CMJ's Top 100 cricketers

[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.

It is never going to be an apple to apple comparison but one can make a good educated guess on capaibility of players surely. Yes Richards did not play Ambrose but he was very much in the game when Walsh had debuted for West Indies. And guess what? Walsh was considered the 3rd-4th seamer who was the work horse around the strike bowlers. The kind who was used to bowl up the hill and into the wind. I feel kinda sad to mention this as Walsh was always one of my favorites but surely I would not put him in the same bracket as Marshall, Holding, Roberts etc. I dont need to remind you that Walsh was one of the lead bowlers of 90s so you can probably make an educated guess of the difference in 80s and 90s(atleast for West Indies). Regarding Mcgrath I have always maintained that great as he was he also enjoyed the decline in technique of batsmen of 90s. I personally thinks that openers like Sunny, Boycott, Greenidge even Glenn Turner would have been lot more successful against him than say Atherton. Sunny and Boycott could play the waiting game to no end. Mcgrath could pitching them on off stump for 5 days and Sunny wouldnt care. Of course there is no way to prove this so take it for whatever its worth.

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.

I doubt its that really. His performance, record stand out so much against anyone of his generation that it is simply impossible not to be overawed. Personally my favorite player, aside from Kapil Dev, of all times would be keith Miller. And even though he played alongside Bradman, and was not a great friend of his, I would always pick Bradman as the greatest batsman. xxx

[Lurker]

They all rate their peers highly regardless of facts .... You wont see them ridiculing Imran even though they know he was a big cheat ... ditto for Miandad .... Its called being politically correct/ doesnt automatically make these players great.

Yes it does. I am not into the profession of being paranoid and judgemental(you can hog all of that). Knowing Sunny, both pre and post playing days, he is not the one to make up things for the heck of it. And I do trust Sunny much more than you who keeps throwing off those two words " politically correct" as if you were married to it. Sunny and other Indian greats maintain Lillee was greatest. And thats that. xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

It is never going to be an apple to apple comparison but one can make a good educated guess on capaibility of players surely. Yes Richards did not play Ambrose but he was very much in the game when Walsh had debuted for West Indies. And guess what? Walsh was considered the 3rd-4th seamer who was the work horse around the strike bowlers. The kind who was used to bowl up the hill and into the wind. I feel kinda sad to mention this as Walsh was always one of my favorites but surely I would not put him in the same bracket as Marshall, Holding, Roberts etc. I dont need to remind you that Walsh was one of the lead bowlers of 90s so you can probably make an educated guess of the difference in 80s and 90s(atleast for West Indies).

Forget about Walsh. What about Malcolm Marshall ? He didnt event make it to Benaud's all time greatest XI.

Regarding Mcgrath I have always maintained that great as he was he also enjoyed the decline in technique of batsmen of 90s.

But McGrath owned the likes of Sachin, Dravid & Lara though. I dont see how these guys are inferior to any of the all timers. Besides, McGrath bowled in an era where pattas were the norm, which amplifies his achievements that much more. He has also proved himself on all occassions, formats and surfaces unlike Lillee.

I personally thinks that openers like Sunny, Boycott, Greenidge even Glenn Turner would have been lot more successful against him than say Atherton. Sunny and Boycott could play the waiting game to no end. Mcgrath could pitching them on off stump for 5 days and Sunny wouldnt care. Of course there is no way to prove this so take it for whatever its worth.

This does not advance your argument though. On the contrary it only weakens it. Since you value old timer's quotes a lot, Ian Chappell rubbished Boycott as a selfish b@st@rd. Apparently as a captain Ian never sweated over a Boycott, but always feared Viv Richards. As a bowler its easy to dominate batsman who are defensive. You can bowl predictable lines & attack for long periods of time. Whereas a Sehwag can push you on to the back foot in a matter of an hour.

I doubt its that really. His performance, record stand out so much against anyone of his generation that it is simply impossible not to be overawed. Personally my favorite player, aside from Kapil Dev, of all times would be keith Miller. And even though he played alongside Bradman, and was not a great friend of his, I would always pick Bradman as the greatest batsman.

But stats of 70 years ago has to be taken with a truck load of salt though. I wont get into this, as this is an endless debate.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[teacup]

There are many things which have changed in cricket' date=' 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. [b']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?

When I say coaching, I mean the facilities and knowledge available today to help a batsman work out a plan or a strategy to counter a particular bowler/pitch or iron out weakness in their batting. You have bowling machines which can bowl any number of short pitch deliveries at random/consistent pace, simulated pitches, top class coaches who have used science and technology to help players overcome deficiencies and you can go on with the kind of advantages a player has today. My point is with all these facilities the advantage a genius batsman had in the times of Bradman is reduced to a great extent because the things Bradman knew with his extraordinary understanding of the art of batting can be replicated today by using these facilities. Tendulkar is also a genius and his understanding of the game is better than anyone else I have watched but by playing in this era where whatever he knows today is studied and analysed by experts and fed into coaching manuals the natural advantage he has gets diminished considerably.

[Lurker]

Sunny also recently expressed his desire to touch Tendulkars feet .... Iam sure you will find ways to discredit that .... :winky:

I am sure you are smart enough to differentiate between peers nominating the best bowler they faced as against a comment that was dismissed even by Sachin's fan as being over the top and sycophance. Then again you are known to have difficulty understanding simplest of things :giggle:

[Lurker]

Forget about Walsh. What about Malcolm Marshall ? He didnt event make it to Benaud's all time greatest XI.

Why is that an issue?? Banaud picked Syd Barnes and Dennis Lillee as his fast bowlers. Barnes record is as mesmerizing as Bradman himself and Dennis was picked by every batsman and bowler of his time as greatest. Plus with Imran Khan & Gary Sobers how many fast bowlers are needed?

But McGrath owned the likes of Sachin, Dravid & Lara though. I dont see how these guys are inferior to any of the all timers. Besides, McGrath bowled in an era where pattas were the norm, which amplifies his achievements that much more. He has also proved himself on all occassions, formats and surfaces unlike Lillee.

Really what kind of a circular logic is that? Mcgrath dominated SRT/Lara so he would dominate Sunil Gavaskar too?? Thats absolutely weird. Sunny, atleast to my knowledge, was not dominated by any bowler, and definitely not by a metronome like Mcgrath whose USP was to keep pitching at the same place all day long. His nemesis, if that, was Derek Underwood and possibly Holding(Marshall towards the end also did some damage) but none of these bowlers were remotely similar to McGrath. In fact I remember Wasim Akram suggesting how Sunil Gavaskar was inherently harder to dismiss than SRT. I would have to dig that article up so take it for whatever its worth. In a nutshell you have Walsh who wouldnt make it West Indies of 70s and 80s and Akram suggesting Sunny was a more difficult batsman to dismiss. Both of these would be amongst top 5 bowlers of 90s. Does that paint a clear picture?

Since you value old timer's quotes a lot, Ian Chappell rubbished Boycott as a selfish b@st@rd. Apparently as a captain Ian never sweated over a Boycott, but always feared Viv Richards. As a bowler its easy to dominate batsman who are defensive. You can bowl predictable lines & attack for long periods of time. Whereas a Sehwag can push you on to the back foot in a matter of an hour.

How is that even relevant Bumper? Boycott was criticized for being selfish because he played in 1st gear entire day and slowed the proceedings. It was bad when England wanted to win(and Botham famously ran Boycott out) but against McGrath England would want him to simply pitch his tent the entire day and be unbeaten on 35 at lunch, even tea. xxx

[vvvslaxman]

This thread reminds me of Veeru vs Sachin thread lol Much like that thread this is also going nowhere.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --