FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

[Bumper]

Lurker, Per your request i have put together my 25 greatest ever TEST cricketers. Few points about this list: 1) Criteria for selection: - Statistics - How they played their cricket (audience appeal, match winning ability etc) - Overall perceived greatness of that player - Quality of cricket they played - Span of time they played cricket (50 tests) - Overall achievements of that player 2) I have not attempted to rank the 25 players here as the list contains batsmen, bowlers & allrounders of diff era (too difficult to compare). 3) I initially short listed 12-15 batsmen, 12-15 bowlers & 8-10 allrounders. Then i finally picked 10 batsmen, 10 bowlers & 5 allrounders 4) From my personal knowledge of cricket (based on my experience as a cricket fan), i know how difficult it is to sustain one's greatness over a lengthy period of time. Hence i have discarded players who have not played atleast 50 tests. (If u notice any one on the list, who does not pass this rule, bring it to my attention). So here is the list: (ORDER IN WHICH PLAYERS HAVE BEEN LISTED IS ARBITRARY) Batsmen 1. Don Bradman -- 52 tests, avg: 99.94, 29 100s No explanations required. His numbers speak for themselves. Though, the quality of the attacks he faced are questionable (relatively speaking) 2. Rahul Dravid -- 107 tests, avg: 57.33, 23 100s Barring a minor blip in SA has scored runs everywhere. Always there when the team needs him. Has the reputation of a boring batsman. 3. Ricky Ponting -- 110 tests, avg: 59.29, 33 100s Modern batting great. Has scored runs everywhere except India. He has learnt to bat well in the subcontinent (as evidenced from his stats in SL). Incredible conversion ratio. Once he crosses 20, a ton is inevitable. Ian Chappell calls him a peerless match winner and Holding calls him the best player of pace. 4. Sunil Gavaskar -- 125 tests, avg: 51.12, 34 100s. Peerless opener. Faced perhaps the toughest pace attack ever. Scored runs everywhere. Averages 70 in WI. Another supposedly boring batsman. 5. Viv Richards -- 121 tests, avg: 50.24, 24 100s One player whose stats dont tell u, how good he was. Viv Richards was synonymous with dominance thru out his career. Induced fear in the bowlers & awe in his fans. Very weak stats in NZ & a not so great stat in Pakistan, are his weak points. 6. Brian Lara -- 131 tests, avg: 52.88, 33 100s One of the modern batting greats. Arguably the best of the modern bats interms of talent, ability to build big scores. To beat a test batting record once is herculean, to do it twice in a career is divine. Weak stats in SA and in Aus during the era of great bowlers are minor dents in his otherwise sublime resume. 7. Sachin Tendulkar -- 135 tests, avg: 54.70, 35 100s Childhood prodigy, Bardman's clone he was called, monopolized all batting records until recently. Mr. Consistency till 2002. His steep fall since 2002, hasnt yet dented his overall batting stats significantly. His critics doubt his ability to handle pressure. 8. Wally Hammond -- 85 tests, avg: 58.46, 22 100s Wisden Cricketer's Almanack rates him as one of the irreplacables in the "Fab four" (WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman). His stats do justify the hype somewhat 9. Jack Hobbs-- 61 tests, avg: 56.95, 15 100s Has the stats. Rated as one of the fab four. The greatest opener pre 1970s. But has played only 3 teams. 10. Greg Chappell-- 87 tests, avg: 53.86, 24 100s A man for all surfaces. Never let his average slip below 40 on any surface. Scored a ton on debut & exit. Has a great average against the mighty attacks of his times (WI, Pakistan) Bowlers 1. Murali -- 110 tests, 674 wickets, avg: 21.73 Bradman of bowlers. Futile to question his action any longer, as he is all set to usurp Warney to the numero uno spot, a record that will perhaps never be broken. Has taken bucket load of wickets on all surfaces. But his contraversial action will always be used to dent his achievements. 2. Malcolm Marshall-- 87 tests, 376 wickets, avg: 20.95 Greatest fast bowler ever. Took wickets every where at a miserly average. Its a shame he is not alive to teach his tricks to the modern speedsters. His 7 fer against England with his thumb plastered, makes u wonder what he'd have done, if he were fully fit. 3. Richard Hadlee-- 86 tests, 431 wickets, avg: 22.30 Literally carried Newzeland's attack. One of the 4 great allrounders of his times. Pace or no pace, he never struggled for wickets. Had a tough time, in the national highways of Pakistan (avg: 44), but did great elsewhere. 4. McGrath-- 124 tests, 563 wickets, avg: 21.64 You would be forgiven for mistaking McGrath for a bowling machine. Such was his accuracy. He barely moved the ball, just enuff to catch those edges. Always the man for the clutch. Come big games, the mailman of cricket, McGrath, will deliver. 5. Shane Warne-- 145 tests, 708 wickets, avg: 25.41 Greatest leg spinner, arguably the greatest spinner. There is never a dull moment with Warney around, on or off the field. His exploits or the lack of it, in the land of spinners, India, will be his greatest regret. 6. Anil Kumble -- 113 tests, 547 wickets avg: 28.65 India's greatest match winner. The McGrath of spinners. True example of what a limited talented player can achieve, if he puts his mind & sweat into it. He may not have done well on non helpful tracks, but was deadly on home soil. 7. Ambrose -- 98 tests, 405 wickets, avg: 20.99 Batsman's nightmare. His 7fer against Australia is one of the greatest spells of fast bowling ever. 8. Courtney Walsh -- 132 tests, 519 wickets, avg: 24.45 A true workhorse. Ambrose's buddy with the ball. Lasted a LONG time. 132 tests for a modern fast bowler is humungous. 9. Dennis Lillee -- 70 tests, 355 wickets, avg: 23.92 A tear away quickie, who bullied many batsmen in the 70s. His greatest achievement is perhaps, his bounce back, from a career threatening injury and still be a dominant bowler of his times. He was considered the "complete bowler", but his stats are a bit incomplete (poor in the subcontinent). 10. Allan Donald -- 72 tests, 330 wickets avg: 22.25 White lightening, missed most of his cricket due to South Africa's ban. But made a great entry to international cricket by picking a 5fer in India. He biggest achievement is perhaps, his utter domination of Brian Lara. Allrounders 1. Sobers -- 93 tests, Batting avg: 57, 235 wickets @ avg: 34 Sobers was a genius in every sense of the word. Arguably the greatest cricketer after Bradman and possibly, second only to the Don, as a batsman. 2. Gilchrist -- 90 tests, avg: 49 A Viv Richards behind the stumps. Took wicket keeper batsmanship to new heights. Set new standards for keepers. His influence on contemporary cricket can best be summarised by the fact that other countries no longer consider a wicket keeper who cannot bat, of any utility to the side. 3. Imran Khan -- 88 tests, Batting avg: 38, 368 wickets @ avg: 23 A great allrounder and a great captain, perhaps the greatest captain from the subcontinent. He did everything a cricker could do, including ball tampering :hic: 4. Jacque Kallis -- 107 tests, Batting avg: 55, 213 wickets @ avg:31 Though not in the same class as Sobers, hard to ignore his Sobers like stats. 5. Shaun Pollock -- 107 tests, Batting avg: 32.31, 416 wickets @ avg: 23.19 Wins over Beefy, Kapil & Hadlee on better batting & bowling stats. A very useful, dependable lower order dasher & a probing new ball bowler. Failed to take SA cricket further as a captain. His biggest regret would be the loss of that world cup game at home due to D/L, which followed a heart breaking semi finals exit in the previous cup.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers So now, Lurker, u are free to critique this list. Also, am still waiting for Barry's record against those quality bowlers that u promised to list. :hic: So far in the score cards u listed (Barry vs Imran), i found Greenidge's avg twice as good (avg: 100) as Barry's (avg: 55) and weknow Greenidge is not ranked as an alltime great by Benaud :hic:

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Any batsman that fails to dominate the bowling, like Mr. Dravid here, has no place in a list like this. And to rank him #2 borders on lunacy.

[Predator_05]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Dravid ?!?!?! I wouldn't have him in a top 10, period. To rank him and Ponting in the same league as Tendulkar and Lara - let alone those others; is sacrilege. EDIT; drop Ponting for Border and Dravid for Len Hutton. Surprised that you left him out.

In 513 first-class matches, Sir Leonard Hutton compiled 40,140 runs for an average of 55.51. He reached 100 centuries in 619 innings, the lowest ratio by an Englishman, and of his eventual total of 129 hundreds, eleven exceeded 200. Twelve times in England and five times on tour overseas he passed 1,000 runs in a season. A useful leg-spinner in his early days, he claimed 173 wickets, average 29.51, and made 400 catches, generally in positions near the wicket. In 79 Test matches he scored 6,971 runs for the impressive average of 56.67, hitting nineteen hundreds and twice carrying his bat; he alone had passed 400 runs in a series eight times. He was a selector in 1975 and 1976 and had accepted the presidency of Yorkshire not many months before he died. In his day he had no peer, and in the words of Geoffrey Chaucer, He was a verray parfit gentil knight. Many were the tributes paid to Sir Leonard Hutton at the time of his death. Peter May: "I always admired him tremendously and learned a great deal through watching his technique. He managed to maintain his form extremely well when captaining England." Raymond Illingworth: "He was simply a god to me as a kid, when I followed him all round the Bradford League playing for Pudsey St Lawrence. Those who played with and against him knew he was the best player and a class above everyone else." Brian Close: "He was a marvellous player and everybody who played with him was privileged. He was the complete expert, and batting with him you just couldn't help but learn." Denis Compton: "We were different characters but very good friends, and he was the greatest opening batsman I have ever seen. I say that because in our day we played on uncovered wickets. His powers of concentration were remarkable, but when he wanted to be he was one of the best strokemakers in the game." Colin Cowdrey: "I was just so lucky to play my earlier matches in the England side under his captaincy. He took all the trouble in the world to help me on my way." In 1950, Bill O'Reilly, in comparing the post-war Hutton with the Hutton of 1938, said: "His footwork is as light and sure and confident as Bradman's ever was. He is the finished player now ... one cannot fail to be impressed with the fluency and gracefulness of his strokemaking ... His control of the game is masterful."

[Aqua]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers excuse me... did you guys actually 'read' the thread properly? or just the names he listed? he said tht the order does not matter... sheesh...

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Any batsman that fails to dominate the bowling' date=' like Mr. Dravid here, has no place in a list like this. And to rank him #2 borders on lunacy.[/quote'] Did u read the entire post ? I said the ORDER IN WHICH THEY ARE LISTED IS ARBITRARY. Dravid is an all time top 10 based on stats. PERIOD.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Dravid ?!?!?! I wouldn't have him in a top 10, period. To rank him and Ponting in the same league as Tendulkar and Lara - let alone those others; is sacrilege. EDIT; drop Ponting for Border and Dravid for Len Hutton. Surprised that you left him out.

In 513 first-class matches, Sir Leonard Hutton compiled 40,140 runs for an average of 55.51. He reached 100 centuries in 619 innings, the lowest ratio by an Englishman, and of his eventual total of 129 hundreds, eleven exceeded 200. Twelve times in England and five times on tour overseas he passed 1,000 runs in a season. A useful leg-spinner in his early days, he claimed 173 wickets, average 29.51, and made 400 catches, generally in positions near the wicket. In 79 Test matches he scored 6,971 runs for the impressive average of 56.67, hitting nineteen hundreds and twice carrying his bat; he alone had passed 400 runs in a series eight times. He was a selector in 1975 and 1976 and had accepted the presidency of Yorkshire not many months before he died. In his day he had no peer, and in the words of Geoffrey Chaucer, He was a verray parfit gentil knight. Many were the tributes paid to Sir Leonard Hutton at the time of his death. Peter May: "I always admired him tremendously and learned a great deal through watching his technique. He managed to maintain his form extremely well when captaining England." Raymond Illingworth: "He was simply a god to me as a kid, when I followed him all round the Bradford League playing for Pudsey St Lawrence. Those who played with and against him knew he was the best player and a class above everyone else." Brian Close: "He was a marvellous player and everybody who played with him was privileged. He was the complete expert, and batting with him you just couldn't help but learn." Denis Compton: "We were different characters but very good friends, and he was the greatest opening batsman I have ever seen. I say that because in our day we played on uncovered wickets. His powers of concentration were remarkable, but when he wanted to be he was one of the best strokemakers in the game." Colin Cowdrey: "I was just so lucky to play my earlier matches in the England side under his captaincy. He took all the trouble in the world to help me on my way." In 1950, Bill O'Reilly, in comparing the post-war Hutton with the Hutton of 1938, said: "His footwork is as light and sure and confident as Bradman's ever was. He is the finished player now ... one cannot fail to be impressed with the fluency and gracefulness of his strokemaking ... His control of the game is masterful."

I did consider Hutton, but Dravid's stats are better, has done it against more countries against better attacks. Saying Dravid & Punter doesnt belong alongside Tendu or Lara is bull dust. Both Punter & Dravid have done more than Tendu & Lara. Punter has a better average against all countries than Lara. Dravid's away averages are second to none. If Sunny Gavaskar an exciting batsman ? Is he not an all time great. Then why is Dravid's batting style important ?

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Any batsman that fails to dominate the bowling' date=' like Mr. Dravid here, has no place in a list like this. And to rank him #2 borders on lunacy.[/quote'] Did u read the entire post ? I said the ORDER IN WHICH THEY ARE LISTED IS ARBITRARY. Dravid is an all time top 10 based on stats. PERIOD.

My bad, but the point still holds. Dravid is NOT a top 10 batter. Ponting can possibly just about make it into such a list, not Dravid. I'd have expected you to not base everything on stats. EDIT: I assume you left of Sobers coz he is an all-rounder, but he would have made it solely on batting I assume. Also, did you consider George Headley?

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Any batsman that fails to dominate the bowling' date=' like Mr. Dravid here, has no place in a list like this. And to rank him #2 borders on lunacy.[/quote'] Did u read the entire post ? I said the ORDER IN WHICH THEY ARE LISTED IS ARBITRARY. Dravid is an all time top 10 based on stats. PERIOD.

My bad, but the point still holds. Dravid is NOT a top 10 batter. Ponting can possibly just about make it into such a list, not Dravid. I'd have expected you to not base everything on stats. EDIT: I assume you left of Sobers coz he is an all-rounder, but he would have made it solely on batting I assume. Also, did you consider George Headley?

Prove it to me why Dravid doesnt belong in the top 10. Who is your replacement ? Prove it to me that the replacement is better than Dravid.

[yoda]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Good list Bumps. Absolutely agree about Dravid. Only guy who is unquestionably better than Dravid as far as tests are concerned is Bradman. I would drop SRT and add Kaps.

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers How many of Dravid's peers call him a great? What is Dravid's S/R in tests? Well, stats aside, people that can take control of a game are the only ones that should be called "great". Dravid certainly does not qualify. He is an exceptionally good player, but that is about it.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Good list Bumps. Absolutely agree about Dravid. Only guy who is unquestionably better than Dravid as far as tests are concerned is Bradman. I would drop SRT and add Kaps.

Kapil & Botham miss out on statistics. They would belong in the top 50, but top 25 has too much competition. If the context is "Greatest Indian Cricketers", Kaps may figure ahead of SRT (since fast bowlers of his kind, are a rare breed in India), but in an all time list, Kaps would rank lower.

[koksmayu]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers hey buddy u can`t forget dennis lilee, and greatest garry sobers and ian botham Per your request i have put together my 25 greatest ever TEST cricketers. Few points about this list: 1) Criteria for selection: - Statistics - How they played their cricket (audience appeal, match winning ability etc) - Overall perceived greatness of that player - Quality of cricket they played - Span of time they played cricket (50 tests) - Overall achievements of that player 2) I have not attempted to rank the 25 players here as the list contains batsmen, bowlers & allrounders of diff era (too difficult to compare). 3) I initially short listed 12-15 batsmen, 12-15 bowlers & 8-10 allrounders. Then i finally picked 10 batsmen, 10 bowlers & 5 allrounders 4) From my personal knowledge of cricket (based on my experience as a cricket fan), i know how difficult it is to sustain one's greatness over a lengthy period of time. Hence i have discarded players who have not played atleast 50 tests. (If u notice any one on the list, who does not pass this rule, bring it to my attention). So here is the list: (ORDER IN WHICH PLAYERS HAVE BEEN LISTED IS ARBITRARY) Batsmen 1. Don Bradman -- 52 tests, avg: 99.94, 29 100s No explanations required. His numbers speak for themselves. Though, the quality of the attacks he faced are questionable (relatively speaking) 2. Rahul Dravid -- 107 tests, avg: 57.33, 23 100s Barring a minor blip in SA has scored runs everywhere. Always there when the team needs him. Has the reputation of a boring batsman. 3. Ricky Ponting -- 110 tests, avg: 59.29, 33 100s Modern batting great. Has scored runs everywhere except India. He has learnt to bat well in the subcontinent (as evidenced from his stats in SL). Incredible conversion ratio. Once he crosses 20, a ton is inevitable. Ian Chappell calls him a peerless match winner and Holding calls him the best player of pace. 4. Sunil Gavaskar -- 125 tests, avg: 51.12, 34 100s. Peerless opener. Faced perhaps the toughest pace attack ever. Scored runs everywhere. Averages 70 in WI. Another supposedly boring batsman. 5. Viv Richards -- 121 tests, avg: 50.24, 24 100s One player whose stats dont tell u, how good he was. Viv Richards was synonymous with dominance thru out his career. Induced fear in the bowlers & awe in his fans. Very weak stats in NZ & a not so great stat in Pakistan, are his weak points. 6. Brian Lara -- 131 tests, avg: 52.88, 33 100s One of the modern batting greats. Arguably the best of the modern bats interms of talent, ability to build big scores. To beat a test batting record once is herculean, to do it twice in a career is divine. Weak stats in SA and in Aus during the era of great bowlers are minor dents in his otherwise sublime resume. 7. Sachin Tendulkar -- 135 tests, avg: 54.70, 35 100s Childhood prodigy, Bardman's clone he was called, monopolized all batting records until recently. Mr. Consistency till 2002. His steep fall since 2002, hasnt yet dented his overall batting stats significantly. His critics doubt his ability to handle pressure. 8. Wally Hammond -- 85 tests, avg: 58.46, 22 100s Wisden Cricketer's Almanack rates him as one of the irreplacables in the "Fab four" (WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman). His stats do justify the hype somewhat 9. Jack Hobbs-- 61 tests, avg: 56.95, 15 100s Has the stats. Rated as one of the fab four. The greatest opener pre 1970s. But has played only 3 teams. 10. Greg Chappell-- 87 tests, avg: 53.86, 24 100s A man for all surfaces. Never let his average slip below 40 on any surface. Scored a ton on debut & exit. Has a great average against the mighty attacks of his times (WI, Pakistan) Bowlers 1. Murali -- 110 tests, 674 wickets, avg: 21.73 Bradman of bowlers. Futile to question his action any longer, as he is all set to usurp Warney to the numero uno spot, a record that will perhaps never be broken. Has taken bucket load of wickets on all surfaces. But his contraversial action will always be used to dent his achievements. 2. Malcolm Marshall-- 87 tests, 376 wickets, avg: 20.95 Greatest fast bowler ever. Took wickets every where at a miserly average. Its a shame he is not alive to teach his tricks to the modern speedsters. His 7 fer against England with his thumb plastered, makes u wonder what he'd have done, if he were fully fit. 3. Richard Hadlee-- 86 tests, 431 wickets, avg: 22.30 Literally carried Newzeland's attack. One of the 4 great allrounders of his times. Pace or no pace, he never struggled for wickets. Had a tough time, in the national highways of Pakistan (avg: 44), but did great elsewhere. 4. McGrath-- 124 tests, 563 wickets, avg: 21.64 You would be forgiven for mistaking McGrath for a bowling machine. Such was his accuracy. He barely moved the ball, just enuff to catch those edges. Always the man for the clutch. Come big games, the mailman of cricket, McGrath, will deliver. 5. Shane Warne-- 145 tests, 708 wickets, avg: 25.41 Greatest leg spinner, arguably the greatest spinner. There is never a dull moment with Warney around, on or off the field. His exploits or the lack of it, in the land of spinners, India, will be his greatest regret. 6. Anil Kumble -- 113 tests, 547 wickets avg: 28.65 India's greatest match winner. The McGrath of spinners. True example of what a limited talented player can achieve, if he puts his mind & sweat into it. He may not have done well on non helpful tracks, but was deadly on home soil. 7. Ambrose -- 98 tests, 405 wickets, avg: 20.99 Batsman's nightmare. His 7fer against Australia is one of the greatest spells of fast bowling ever. 8. Courtney Walsh -- 132 tests, 519 wickets, avg: 24.45 A true workhorse. Ambrose's buddy with the ball. Lasted a LONG time. 132 tests for a modern fast bowler is humungous. 9. Dennis Lillee -- 70 tests, 355 wickets, avg: 23.92 A tear away quickie, who bullied many batsmen in the 70s. His greatest achievement is perhaps, his bounce back, from a career threatening injury and still be a dominant bowler of his times. He was considered the "complete bowler", but his stats are a bit incomplete (poor in the subcontinent). 10. Allan Donald -- 72 tests, 330 wickets avg: 22.25 White lightening, missed most of his cricket due to South Africa's ban. But made a great entry to international cricket by picking a 5fer in India. He biggest achievement is perhaps, his utter domination of Brian Lara. Allrounders 1. Sobers -- 93 tests, Batting avg: 57, 235 wickets @ avg: 34 Sobers was a genius in every sense of the word. Arguably the greatest cricketer after Bradman and possibly, second only to the Don, as a batsman. 2. Gilchrist -- 90 tests, avg: 49 A Viv Richards behind the stumps. Took wicket keeper batsmanship to new heights. Set new standards for keepers. His influence on contemporary cricket can best be summarised by the fact that other countries no longer consider a wicket keeper who cannot bat, of any utility to the side. 3. Imran Khan -- 88 tests, Batting avg: 38, 368 wickets @ avg: 23 A great allrounder and a great captain, perhaps the greatest captain from the subcontinent. He did everything a cricker could do, including ball tampering :hic: 4. Jacque Kallis -- 107 tests, Batting avg: 55, 213 wickets @ avg:31 Though not in the same class as Sobers, hard to ignore his Sobers like stats. 5. Shaun Pollock -- 107 tests, Batting avg: 32.31, 416 wickets @ avg: 23.19 Wins over Beefy, Kapil & Hadlee on better batting & bowling stats. A very useful, dependable lower order dasher & a probing new ball bowler. Failed to take SA cricket further as a captain. His biggest regret would be the loss of that world cup game at home due to D/L, which followed a heart breaking semi finals exit in the previous cup.

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

So now' date=' Lurker, u are free to critique this list. Also, am still waiting for Barry's record against those [u']quality bowlers that u promised to list. :hic: So far in the score cards u listed (Barry vs Imran), i found Greenidge's avg twice as good (avg: 100) as Barry's (avg: 55) and weknow Greenidge is not ranked as an alltime great by Benaud :hic:

Thanks for that Bumper though I must be candid and tell you that it did leave a bad taste in my mouth about the mention of Barry Richards all over again. You asked for Imran vs Barry, I did give you that but instead of acknowleding his greatness you move the goal-post with a "look how Greenidge performed". That quite my friend is ridiculous and hence the reason I refused to check out any other bowler's performance. Who is to say you would not come back with a "Hey but look how Norman Gifford played in that game". Anyway that was that. Coming back to your list of 25 cricketers now. A good well-compiled list I must say. With some drawbacks but then I am sure any such list will always have its share of critics. Let me summarise what I do not like: 1) The batting list is quite formidable must say. However it is a strong middle order batsmanship with 8 of the batsmen selected as middle order players(excluding Sunny and Hobbs). The one batsman that clearly missed out was Len Hutton. The others I would include in my top list would include Graeme Pollock for sure. Also your selection is heavily statistically driven so there is no way any batsman prior 1930(era of non-covered wickets) would be selected. Which is not fair in my opinion. 2) The two batsman I would take out from your list would be Dravid and Ponting, my replacement would be Graeme Pollock and Len Hutton. 3) In bowling I would say you have gone less by statistics and more by the players you have seen. Else help me understand why Bill O Reilley, Clarrie Grimett, Hugh Tayfield or Sydney Barnes dont make the cut? They have phenomenal and unmatched(other than Murali perhaps) figures, were match winners and bowlers widely acknowledged as master of their trade. So I can't see a reason why neither of them made a cut? Also the bowlers that I agree with you on are - Lillee, Warne, Murali(though with a *sigh* abt you-know-what), Marshall, Ambrose & Hadlee. The rest while absolutely superb would not be included by me. The ones I would add would include Syd Barnes, Fred Trueman, Wasim Akram & maybe Holding. I must say I am not sure about the last bowler(Holding). I could not select from my list of Ray Lindwall, Wesley Hall, Andy Roberts, Holding & Donald but they were all better than Walsh for sure. In the end I went with Holding because he had the best action(along with Lindwall), as good a pace(if not more) than anyone else, good away swinger and a brisk incutter and a ferocious bouncer. 3) All rounder list is again statistically driven(in my opinion). Without taking anything away from Shaun Pollock and Kallis I must say I(and perhaps most fans) always wonder as to how Kallis has 200 plus wickets(or Pollock as many runs as he does). It is almost a shock at times. When you compare them with Botham, Kapil, Imran, Hadlee you immediately see the difference. "How come Hadlee only scored XYZ runs" would be the question, and not "How did Hadlee score so many runs". But I also must say its hard to argue against their stats but I would not pick them. My all-rounder list would be: Sobers, Kapil, Botham, Gilchrist and Keith Miller. Keith Miller has the best stats overall(in my opinion) - 37 as bat, 22 as tearaway bowler. Botham has 14 centuries(equal to Imran and Kapil put together), SObers could do it all, Gilchrist changed the cricket forvere, Kapil..well I would need to write an article about that. Why not Imran? Well because I saw him play for atleast a decade and a half and he NEVER played as an all-rounder. He would bat towards the end and bowl towards the start of his career but hardly together. It is a testimony to his talent to see the stats he ended up with but a great all-rounder? I dont think so. Let me end this with a question - You have not picked any player from pre 1930-40(excluding Hobbs). Essentially you are not reading much into cricket played between 1880 to 1930, a good 50 years of cricket. Why? xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers -- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

How many of Dravid's peers call him a great? What is Dravid's S/R in tests? Well' date=' stats aside, people that can take control of a game are the only ones that should be called "great". Dravid certainly does not qualify. He is an exceptionally good player, but that is about it.[/quote'] audio, u are clutching at straws here. Ultimately a batsman's job is to score runs & win tests. Dravid has done that & done that everywhere. Greggy recently called him an all time great after his innings in the WI. John Wright has always called him an all time great. Vishwanath, did so too. If i put some more research i can list a dozen more references. But these dont mean anything. His contemporaries, call Barry an all time great. Does that make him an all time great, with no stats to back it up ? I challenged u to list ONE BATSMAN wh can replace Dravid in the top 10. If its so obvious to you, Dravid doesnt belong there, why is it difficult for you to name a replacement ?

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers George Headley, the black Bradman.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

So now' date=' Lurker, u are free to critique this list. Also, am still waiting for Barry's record against those [u']quality bowlers that u promised to list. :hic: So far in the score cards u listed (Barry vs Imran), i found Greenidge's avg twice as good (avg: 100) as Barry's (avg: 55) and weknow Greenidge is not ranked as an alltime great by Benaud :hic:

Thanks for that Bumper though I must be candid and tell you that it did leave a bad taste in my mouth about the mention of Barry Richards all over again. You asked for Imran vs Barry, I did give you that but instead of acknowleding his greatness you move the goal-post with a "look how Greenidge performed". That quite my friend is ridiculous and hence the reason I refused to check out any other bowler's performance. Who is to say you would not come back with a "Hey but look how Norman Gifford played in that game".

U are being a tad over sensitive my friend. I aint moving any goal post. I am merely making an observation from your score cards. Both Greenidge & Barry played for Hampshire at the opener's spot. U got two opening batsmen, playing on the same pitches against the same attacks. Hence i made a head-to-head comparison of both. This is the closest to apples & apples, as it gets. Its an important comparison, as Barry otherwise cannot be judged using the same standards of reference, used for rest of the test bats. Anyways I'll leave it to u decide whether u wanna continue or leave it at that. Its your call. :hic:

1) The batting list is quite formidable must say. However it is a strong middle order batsmanship with 8 of the batsmen selected as middle order players(excluding Sunny and Hobbs). The one batsman that clearly missed out was Len Hutton. The others I would include in my top list would include Graeme Pollock for sure. Also your selection is heavily statistically driven so there is no way any batsman prior 1930(era of non-covered wickets) would be selected. Which is not fair in my opinion.

50 tests minimum, criteria fishes Graeme Pollock out. I already stated in the OP why 50 tests was important.

2) The two batsman I would take out from your list would be Dravid and Ponting, my replacement would be Graeme Pollock and Len Hutton.

Pollock doesnt qualify my criteria. Hutton does, but Dravid's stats are better than Hutton. He has done it against better attacks in more countries.

3) In bowling I would say you have gone less by statistics and more by the players you have seen. Else help me understand why Bill O Reilley, Clarrie Grimett, Hugh Tayfield or Sydney Barnes dont make the cut? They have phenomenal and unmatched(other than Murali perhaps) figures, were match winners and bowlers widely acknowledged as master of their trade. So I can't see a reason why neither of them made a cut? Also the bowlers that I agree with you on are - Lillee, Warne, Murali(though with a *sigh* abt you-know-what), Marshall, Ambrose & Hadlee. The rest while absolutely superb would not be included by me. The ones I would add would include Syd Barnes, Fred Trueman, Wasim Akram & maybe Holding. I must say I am not sure about the last bowler(Holding). I could not select from my list of Ray Lindwall, Wesley Hall, Andy Roberts, Holding & Donald but they were all better than Walsh for sure. In the end I went with Holding because he had the best action(along with Lindwall), as good a pace(if not more) than anyone else, good away swinger and a brisk incutter and a ferocious bouncer.

Once again, 50 tests rules out Barnes, Grimmet, Bill O' Reilly etc. Holding doesnt have the stats. Akram misses out by a whisker. But Akram himself would agree that he didnt quite do full justice to his potential as a test bowler. Not ONCE in his career, he was rated the No. 1 bowler of his times. Walsh's strength is his longevity. This is very important for a fast bowler. There are so many bowlers who are great in bursts, but if their entire career is analysed, they are not as good. Trueman is a worthy candidate. Tho, he must have benefited a lot from uncovered pitches, lack of restrictive short pitched rules etc. His 307 wickets are good for a top 15. Top 10 simply has too much competition.

3) All rounder list is again statistically driven(in my opinion). Without taking anything away from Shaun Pollock and Kallis I must say I(and perhaps most fans) always wonder as to how Kallis has 200 plus wickets(or Pollock as many runs as he does). It is almost a shock at times. When you compare them with Botham, Kapil, Imran, Hadlee you immediately see the difference. "How come Hadlee only scored XYZ runs" would be the question, and not "How did Hadlee score so many runs". But I also must say its hard to argue against their stats but I would not pick them. My all-rounder list would be: Sobers, Kapil, Botham, Gilchrist and Keith Miller. Keith Miller has the best stats overall(in my opinion) - 37 as bat, 22 as tearaway bowler. Botham has 14 centuries(equal to Imran and Kapil put together), SObers could do it all, Gilchrist changed the cricket forvere, Kapil..well I would need to write an article about that. Why not Imran? Well because I saw him play for atleast a decade and a half and he NEVER played as an all-rounder. He would bat towards the end and bowl towards the start of his career but hardly together. It is a testimony to his talent to see the stats he ended up with but a great all-rounder? I dont think so.

Very good point on Keith Miller. I missed him. He'd perhaps edge out Pollock on first look. But I need to study him more closely.

Let me end this with a question - You have not picked any player from pre 1930-40(excluding Hobbs). Essentially you are not reading much into cricket played between 1880 to 1930, a good 50 years of cricket. Why? xxx

Not purposely done. 50 tests criteria rules most of them out. Stats, varied attacks they faced etc also act against many of them. Tell me which ones u feel (from pre 30s), belong in the list, i'll give u my reasons why they missed out.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

George Headley' date=' the black Bradman.[/quote'] Has played only 22 tests. Min criteria is 50 tests. Ruled out. Next nomination...

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

One problem with such lists is that it completely overlooks the fact that cricket has evolved drastically over the decades .... There is simply no way one can look at a bunch of stats and tell that a Batsman from the 30s is better or worse than a current day batsman ..... as cricket is faar more competitive and even a lot of rules are quite different. A top n team for say the last 30 yrs or 70s onward and a top n team prior to that would make more sense. Just my 2 cents. :wtg:

Very valid point Bheem. The professionalism of modern cricket is almost always underestimated. U may have already seen my bias towards modern cricketers in the list :hic: