FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

[King]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I can't believe people question Rahul's and Ponting's credibility as a batsman purely based on the attack they have faced in the 2000s while praising Len Hutton and the rest not even having watched the bowlers from that generation. All you guys are depending on numbers and hear say while judging cricketers like Hutton, Headley, Pollock et al It smacks of double standard particularly when you quote numbers of older generation but refuse to believe the stats of say Rahul or Ponting :shrug: I guess some don't trust their eyes but only go by books :hic:

Ver well said Ravi, u hit the nail on the head! U almost pulled these words out of my mouth, mate :hic:

I believe you should recognize the yardstick first up and if the numbers are going to be considered then they have to be considered consistently over the years. If you call Bradman the best going by the stats then the yard stick for choosing the rest of the batsmen should be similar otherwise it will rake of double standards. Similarly with bowlers how the hell can you big up McGrath, Warnie when they have bowled against likes of Faraht, Devang Gandhis, Afridis, Cullinans, all pommie batters over the last couple of decades. Don't you guys consider the patience of the current batters is way below the old timers. In that sense McGrath and Warnie would not have got the likes of Gavaskar, Boycott and even Tavare out even once in their career. It is clear double standard if you consider Warnie, Murali, McGrath, Anil Kumble's numbers but not consider Ponting or Rahul among the best.

[Guest BossBhai]

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

[Predator_05]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Predator thats a very unfair accusation of Punter & Dravid. We already debated Punter the other day & i showed u his stats against the same attacks, Lara faced & he (Punter) was clearly better of the two. Its not Ponting's fault that he didnt face McWarne, just like its not Lara's fault that he did face Ambrose-Walsh. As for Dravid, did u not see his 180 in Kolkatta against McWarne ? Dravid played only one series against Akram & Co (hardly 3 tests). Prior to this Saffie series, Dravid has a ton & 5 50s against SA at an avg of 40. Against McWarne i agree he hasnt been impressive. If u want to talk about about pooping against great bowlers, Lara doesnt have much to show against Donald & co, Akram & co, either. Most of what Lara has scored against Pakistan & SA have come after his masters retired from test cricket. Lara vs Pak: 7 tests, avg: 30, no tons (Prior to Akram, Younis's retirement) Lara vs SA: 11 tests, avg: 35, no tons (Prior to Donald's retirement)

But Lara still has more to show than Dravid - who failed in the three toughest series of his career - '99 vs Pak, '99 vs Aus and the following series vs SA. His record in SA is poor; no two ways about it. He did nothing in '01 or '06. That '01 series vs AUS redeems him somewhat, but then again he came out 2nd best when Australia returned 3 years later. I could bring up Lara's '99 series vs Australia - what more evidence do you need to prove that he can't score against quality bowlers. McGrath was bowling the best spells of his career in that series, and Lara took him out like no one has ever done.

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

It is clear double standard if you consider Warnie, Murali, McGrath, Anil Kumble's numbers but not consider Ponting or Rahul among the best.

I'm sure then that you'd agree with Predator when he points out that Dravid's "numbers" are pretty poor against McWarne, the two best bowlers of his time.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I believe you should recognize the yardstick first up and if the numbers are going to be considered then they have to be considered consistently over the years. If you call Bradman the best going by the stats then the yard stick for choosing the rest of the batsmen should be similar otherwise it will rake of double standards. Similarly with bowlers how the hell can you big up McGrath, Warnie when they have bowled against likes of Faraht, Devang Gandhis, Afridis, Cullinans, all pommie batters over the last couple of decades. Don't you guys consider the patience of the current batters is way below the old timers. In that sense McGrath and Warnie would not have got the likes of Gavaskar, Boycott and even Tavare out even once in their career. It is clear double standard if you consider Warnie, Murali, McGrath, Anil Kumble's numbers but not consider Ponting or Rahul among the best.

I hope its not a response to me Ravi. U are preaching to the choir. I heard what u say loud & clear. Its Preds who needs to hear it.

[Predator_05]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

What is your basis of calling those bowlers as the best among the business? Numbers' date=' hearsay, Wisden?[/quote'] So do you think Ntini, Harmison, Lee, Collymore, Vaas etc. are the best in the business and as good as the bowlers that i mentioned earlier ?

[yoda]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

What is your basis of calling those bowlers as the best among the business? Numbers' date=' hearsay, Wisden?[/quote'] So do you think Ntini, Harmison, Lee, Collymore, Vaas etc. are the best in the business and as good as the bowlers that i mentioned earlier ?

Where does Shoaib Akhtar and a 270 rank there?

[Guest BossBhai]

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

[King]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I believe you should recognize the yardstick first up and if the numbers are going to be considered then they have to be considered consistently over the years. If you call Bradman the best going by the stats then the yard stick for choosing the rest of the batsmen should be similar otherwise it will rake of double standards. Similarly with bowlers how the hell can you big up McGrath, Warnie when they have bowled against likes of Faraht, Devang Gandhis, Afridis, Cullinans, all pommie batters over the last couple of decades. Don't you guys consider the patience of the current batters is way below the old timers. In that sense McGrath and Warnie would not have got the likes of Gavaskar, Boycott and even Tavare out even once in their career. It is clear double standard if you consider Warnie, Murali, McGrath, Anil Kumble's numbers but not consider Ponting or Rahul among the best.

I hope its not a response to me Ravi. U are preaching to the choir. I heard what u say loud & clear. Its Preds who needs to hear it.

No not to ya Bumper it was a general observation.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Preds dont run away from answering this for me: Here is the work of Mr. poopdy-poop Lara vs Pak: 7 tests, avg: 30, no tons (Prior to Akram, Younis's retirement) Lara vs SA: 11 tests, avg: 35, no tons (Prior to Donald's retirement)

[Guest BossBhai]

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

[King]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

What is your basis of calling those bowlers as the best among the business? Numbers' date=' hearsay, Wisden?[/quote'] So do you think Ntini, Harmison, Lee, Collymore, Vaas etc. are the best in the business and as good as the bowlers that i mentioned earlier ?

If the numbers match up then I wouldn't disagree. Moreover as you said these days the pitches are not so good for the bowlers to prevail anyways. Those days pitches were uncovered but still the bowlers you quoted were not able to overhaul the current bowlers. Does that say something? BTW we have seen these bowlers first hand and can decide first hand who is a better bowler among the pack.

[yoda]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Where does Shoaib Akhtar and a 270 rank there?

Yods, Flat Track tha .... as the Chief Clown said some where "Remove that and what is left .... " :lmao:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Predator_05]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

kya Preds ... what about the McWarne's the Murlis the Pollocks the Ws the Walshies the Amby's .. and ofcourse a couple of our beloved donkeys across LOC :hic:

Arey baba, I was talking about the "elite" group of bowlers of the current decade (00's). I just don't think you can compare them favourably to the guys Hutton and co. scored against - just like it's a universally accepted fact that bowling attacks were better during the 90's and the 80's than they are now. Factor in the uncovered pitches and their respective achievements can be put into perspective. Of course, it's all subjective but this is the way i see it.

[King]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

It is clear double standard if you consider Warnie' date=' Murali, McGrath, Anil Kumble's numbers but not consider Ponting or Rahul among the best.[/quote'] I'm sure then that you'd agree with Predator when he points out that Dravid's "numbers" are pretty poor against McWarne, the two best bowlers of his time.

I think you are a bit lost here we are not discussing batsmen against a particular bolwer. Anyways in the 4 series Rahul has played against the Aussies he has been a clear winner in 2 and not a great success in 2. That makes it even stevens. It is not his problem McGrath and Warnie didn't play in 2003-04. Also it is not his problem Warnie and McGrath have retired already.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

It is clear double standard if you consider Warnie' date=' Murali, McGrath, Anil Kumble's numbers but not consider Ponting or Rahul among the best.[/quote'] I'm sure then that you'd agree with Predator when he points out that Dravid's "numbers" are pretty poor against McWarne, the two best bowlers of his time.

U are cluelessly floating your two liners here. U first said, Dravid doesnt belong in the top 10. When i challenged u to come up with a replacement, u googled for hours & came up with Headeley, whom u have never seen. When i dismissed him for not playing 50 tests, u then promptly scanned this whole thread & pulled the name "Hutton" from Predator's post, whom u have never seen. U are yet to justify why Hutton is better than Dravid, which u will never do. And then now u come up with this gem that Dravid pooped against McWarne. Question that i raised, still no one has answered: Here is the work of Mr. poopdy-poop Lara vs Pak: 7 tests, avg: 30, no tons (Prior to Akram, Younis's retirement) Lara vs SA: 11 tests, avg: 35, no tons (Prior to Donald's retirement) How do u call Lara a great, then ?

[King]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Bumper he isn't blessed with logic or knowledge about his own player to provide any proof mate. I suppose he goes by hearsay even when it comes to Lara Numbers for Rahul but hearsay for Lara, you got the logic now :hic:

[MundaPakistani]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers With all due respect to the thread creator (who has done an excellent job compiling all the statistics and facts) i find such lists and arguments of "all time greats" a complete waste of time. There are a lot of dimensions to this great game of cricket and statistics can't give us the true picture.

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

If Bradman had played only 47 tests (which is not too far off from 50), then obviously i'd have made a small exception & reduced the min criteria to 45 or so. But if he had played only 20 or 30, i wouldnt have included him. Thats only fair to others who have played for a much longer time, battling age, injuries & so many other factors.

In other words the ONLY reason why you have that 50 test cut-off is because of Don Bradman. Frankly that in itself makes the list redundant. I mean why bother with a list of great cricket players when you use a criteria that allows you to select a player at the cost of leaving out many other greats?

I never claimed my list is the best. Like all lists, its subject to debate. But atleast i can show numbers to justify my claims, unlike other lists that i have seen. Barring 2 or 3 players, who are debatable, most would agree that the rest of the list is pretty much justifiable.

And no-one, certainly not me, is suggesting that your list is the best. As I have mentioned only too often that any such list will have its share of critics. The critical problem with your list is you judge the class of a player on statistical reason, and indeed in your own words "can show numbers to show your claims". The problem with you obviously is that you see things through numbers and hence would never understand the beauty of say a Trumper. That is the kind of cricketing life you choose and all the best with that. Your result speaks for itself - Ponting ahead of Pollock - your 25 cricketers are 80-90% domindated by modern-day cricketers and does away with every single player who played before 1940. Therein lies the issue.

Similar stats after the end of their careers, not after 60 tests. An avg of 23.6 & an avg of 24.45 are not too different IMO (Its not like 20 vs 25). The reason i stress so much on longevity is that for bowlers, esp fast bowlers, its extremely important. So many get injured (or aged) on the way and are not nearly half the bowler they used to be. Thats why Walsh's 132 test career has to be credited.

I seriously have to ask you this Bumper. Did you see Holding and Walsh bowl? Who was the better bowler purely from a person who has watched them bowl? The only reason why Walsh gets in is because of his longevity and if that was the yardstick Inzamam is a better batsman than Ponting. Here is a food for thought - Would Walsh be considered ever to be an time West Indies XI? NO. Would Holding be considered? Yes. There you go with top 10 list.

As u can see i have picked Viv inspite of his 50 avg. But those are exceptions in my picks, not the norm. And if we venture into too much subjectivity, its just your opinion against mine, we cannot prove or disprove our claims.

There is no such thing as pure subjectivity. It has to be a combination of both. I do not lend much credence to stats, you obviously do and hence your selection gets flawed(in my humble opinion). I have mentioned that above a few times so would not repeat again.

Do u agree that bowlers wane with time ? Bowlers get injured with time ? That coming back from injury, bowlers frequently dont sustain their dominance ? Do u want me to point specific examples ?

What I want you is to convince me first is your 50 Test boundary before you open yourself to injury etc etc. Do you, for example, realize that there was no such thing as Aeroplane during 1880 and early 1900's? Do you realize that players would travel by ships. Why do I say that? Well because it is easy for a SRT to play in India, Australia, Pakistan, South Africa - all within the same year. In 1901 an English player would make a trip to Australia, spend 2-3 months purely in sea travel(and land when he landed down under) and would play 5 tests, if that. And then would play the same number of tests after 2 years. In other words 10 tests in 2-3 years. Today a player will play that many games in 1 year. So a player with 5 year of International life would play 25 tests in early 1900's and today he will have 50 tests. The latter become a candidate while the former can not. See the flawed logic? Also coming to bowlers now. Tell me why should a bowler, like Lohmann, who has career average of 10 in 18 tests(not 3 as Hirwani did) is not the best. And if 50 tests is your answer again then please answer my point up above. Also, can you look up something for me please? Can you find out the first player who played 50 tests? Thanks.

50 tests, is not too big a requirement. Sadly Barnes misses out. He may have been a Shane Warne or just an unfortunate bowler whose career could have been cut short by injury. Who knows ?

Yes so who knows mean you shall hold that against him? Same situation as you suggested against Barry. Who knows! Boss if you say "who knows" dont follow, or prelude it, with a "injury factor". Who knows maybe Barnes would have beaten them all!! Here is Sydney Barnes's record for you. 27 tests 189 wickets@16.4 SR 41 First class - 133 matches 719 wickets@17 First test played - 1901 last test played - 1914 number of series played - 9 So there you have it. A bowler who played across 14 years, 9 test series and has better record than ANY of the 10 bowlers you selected. Help me understand why he is not there. I shall let the Barry Richards argument slide. We seem to repeating itself and lets just leave it at that. xxxx

[Predator_05]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers I guess we can't rate anyone highly unless we have watched them play in the flesh ?