CMJ's Top 100 cricketers

[Sachinism]

I am not anti-Bradman but there have been sportsmen - only a handful, yes, but - comparably dominant as Bradman was and it is a fact. Anyways, coming back to the topic, what do you have to say about the role coaching has played in leveling the field sort of between genius batsmen and the "merely" great batsmen?

Just to add to that, what changes have video analysis brought? Do you guys feel Bradman may have been worked out had he been analysed so intensely? I think we can all agree, Sachin has been analysed more than any other cricketer

[The Outsider]

I am not anti-Bradman but there have been sportsmen - only a handful, yes, but - comparably dominant as Bradman was and it is a fact. Anyways, coming back to the topic, what do you have to say about the role coaching has played in leveling the field sort of between genius batsmen and the "merely" great batsmen?

There are many things which have changed in cricket, some which have made batting easier today and some which have made things harder. In my view, the biggest challenge for the modern cricketer than from the earlier time is shorter tours and frequent international travel. But regarding coaching, I think it's a bit of a double edged sword - can work both ways. Too much coaching can dilute a lot of natural ability. What's to say that Grimmett and O'Reily would have brought the same unorthodox bowling approach that they had if they had been coached through formal academies? I don't know how much you have read about cricket from Bradman's or similar era, but a lot of posters seem to carry the notion that it was all friendly, happy go lucky, backyard cricket. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reading some of the books from the era, you get a sense of the competitiveness that was brought on to the playing field. And these accounts were not written decades later to glorify the bygone days. These are from tour diaries and newspaper reports. Teams used to draw up all kinds of strategy to dismiss Bradman, which of course culminated in Bodyline when nothing else was effective in stopping his run scoring. Pitches were 'doctored' even in those days to suit the home side - the most infamous example being the Old Trafford wicket where Laker took 19 wickets. Bradman, himself no saint, on the invincible tour of '48, tricked the opposition in the last match by letting in that he would not field a full strength side to have them field a weaker side and ambushed them to maintain their unbeaten record for the series. It was no walk in the park cricket. There were some brilliant fielders in those times as well - though in general standards are higher today - notably Hobbs, who effected 15 run outs on one tour from cover point region. It was not just funzzzz and stuffzzzz cricket being played in those days.

[Bumper]

Shwetabh, How many footages of Bradman's completed innings have you seen ? How is cricket literature of the 40s an authentic source of information to guage what happened in that era ? For all you know you could have been reading the work of a Siddarth Monga of the 40s. Extending this paradigm, 70 years later people reading today's literatures on Sehwag will think that he is the greatest ever player there ever was. Sample this. Perhaps, a contraversial example! Hitler was a dominant military leader of the 40s. In today's world of nukes & ICBMs he could have not have even dared to invade a small neighboring country, leave alone his ambitions of conquering the world. That is how much the world has changed. That is how much the world around him (in cricketing parlance, competition) influences the way he would conduct his business. Extrapolating Bradman's achievements of the 40s to the current era, is the equivalent of stating that Hitler would have ruled the world in the 21st century the same way he did back in the 40s. You can compare players of the 80s with players of the current era. Even that is subjective (but you can make a stronger case). But 40s ? Come on, I would struggle to explain this to even a 4 year old! When something that I see is challenging my common sense so much, I tend to go with my common sense. I find it too hard to believe anything about Bradman more than that he was the best of his era, which is about the only thing that can be justified factually.

[vvvslaxman]

This is why you should not compare two players from different eras seperated by 50 years.

[The Outsider]

Shwetabh, How many footages of Bradman's completed innings have you seen ? How is cricket literature of the 40s an authentic source of information to guage what happened in that era ? For all you know you could have been reading the work of a Siddarth Monga of the 40s. Extending this paradigm, 70 years later people reading today's literatures on Sehwag will think that he is the greatest ever player there ever was.

There is hardly any footage available from the time, so I am assuming that was a rhetorical question. But just to extend on it, even if there was tons of footage available how reliable is it anyway. Choppy frames, shoddy camera work - you'll be hard pressed to find good footage for matches in India perhaps as late as the late 80s. I've hardly seen any proper and lengthy footage of even Sobers. But then you read and hear about them from respected analysts and authors like Fingleton and Benaud - universally acclaimed as reliable and good writers, so you would give weight to them. Where does Monga stand in the realm of journalism and what is the stature of Guha and Fingelton? I mean we do trust scientific literature and history from noted writers from those times. Why is there a block when it comes to sports then?

Sample this. Perhaps, a contraversial example! Hitler was a dominant military leader of the 40s. In today's world of nukes & ICBMs he could have not have even dared to invade a small neighboring country, leave alone his ambitions of conquering the world. That is how much the world has changed. That is how much the world around him (in cricketing parlance, competition) influences the way he would conduct his business. Extrapolating Bradman's achievements of the 40s to the current era, is the equivalent of stating that Hitler would have ruled the world in the 21st century the same way he did back in the 40s. You can compare players of the 80s with players of the current era. Even that is subjective (but you can make a stronger case). But 40s ? Come on, I would struggle to explain this to even a 4 year old! When something that I see is challenging my common sense so much, I tend to go with my common sense. I find it too hard to believe anything about Bradman more than that he was the best of his era, which is about the only thing that can be justified factually.

Well of course, how do you measure greatness - it's always going to be a function and product of the era and time the person is in. There is no way to categorically say that if you transport Bradman today, he would be the best in the world nor is there a way to categorically say that a Tendulkar would succeed 60 years back. They are products of their times. What differentiates Bradman from other batsman is the huge lead he had over any other batsman of his time. No one before or after dominated proceedings to that extent. Einstein is considered one of the greatest Physicists, but General Theory of Relativity is today taught in standard Graduate school curriculum of Physics and Special Relativity even in undergrad. Einstein is considered so great because at his time knowing and discovering these things was a huge achievement, it's not so today. So, I in fact agree with you that Hitler might not have been able to do the same things today - at least in the mode of operation way, but he could well have come up with another strategy to create havoc, something which can be debated but never proven conclusively either way. But if you had a notoriety meter where would you rank Hitler and Saddam Hussain or even Bin Laden? EDIT : The difference between Bradman and others is that you can find for and against arguments for the best in any other era like Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting, Gavaskar/Chappell/Richards etc. etc. but no one even deems the likes of Hutton and Hammond worthy of comparing to Bradman.

[akshayxyz]

few words about domination of peers across all sports 1) we cant come to agreement on top player within a decade, and you are making it even worse by generalizing it across all sports, all eras!!!! 2) 99.4 vs 50 something does not give complete picture.. if you take example of billiards Walter Lindrum used to give his peers a handicap of 6-7000 points, in todays world, one would not give handicap of even few hundred points.. to that 99.4 vs 50 look like peanuts 3) As someone mentioned Carl lewis dominated his peers, but Usain Bolt is no rookie, in fact even with all the higher-tech/support staff - his job is even tougher. I say - in today's conditions Don would have struggled as much as Sachin /ponting / Kallis are to stay around 55-60, and in 1940s Sachin /ponting/ kallis/ 's avg would have been in 90/80/70ies... ( if not all, at least one of them )

[vvvslaxman]

Pre-1970 - Post-1970. We shouldn't compare player from Pre-70s era with player from Post-70s. I think Bradman hit just one six in his entire career. So you know what kind of value he put on his wicket. Just like you cannot compare architect of Taj Mahal with architect of Modern buildings we cannot compare cricketers across different eras.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Sample this. Perhaps, a contraversial example! Hitler was a dominant military leader of the 40s. In today's world of nukes & ICBMs he could have not have even dared to invade a small neighboring country, leave alone his ambitions of conquering the world. That is how much the world has changed. That is how much the world around him (in cricketing parlance, competition) influences the way he would conduct his business.

Really? All things considered Hitler would have overrun a depleted UK and France in no time. Are you seriously going to tell me that UK/France of today are as important in the world as they were in 1930s?? What about USA? Would it be too difficult to take on absolute broke US thats struggling in Afganistan/Iraq? Would USA want to meddle in Europe today? Probably not. Needless to say entire Middle East (Iran leading the way) would stand by Hitler. And who knows if morons like Thackeray & Modi(both Hitler bhakts) were in power India would actually support Hitler. So long as Russia and China are on board I say Hitler's odds are better today than in 30s.

When something that I see is challenging my common sense so much, I tend to go with my common sense. I find it too hard to believe anything about Bradman more than that he was the best of his era, which is about the only thing that can be justified factually.

I find it weird that when we compare eras we only think negative. Would Shakespeare be better than everyone out there today? Why not? Have we produced anyone better in 500 years after him? What about Ghalib? You think folks of modern era who dont have patience to read past 2 lines would ever challenge him?? Maybe there is a chance that certain gents of bygone era were better than what our generation can spit out? Why is that so hard to accept? xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

To further illustrate Bumpers point and to give a perspective on how crap the standards were back then please read this passage of play for the final day of that famous test where Australia chased 404 in the 4th inngs .... To summarise : Bradman and Arthur Morris the two main scorers were dropped twice each and were helped by really ordinary bowling where 19 overs were bowled by part timers conceeding 112 runs(Assuming that the other bowlers were speacialists which really they arent if you want to be really picky but just so you know). You do that today and your butt will be fired pronto. Not even MoYo or the BD skipper are that bad as captains.

LOL! This doesn't even go past the first logical hurdle. First, you guys argue that you cannot trust the writings from that period and then you are using the same authors you supposedly don't trust to support your point. At this point, it becomes futile to have a discussion. The wiki link is full of references from Fingelton - so should I assume he is a trustworthy source going forward? Or are Bradman and Morris the only batsmen to have been dropped? Or have you forgotten the recent Nagpur test, where Ponting was bowling part timers? Were part timers brought on to help Australia win?

[coffee_rules]

Really? And who knows if morons like Thackeray & Modi(both Hitler bhakts) were in power India would actually support Hitler. So long as Russia and China are on board I say Hitler's odds are better today than in 30s.

So, Congress likens Modi to Hitler, he conveniently becomes a Hitler Bhakt!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Shwetabh, Dont have the time for a detailed response right now. Will do so later. If Benaud & Fingleton assert something then it becomes the truth ? I have heard Benaud declare Dennis Lillee as the greatest fast bowler. (I have also heard him call Ponting the best batsman of the modern era -- he has changed his tune recently). Would you agree ? As knowledgeable as he is, Benaud is as biased as they come when it comes to Aussie cricketers. He always bigs the Aussies up. As for measuring greatness, I would have no arguments if you simply declared Bradman a great. But thats not what you are doing, you are calling him the greatest ever & worse even asserting that he would have averaged 70s had he played today. Would have averaged 70s based on what ? And comparisons with Einstein are far off. For one, science is factual & second, many of the inventions of today build on the more fundamental inventions of yester years. No such thing can be said about cricket. Bradman's lead over his peers has more to do with how much better he was compared to his peers. That is not sufficient to declare that he is the greatest ever.

[Lurker]

If Benaud & Fingleton assert something then it becomes the truth ? I have heard Benaud declare Dennis Lillee as the greatest fast bowler. (I have also heard him call Ponting the best batsman of the modern era -- he has changed his tune recently). Would you agree ? As knowledgeable as he is, Benaud is as biased as they come when it comes to Aussie cricketers. He always bigs the Aussies up.

Benaud is surely not the only one. Everyone of 70s, 80s generation agrees Dennis Lillee was the greatest of the era for sure. This includes our very own Sunil Gavaskar, Vishwanath and Vengsarkar. Considering all these gents played against Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner their testament should prove where Lillee stands. Viv Richards picked Lillee as the greatest he faced, so did Clive Lloyd. Imran Khan thought of him as the best, and knowing Imran who is downright arrogant it would have taken some doing to say that. Heck the great Richard Hadlee admitted to copying Dennis Lillee completely so high he held Dennis in his opinion. Mind you I have not picked any Englishmen since I can already see some critics jumping on the whole Aus-Eng mutual backrub club. Lillee was the greatest of his time, Marshall and hadlee ran him close, and definitely one of the best ever. If Benaud says so he is not the only one. xxx

[graphic23]

so let me get this straight -

:woot: *waits for a thoughtful response formed after reading the thread*

if a list does not put Tendulkar number one it is rubbish?? WTF?

Did you read the thread before you made this statement? :hmmm:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Lillee never played a single Test match in India and IIRC played only one or 2 tests in Pak ... got hammered and swore never to play on Asian pitches. Now imagine if any of the Indian batsmen did the same by refusing to play in Aus would any of our own pundits acknowledge their greatness ... never mind Shreeman Benaud saab ....

And?? The batsmen he would have played against - Sunny, Vishy, Colonel - regard him as the greatest ever so you can take it up with them as to why they regard him as highly while in your "esteemed" deemag you dont rate him at all. Let us all know(when you hear from Sunny that is) why he rated Lillee the best while the "stats" in subcontinents never showed it :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Benaud is surely not the only one. Everyone of 70s, 80s generation agrees Dennis Lillee was the greatest of the era for sure. This includes our very own Sunil Gavaskar, Vishwanath and Vengsarkar. Considering all these gents played against Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner their testament should prove where Lillee stands. Viv Richards picked Lillee as the greatest he faced, so did Clive Lloyd. Imran Khan thought of him as the best, and knowing Imran who is downright arrogant it would have taken some doing to say that. Heck the great Richard Hadlee admitted to copying Dennis Lillee completely so high he held Dennis in his opinion. Mind you I have not picked any Englishmen since I can already see some critics jumping on the whole Aus-Eng mutual backrub club. Lillee was the greatest of his time, Marshall and hadlee ran him close, and definitely one of the best ever. If Benaud says so he is not the only one. xxx

That only proves my point Lurker. That Dennis Lillee is a great bowler is beyond question. But to call him the greatest is certainly not. I am not contesting that you could make a case for him to be the greatest, but will certainly take strong objection to the assertion that Lillee is the greatest bowler ever, simply because Benaud & a few others said so (however great their stature might be) At best it is an opinion of a few, not a gospel truth. And the funny thing is that these claims once made are never revisited. Richards never faced McGrath. How can his claim of the 80s that Lillee is the greatest hold water now ? The game has since seen Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Akram et al. My problem is that Shwetabh's argument is centered around these opinions. Bradman being the greatest ever is one of the best marketed opinions. It has been successfully propagated generation after generation to a point where we no longer question these assertions anymore. We first accept that Bradman is the greatest and then simply look for evidences to back this claim.