CMJ's Top 100 cricketers

[S.Bond]

There are really a lot of problems is the list... But i really doubt that one can come with a BEST 100 PLAYERS EVER and a lot of people to agree with it... I will have Imran Khan IN the top 10 for sure, to me he should be 4th....

[Don Sharma]

Likes of Hanif Mohammad, Desy Haynes, Anil Kumble, Mark Waugh and Aravinda de Silva can't find a place in the top 100 of all time? OMG.

[thevortex]

I agree with marris again. As much as these omissions are glaring, one really has to feel sorry for Martin Jenkins. The job was too vast.

[Mamu]

There are really a lot of problems is the list... But i really doubt that one can come with a BEST 100 PLAYERS EVER and a lot of people to agree with it... I will have Imran Khan IN the top 10 for sure, to me he should be 4th....

Holy shyte? #4?? Why ? Why not #1 ? I am sure according to you he is the best human who has ever walked the mother earth.

[Watson87]

wtf is this S***, a stupid rating system created by some no life goras, Sachin deserves 2 atleast, way ahead of Warne. Also Bradman should be nowhere near the list, so Sachin #1

[Gunner_Mania]

I agree with marris again. As much as these omissions are glaring' date=' one really has to feel sorry for Martin Jenkins. [b']The job was too vast.

As Sriram says, he has bit more than he can chew. I mean the very fact that he has written in detail only about the #1 and just got a few quickly put together words for the remaining 9 speaks volumes. The description of Tendulkar is some one with the 'ability to hit good balls for four' . That the best he could come up with??

[Watson87]

As Sriram says' date=' he has bit more than he can chew. I mean the very fact that he has written in detail only about the #1 and just got a few quickly put together words for the remaining 9 speaks volumes. The description of Tendulkar is some one with the 'ability to hit good balls for four' . That the best he could come up with??[/quote'] He was probably one of the one of the few 1nightstanders that Bradman been with.

[Ram]

The case of Don Bradman is pretty curious though. He makes it to the top of almost EVERY cricket Pundit's greatest player list, that too by a margin wide enough to drive a truck through. I guess that there was no doubt that he a VERY fine player who would have done well in any era (and that quite possibly, the biggest tribute you can give to any sports person), but was he really the near-invincible, deity of batting that he is portrayed out to be? Possibly yes, probably not. The one thing that ha helped the Don's legacy to not just grow but also sustain and thrive, even nearly 6 decades after his retirement is the fact that sports broadcasting was almost non-existent back then. So, a big proportion of what we know about the Don is through hear-say and anecdotal references. And we all know that when its comes to word-of-mouth, things can really be blown way out of proportion. Not to suggest that all of the Don's greatness is merely figment of fabrication borne out of false and exaggerated accounts of batting exploits, but I do find it hard to convince myself that this guy was as good as he's sometimes portrayed to be, especially when a big majority of the people doing all the glorification have not seen him bat and there's very limited documentary evidence of his batting.

[punjabi_khota]

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

He is playing Vijay Hazare trophy. :((

[Serani]

wtf is this S***' date=' a stupid rating system created by some no life goras, Sachin deserves 2 atleast, way ahead of Warne. Also Bradman should be nowhere near the list, so Sachin #1[/quote'] No need to get racist, no need to see it as an insult to India when Sachin isnt ranked number 1 on every list ever. If the list was made by an Indian then it would be more favourable to Indian players so I fail to see the problem with an english journalist being more Englandcentric. Way to blow stuff out of proportion guys.

[Mamu]

The case of Don Bradman is pretty curious though. He makes it to the top of almost EVERY cricket Pundit's greatest player list, that too by a margin wide enough to drive a truck through. I guess that there was no doubt that he a VERY fine player who would have done well in any era (and that quite possibly, the biggest tribute you can give to any sports person), but was he really the near-invincible, deity of batting that he is portrayed out to be? Possibly yes, probably not. The one thing that ha helped the Don's legacy to not just grow but also sustain and thrive, even nearly 6 decades after his retirement is the fact that sports broadcasting was almost non-existent back then. So, a big proportion of what we know about the Don is through hear-say and anecdotal references. And we all know that when its comes to word-of-mouth, things can really be blown way out of proportion. Not to suggest that all of the Don's greatness is merely figment of fabrication borne out of false and exaggerated accounts of batting exploits, but I do find it hard to convince myself that this guy was as good as he's sometimes portrayed to be, especially when a big majority of the people doing all the glorification have not seen him bat and there's very limited documentary evidence of his batting.

And don't forget -- 90% of the tests he played only against England. What would people say about Laxman if he played against Australia. BTW: I am not by any means saying Don is highly overrated or any such stuff, but some questions do linger.

[vvvslaxman]

My top 100 players 1) Bradman 2) Tendulkar 3) Sobers 4) Richards 5) Russell Arnold 6) Warne 7) Lillee 8) .. but seriously.. we should not mix players from one era with another era. Pre-70 , Post-70 would make sense.

[The Outsider]

Here is an irrefutable fact about Bradman - no sportsman, in any sport or era, has dominated his peers by the margin and to the extent he did.

[Ram]

Here is an irrefutable fact about Bradman - no sportsman' date=' in any sport or era, has dominated his peers by the margin and to the extent he did.[/quote'] Maybe the others just didnt care. :hmmm:

[Gunner_Mania]

Here is an irrefutable fact about Bradman - no sportsman' date=' in any sport or era, has dominated his peers by the margin and to the extent he did.[/quote'] Phil 'the Power' Taylor :hmmm:

[yoda]

Here is an irrefutable fact about Bradman - no sportsman' date=' in any sport or era, has dominated his peers by the margin and to the extent he did.[/quote'] Exactly. You just cant discount the margin of difference between him and his peers.

[yoda]

Maybe the others just didnt care. :hmmm:

So he was the only talented batsman who cared about this batting? :two_thumbs_up:

[goose]

Here is an irrefutable fact about Bradman - no sportsman' date=' in any sport or era, has dominated his peers by the margin and to the extent he did.[/quote'] On what measure? His test batting average. Why should subsequent greats and their peer player dominance be assessed on the same metric? It's school playground 'i got here before you did' logic.

[Gunner_Mania]

Here is an irrefutable fact about Bradman - no sportsman' date=' in any sport or era, has dominated his peers by the margin and to the extent he did.[/quote'] Well depends on how you calculate the margin. If it the batting average, then you are right, but if the margin was the most number of international runs scored or most number of internatinal hundreds or most number of wickets taken or a combination of both? Again he probably is/was the greatest batsman, definitely can't be said the greatest cricketer. That probably would be Sir Gary Sobers.

[Cow Corner]

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.

Err, he was rated as the fourth best batsmen ever by Wisden...Test average of 58...50,000 first class runs, 700 first class wickets... If another cricketer comes along an averages 60 whilst the rest of the world averages 35 then you might be able to argue that the world has changed batting wise and his relative difference puts him up there with the Don, but seriously, when you average that much more than all time greats from that era its saying something.