pietersen be there and no MoYO and to have Pietersen over Steve Waugh hahahah also Barry Richards in the 20s, is he nuts, Barry Richards might have been a great player, but he only played 4 test matches. If this is a list of Test players he should not be anywhere near the top 100

Barry Richards found a place in Bradman's All Time XI team. He was a fantabulous player. Even Graeme Pollock didn't play many Test matches because of the apartheid, yet he is considered the best batsman of his era along with Sobers, and one of the best batsman ever.

[asifp]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan Barry Richards found a place in Bradman's All Time XI team. He was a fantabulous player. Even Graeme Pollock didn't play many Test matches because of the apartheid, yet he is considered the best batsman of his era along with Sobers, and one of the best batsman ever.

no one is denying that Barry Richards was a great player and you select him an any XI

but this is about 100 greatest Test players, I mean you have to achieve something on the field. How can he achieve enough in 4 Tests to be above Wasim/Waqar etc.

[Stewie]

My top 10 cricketers include (and eff you CMJ)

1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Warne
4. Akram
5. Border
6. Imran
7. Lara
8. Tendulkar
9. Waqar
10.McGrath

[IAJ]

Javed Miandad down at 57th must be a joke..This thread should be suspended as a protest

[Bublu Bhuyan]

^^ He is rightly below Gavaskar and Chappell as both of them were much better than him.

[IAJ]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan ^^ He is rightly below Gavaskar and Chappell as both of them were much better than him.

What? "much" is a very strong word. Miandad has better average than Gavaskar in both tests and ODIs. On what basis do you consider him better than Miandad?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by IAJ What? "much" is a very strong word. Miandad has better average than Gavaskar in both tests and ODIs. On what basis do you consider him better than Miandad?

Because Test cricket is the criteria on which the list is made of. And Gavaskar performed exceedingly well against the best bowling attack of his time averaging 65.45 with 13 tons against them. Miandad averaged a pathetic 29.78 against the exact same team. Performance against the best is the top criteria for greatness. Both Gavaskar and Chappell performed brilliantly against the great West Indian bowling attack, and this is where the difference in class between them and Miandad comes up.

[Oxy]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan He was a fantabulous player. .

I worry about anyone using such a word.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Oxy I worry about anyone using such a word.

Why ?

[Cheguvera]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Possibly because he took more wickets at a lesser average and was one the driving forces of Australia's decade long dominance of cricket.

Yeah and ignore Imran's and Wasim's batting prowess...Imran as all rounder was superior to all his contemporaries and a very close if not equal contender to the greatest allrounder of all-time...Sobers was a batting allrounder with a pathetic bowling record...his bowling prowess was so weak that his is the highest average amongst all bowlers who've taken more then 100 wickets...

Imran averaged 50 with the bat and 18 with the ball in his last 50 tests...

This is a greater feat then Bradman's average of 99.96 over almost the same amount of tests...

[Cheguvera]

Also, do compare the batsmen that bowlers of 70s and 80s went up against...a testament to the bowling skill and quality required to bowl at those batsmen and consistently take wickets....If McGrath had bowled in the 70s and 80s, he would not have been up against the frail and brittle lineups put up by the likes of Eng, Pak and Windies in the 90s and 2000s...he would have been chewed up and spat out by the formidable lineups of Windies, Indians of the 70s and 80s and even Pakistanis would have stone walled and frustrated him in their own backyard...

Zaheer who loved him some medium pace bowling and was probably the best player of spin of all time, would have broken all test records if both McGrath and Warne went up against him...

McGrath and Warne had they bowled against the batsmen of 70s and 80s they would have quit a long time ago like their other pretender and an incomplete countrymen pornstar of a fast bowler, lillee...

[Cheguvera]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan Because Test cricket is the criteria on which the list is made of. And Gavaskar performed exceedingly well against the best bowling attack of his time averaging 65.45 with 13 tons against them. Miandad averaged a pathetic 29.78 against the exact same team. Performance against the best is the top criteria for greatness. Both Gavaskar and Chappell performed brilliantly against the great West Indian bowling attack, and this is where the difference in class between them and Miandad comes up.

Don't lie...Miandad didn't play against the exact same team...Miandad got his start in the mid seventies and by the time he went up against the windies, their four pronged pace attack was in full swing...Gavasker didn't play against the windies after 87, when Bishop, Walsh and Ambrose were in full flow...Also, unlike Gavaskar, a typicall me-first-and-my-average indian batsman, Miandad was trying to give Basit Ali a run in the team, so he didn't quite play with full heart in his last series of '93...

Gavaskar's average is helped by the fact that he scored a bulk of his runs against the pathetic lineup of Holder, Sobers, and other wannabe in his first series in the Caribbean...

Against the full strength four pronged windies pace attack of the 70s, he was just as pathetic as anybody...one of your compatriots on cricinfo even did an analysis on this...

If Miandad had the luxury of playing against the same bowling lineup of windies of early 70s, he would have broken all of Gavaskar's records and some...

Furthermore, Gavaskar was a one-dimensional player...block, block, block, make sure the average is good, screw the team player...

Miandad was a totally selfless player, who even opened the innings on a number of occasions to help his team win...

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Cheguvera Gavaskar's average is helped by the fact that he scored a bulk of his runs against the pathetic lineup of Holder, Sobers, and other wannabe in his first series in the Caribbean... Against the full strength four pronged windies pace attack of the 70s, he was just as pathetic as anybody...one your compatriots on cricinfo even did an analysis on this... If Miandad had the luxury of playing against the same bowling lineup of windies of early 70s, he would have broken all of Gavaskar's records and some...

Really ? How about you provide me the links to the score cards of matches where Gavaskar was pathetic against the West Indian attack ? I mean pathetic against them in an entire series. Instead of making hilarious claims, why don't you prove it.

Bottom line - Gavaskar and Chappell didn't fail against the great West Indian bowling attack, while Miandad did and that too pathetically.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Cheguvera Gavaskar's average is helped by the fact that he scored a bulk of his runs against the pathetic lineup of Holder, Sobers, and other wannabe in his first series in the Caribbean... Against the full strength four pronged windies pace attack of the 70s, he was just as pathetic as anybody...one your compatriots on cricinfo even did an analysis on this... If Miandad had the luxury of playing against the same bowling lineup of windies of early 70s, he would have broken all of Gavaskar's records and some...

Another funny thing is that you use lots of IF's and BUT's .... things which are used while making excuses. For you, Akram is the greatest ever bowler and comparing him with anyone is a crime, Imran is the greatest ever all rounder and no one even comes near him, and Miandad is the greatest ever batsman who averaged less than Bradman only because of the fact that he played in the era of the great West Indian fast bowlers (although he flopped against them).

It's all a conspiracy cooked up by the evil BCCI and the racist ICC to deny Pakistani cricketers their due.

Anything more ? Zaheer Abbas was the greatest player of spin, Inzi was the greatest player against pace (how hilarious is that), Moin Khan was the greatest ever wicket keeper ...........


P.S. Actually Miandad averaged 92 against the West Indian pace battery. It's the evil BCCI who twisted ICC's arms and reversed the figure into 29.

[iafzal]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Well if Wasim was Australian he would not have debuted at age 17. He would have been debuting aournd 24 or 24 at the earliest. If Wasim was Australian he would not have had Imran Khan there to teach him how to bowl and how to bowl inswing, outswing, reverse swing. If Wasim was Australian they would have told him to bowl within himself and line and length instead of Imran telling him just bowl fast. And if Wasim was Australian they most likely would have coached him to bowl with a correct action instead of the now famous Wasim Akram action. So I don't think your point is as simple as you have put it.

So bottom line Wasim would be a ROBOT in Aus team. That is all I can gather.

[Zaz]

This list is a joke

[Bublu Bhuyan]

And before anyone paints me as a Pakistan basher, let me tell you that I'm a huge admirer of the great bowlers your country has produced. I just got tired and annoyed to see that poster refusing to digest any facts or what so ever, and virtually argue for every Pakistani player trying to prove their superiority against all others in the planet by using his 'IF's and BUT's' theory ..........

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan Who'll be in top 10 ? Bradman, Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards, Warne, Hobbs ......

Come on is it not Anwar, Inzamam, Wasim, Imran, Waqar, ........... for you

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan And before anyone paints me as a Pakistan basher, let me tell you that I'm a huge admirer of the great bowlers your country has produced. I just got tired and annoyed to see that poster refusing to digest any facts or what so ever, and virtually argue for every Pakistani player trying to prove their superiority against all others in the planet by using his 'IF's and BUT's' theory ..........

I am not sure why you getting annoyed just was asking questions ..... is it getting annoyed for you

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by truth Come on is it not Anwar, Inzamam, Wasim, Imran, Waqar, ........... for you

I would have put Imran Khan in the top 10. And Akram would have certainly been between 11 to 19. I consider Akram to be the most skillful bowler I've seen. I'm a huge fan of the man.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by truth I am not sure why you getting annoyed just was asking questions ..... is it getting annoyed for you

That post was not for you. It was for another poster.

[observer1]

To be frank, why do people even care??

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan I would have put Imran Khan in the top 10. And Akram would have certainly been between 11 to 19. I consider Akram to be the most skillful bowler I've seen. I'm a huge fan of the man.

I thought you would always be thinking in that way ............. thats why asked you, has it annoyed you on this also dude.

Did I use IF and BUTs again if so pls forgive me ........

[Zaz]

Inzy could be in top 10

[truth]

Originally Posted by Zaz Inzy could be in top 10

For some die hard supporters it is not the case, what to do for them it is only Imran in the tope 10

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Zaz Inzy could be in top 10

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan

good to see you laughing on this ......

[Zaz]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan

Going by the way the list has been assembled i wouldnt be surprised if Inzy is and tendulkar doesnt make the top 100

[Bublu Bhuyan]

^^ Imran Khan @#14. After that you expect Inzy to be in top 10 ?

[iafzal]

I think from Pak to be fair only 2 people have the potential to be in top 10 (Imran and Akram).

Miandad, Inzi should be in top 30 or so.

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan ^^ Imran Khan @#14. After that you expect Inzy in top 10 ?

Thats bad is'nt it, what shall we do can we go to court

[Zaz]

Did any1 see kapil dev?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Zaz Did any1 see kapil dev?

#48

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan #48

Happy Dude

[Viv_rav]

the only real question is...

Where is zaheer khan?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Viv_rav the only real question is... Where is zaheer khan?

Akram would probably be more than willing to give up his spot for Zaheer Khan

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan Akram would probably be more than willing to give up his spot for Zaheer Khan

r u angry becoz of that

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by the Great Khan Hey random what do yu think of the high position given to the chicken man and why do yu think the poms are so enamoured by this backyard hero??

Chicken man would be pretty lucky to make the list at all in my opinion. The Poms are so enamoured of him because...who was the last world class batsman they had before him? They always overrate their own.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by truth Thats bad is'nt it, what shall we do can we go to court

[Jo_Don]

Donald at 83, Holding at 85, Walsh at 92 but F.R. Spofforth is at 27 - I've never even heard of that name - WTH is that?

I think it's clear that this dude was smoking his granny's socks so there's no need to get emotional about his retarded choices. It's dominated by English players - obviously an attempt to make the English readers feel better about their team's inadequacies.

BTW when determining the greatness of a cricketer, everyone seems to forget about the fielding geniuses who make miracles happens. For some reason it only seems to be about bat and ball - the fielders are just there for show

edit: Spofforth was an Aussie bowler in the 1800s who's career consisted entirely of playing against England. LOL!
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/...ing;view=match

[Bublu Bhuyan]

^^^ Here is Frederick Spofforth's Cricinfo profile -

http://content.cricinfo.com/australi...ayer/7663.html

And here is his Wikipedia page -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Spofforth


The man was a great bowler.

[truth]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan ^^^ Here is Frederick Spofforth's Cricinfo profile - http://content.cricinfo.com/australi...ayer/7663.html And here is his Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Spofforth The man was a great bowler.

Better than Wasim, Waqar, Imaran. I did not expect this sentence from you

[akmalfanclub]

This guy is on crack cocaine. Wasim is at least top 20. He revolutionised the game. If I see him, I'm gonna slap him upside his head.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

^^ Likewise West Indian fans too must be pissed off for rating Lara outside top 20 and Michael Holding after 80. Aussie fans might be unhappy for leaving Hayden out of the list. Basically it's impossible to please fans from each and every nation. The list is his honest opinion. And the guy is a respected cricket analyst.

[VandeMataram]

To say that McGrath and Warne won more matches for Aus than Akram and Waqar did for Pakistan is a hilarious comparison.

No single individual can win matches for his team, fact remains that Australia had a solid batting lineup that could post good total, Pakistan in contrast had a mickey mouse batting lineup.

No one can possibly match the one spell by Akhtar in a test match that was played in Shahjah in which Akhtar took 5 wkts for 15 runs against Australia.Pakistan still ended up as losers as their batsmen could only manage a 50+ total in each innings on the test match.The difference between the two teams were the batters, and not the Akhtar's or the McGraths.