CMJ's Top 100 cricketers

[coffee_rules]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6307539.ece 1. Don 4 Shane Warne 6 IVAR 8. Hammond!!!! 9. Tendulkar 47. Ponting !!!!!!! :hysterical: 74. Dravid He rates Imran Khan over Wasim Akram. Interestingly, He thinks Hammond is better than Tendulkar. This is the first time I am hearing this. I think his head is still buried in the 50s.

[Serani]

So? Its CMJ's top 100 cricketers and he can choose who he wants. Might as well not pay attention to it.

[coffee_rules]

So? Its CMJ's top 100 cricketers and he can choose who he wants. Might as well not pay attention to it.

Since he has put it out there, we can atleast mock at it.

[Karan114]

Ponting 47 :two_thumbs_up::haha:

[goose]

I'm surprised an old hand like him has Tendulkar ranked that high.

[Serani]

Since he has put it out there' date=' we can atleast mock at it.[/quote'] I doubt he ever saw hammond actually play but he needs a few English players in the top 10.

[zubinpepsi]

whos CMJ? :hmmm:

[yoda]

whos CMJ? :hmmm:

he is ranked number one in his own list of list makers.

[Sachinism]

whos CMJ? :hmmm:

Christopher Martin Jenkins

[Sooda]

he is ranked number one in his own list of list makers.

:cantstop: I read a review of that book and its supposed to be a good one, might be less about who is ranked above whom etc, and more about the write up on each player. He is a journo but I have not read any of his stuff, so I dont know how good he is.

[teacup]

If I remember correctly, CMJ wrote the book when Tendulkar was going through his injury-induced form slump. His ranking would probably be different if CMJ reviews it after Tendulkar's career finishes.

[goose]

I wonder about the effect of chronology on perceptions of cricketers and their relative greatness. If Bradman's career happened when Tendulkar's did and vice versa how would that change perceptions?

[don_corleone840]

peitersen 60 dravid 75 wow.nice ranking.

[teacup]

I wonder about the effect of chronology on perceptions of cricketers and their relative greatness. If Bradman's career happened when Tendulkar's did and vice versa how would that change perceptions?

I guess by effect of chronology you mean nostalgia? Nostalgia does play a role when comparing cricketers but in the case of some raw statistics have a greater impact in distorting the true picture. Bradman is the greatest example of the latter. Only a handful of the people alive today have seen Bradman play and it happend so long ago they would remember only a few things about his batting, so, most people who believe Bradman is the greatest go by statistics alone. His 99.94 average is unsurpassed and the next best batsman of his time averaged nearly 40 runs behind, so he was certainly an outlier without parallel in the history of cricket. However, if you look at statistics alone and not the context of the era and how cricket coaching has developed since Bradman's days and it's role in making talented young players into really good ones then you are letting your perception to be overly influenced by the record books. The difference between a genius and a very good player in an age of very little information broadcasting and facilities (no bowling machines and simulated pitch conditions) is bound to be greater. Bradman was ahead of his times but so is Tendulkar and that is the only thing you can say with certainty when comparing them.

[don_corleone840]

no virendra sehwag

[SSJ4Kakashi]

Where The ************* Hell Is Sourav Chandidas Ganguly?????!!!!!!!!!!

[Sachinism]

peitersen 60 dravid 75 wow.nice ranking.

lol now that is absolutely ridiculous

[Mr Eintstein]

its a list of OPINION. hes not actually saying he thinks the players are better than ones lower down, just that he LIKES them more.

[Lord]

Wilfred Rhodhes ahead of Gavaskar,Lara n Kallis:WTF:

[Ram]

To begin with, I find it incredible that someone could actually compile a list of the rankings of top 100 cricketers and still hope to preserve judgmental accuracy and avoid subjectivity. That is an awful lot of people to rank. I mean surely, beyond a point, say after the top 15-20, it was probably just a matter of drawing straws to see who ends up where. So, it isnt any surprising that there are quite frankly some glaringly obvious mistakes, biggest of all is the total omission of Anil Kumble from the list. That is laughable. CMJ has in this occasion bitten more than he could chew. He should have probably stopped at the top 20-25.