FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I guess we can't rate anyone highly unless we have watched them play in the flesh ?

I am not sure in what context you make that statement Predator but I do not personally beleive in it. I mean I can not compare say a George Headley to a Rahul Dravid based on first hand experience but there are ways to educate oneself(if one is interested obviously). You can check stats or you can try to read as much as you can. At the end of the day you get an idea. The point with that approach is not that Headley was better than Dravid but that if tomorrow someone talks of Headley as one of the best ever you know where he is coming from and not just dismiss it as a rant of "elitist" whose only claim to cricket knowledge is books. xxx

[Predator_05]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I am not sure in what context you make that statement Predator but I do not personally beleive in it. I mean I can not compare say a George Headley to a Rahul Dravid based on first hand experience but there are ways to educate oneself(if one is interested obviously). You can check stats or you can try to read as much as you can. At the end of the day you get an idea. The point with that approach is not that Headley was better than Dravid but that if tomorrow someone talks of Headley as one of the best ever you know where he is coming from and not just dismiss it as a rant of "elitist" whose only claim to cricket knowledge is books. xxx

My views are more or less the same, but that was just the impression i was getting from some people on here.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

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?

U are jumping to conclusions based on one exception that i was willing to make. I clearly stated Bradman wouldnt have made my list if he had played only 30 tests or 35 tests. U mentioned 47 tests (excluding the last series he played in), which is just 3 short of my criteria. Hence i was willing to relax the criteria a bit, as this is not a hard & fast rule, something that i chose as a standard of reference to be fair to all players.

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.

Its simple mate. U choose believe all the hype u read. I dont 'take the hype' as is. I subject it thru some stats and do some extrapolation. And in the process, cut out folks like Barry & Graeme Pollock, who were just rated for their potential. From my experience as a cricket fan, i know how hard it is to crank up the numbers & do so consistently over a long period of time against the best international players of an era.

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.

I have seen Holding clips. He is poetry in motion. But his action, his delivery, his pace, his bounce etc can all be quanitified in numbers (his wickets, his avg). If they are not quanitifiable, u are asking me to list Holding for his artistic value, which i wont do. Inzy over Ponting is clearly a wrong example. Punter & Inzi have played comparable no. of tests. Holding has played half of Walsh has played & took half of Walsh's wickets. Now if Inzi played twice as much as Ponting, averages about the same & scored twice the no. of runs, then Inzi would rank better than Punter.

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.

U are stating these as if they are gospel truths. Its a subjective question & the answer is subjective, ofcourse. Some would pick Holding, some would pick Walsh.

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?

Fair points on the time of travel & how it affects no. of tests played, something i admit i have not considered. Spare a thought or two for modern players as well: a) Modern day players play too much cricket of any one form. All tours are about 2 months long roughly & there are back to back tests with roughly one day gap in between. b) There are no rest days in test cricket anymore. c) Modern players play a lot of ODI cricket, not to mention 20-20, in addition to test cricket. For a bowler, definitely these are huge disadvantages. Take Harmison for example, he just started his career two years ago, he already retired from ODIs, citing prolonging his test career as his priority. d) Modern day bowlers have to contend with covered pitches & flat tracks. e) Ball tampering is virtually ruled out as camera prey on the bowlers & fielders like Vultures. So definitely for bowlers the job has only gotten tougher.

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.

U have raised valid points about Barne's career, which i need to think about, as i did not account for the time spent in travelling. But 18 tests, for Lohmann, even by stone age standards is too little.

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

I already knew Barne had impressive stats. But overlooked his career span (14 years). Per modern day schedules, he would have played 100 tests in this time. In his case, we will have to speculate, as more cricket could also mean more injuries. Besides, Barnes may have had to contend with variety of pitches, flat tracks, more aggressive batsmen etc. So he will remain an unknown like Barry for me, tho, u have a much better case for Barnes, than Barry. Besides 27 tests in 14 years is roughly 2 tests a year, which is also an advantage. If Akhtar/Waqar played two tests a year, am sure their stats will be second to none.

[Predator_05]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Isn't the task of sustaining a top notch record made much more difficult when playing fewer tests over a longer time span ? In contemporary times, probably not. But when you factor in conditions like uncovered wickets, time-travel, long interruptions (ie; a war) limited protection - all of which can result in a serious deterioration of form due to age and other debilitating factors - it does seem more difficult. Most batsmen today essentially, get more chances to redeem themselves. Pitches can be more or less the same everywhere you go, hence they know what to expect. You will get the odd anomaly here and there, but by and large the game is loaded in favour of the batsman. A few poor series or a bad season once in a while won't do too much to their stats. This wouldn't have been the case back in the old days.

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

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.

I guess it is just the same way you side-stepped the fact that Dravid never dominates attacks, even while on top. I pretty much left the argument mid-way once I noticed your steep cut-off of 50 tests. A lot of the names I'd have added in never made 50 tests, despite playing for years. As for watching these people play, none of us here have, so I don't know what difference it makes.

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

U are jumping to conclusions based on one exception that i was willing to make. I clearly stated Bradman wouldnt have made my list if he had played only 30 tests or 35 tests. U mentioned 47 tests (excluding the last series he played in), which is just 3 short of my criteria. Hence i was willing to relax the criteria a bit, as this is not a hard & fast rule, something that i chose as a standard of reference to be fair to all players.

Actually I am only pointing out what you have suggested yourself. Bradman gets in because of 50 tests. Why? I would say again, what I said before. The very thought that you would relax your criteria to accomodated one single player makes it redudant. Tell me why not?

U choose believe all the hype u read. I dont 'take the hype' as is. I subject it thru some stats and do some extrapolation. And in the process, cut out folks like Barry & Graeme Pollock, who were just rated for their potential.

Hmm so now its personal attack time. Well Bumper what you consider me "beleivin hype" I actually think you are cricket illiterate, specially when it comes to cricket history. You talk of stats and know nothing of stats, else most bowlers of 1900 eras would be there. So why are they not there? Well because they did not play 50 tests( a loophole to accomodate a player, a batsman at that!). So you do realize what your list becomes now? From a list of 25 great cricketers to a list of 25 great cricketers post Second World war era. That effectively removes all cricket greats before that. Not even a mention of Fredrick Spofforth or Hedily Verity or Clyde Wolcott or Leanie Constantine. You, in your inherent smartness, deem they all as "hype"(your words) while I am thinking - shouldnt a cricket fan read about these greats? and if he/she doesnt then is she not a cricket illiterate?

I have seen Holding clips. He is poetry in motion. But his action, his delivery, his pace, his bounce etc can all be quanitified in numbers (his wickets, his avg). If they are not quanitifiable, u are asking me to list Holding for his artistic value, which i wont do.

Errr you say poetry in motion and then you imply me asking to list Holding's artistic value. Make up your mind Bumper. Holding was the better of fast bowler. He was the most dangerous fast bowler of West Indies till Malcolm Marshall arrived. And it took Marshall a good 25-30 tests to arrive there(check his career stats). Holding's greatness can be exemplified in many ways - that great over to Boycott(mentioned by some as greatest ever, sorry that would not rank anywhere in your list as it ended up with "mere" one wicket), or the time when he stream rolled England on a dead Oval wicket. When was the time Walsh was considered the best West Indies bowler, let alone of the world? Even in his own team(he was always a stock bowler till everyone retired) he was never the best. Holding was the spearhead, the striker. Walsh was well a potent workhorse at best.

U are stating these as if they are gospel truths. Its a subjective question & the answer is subjective, ofcourse. Some would pick Holding, some would pick Walsh.

Thats your opinion. I dont think Walsh will ever make the cut as a fast bowler ahead of Michael Holding in an all-time West Indies XI.

Fair points on the time of travel & how it affects no. of tests played, something i admit i have not considered. Spare a thought or two for modern players as well:

Good. So that would explain one reason why you do not have any single player prior to 1950 in your list. People did not travel much. As for your concerns about more cricket, new umpiring gadgets, modern day bowlers and all I am more than willing to concede that they are all fair arguments. But no way modern day bowlers, umpiring gadgets and more cricket become deadlier than Bobby Peel on a rainy wicket. See my stand has all along been that you cannot, and should not, rate players on pure stats and hence I have objected to your position, which is just opposite.

U have raised valid points about Barne's career, which i need to think about, as i did not account for the time spent in travelling. But 18 tests, for Lohmann, even by stone age standards is too little.

Thanks. Now help me understand why with the same yardstick Clarrie Grimmett doesnt get in. 37 Tests 216 wickets@24 first clss - 248 matches 1424 wickets @22 Years played - 11 Series played in - 9 Just to extrapolate if Grimmett had played in the same era as Warne he would have ended up with 693 wickets after 11 years. Warne's record - 561 wickets. Tell me why Clarie Grimmette doesnt make the cut. Will check Lohmann some other time. xxxx

[Guest BossBhai]

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

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I guess it is just the same way you side-stepped the fact that Dravid never dominates attacks, even while on top.

I didnt side step anything. I did answer Predator's post, i even pointed out a few stats of Dravid against SA etc. I also ended up asking a question on Lara, which no one answered yet.

I pretty much left the argument mid-way once I noticed your steep cut-off of 50 tests. A lot of the names I'd have added in never made 50 tests, despite playing for years. As for watching these people play, none of us here have, so I don't know what difference it makes.

So be consistent when u judge players. If u havent watched Hutton or Headeley, u dont know what attacks they played. U just take their stats as is. Do the same for Dravid as well. Same in the case of Lara. U guys saw the POOR averages i posted for Lara against SA & Pak. Yet u ignore that & ack Lara a great, but promptly hound Dravid for his poor stats vs McWarne. How fair is that ?

[Anakin]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers I guess bumper's and audio's reasonings are quite similar. Take Lara against Pak, poor till their greats retired and then punishing average bowlers, now if you just take overall average, it might still be good enough, but just doesn't make up for struggling against better bowling.

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Same in the case of Lara. U guys saw the POOR averages i posted for Lara against SA & Pak. Yet u ignore that & ack Lara a great, but promptly hound Dravid for his poor stats vs McWarne. How fair is that ?

Arite. Looks like we all went around in a big circle on that argument. If you think numbers... If you think numbers are not... And all your replies to Predator and the rest are jut waay too long for me to read thru. In any case, I don't know how you could possibly explain Dravid's dominance with stats against SA. With Headley, it is not just stats. He had a lot of things against him. Being a black man, he was discriminated against at every stage of his cricketing career. He dominated the WI setup so much that he could not be ignored any more. The rookie team that the WI fielded in his times were probably the worst teams to have ever represented the WI - Headley scored a 20 once and top-scored!! And given the current WI team's plight, that is saying a lot. And he carried their batting every single time he stepped on the field. And even under all this pressure, coupled with uncovered wickets, he DOMINATED bowling attacks. Aite, the man does not get enough credit on lists like this, that is why the whole rant even though he clearly does not qualify under your conditions. But to play for, what, almost 20 years - that is longevity too if you wanna look at it that way.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Actually I am only pointing out what you have suggested yourself. Bradman gets in because of 50 tests. Why? I would say again, what I said before. The very thought that you would relax your criteria to accomodated one single player makes it redudant. Tell me why not?

50 tests is not a hard & fast rule. I came up with what i thought was a fair amount of tests to judge players across all eras. And i already explained i would not have relaxed the criteria any further than atmost 5 test matches, regardless of whether Bradman would pass the criteria or not. Am not sure how much more i should make myself clear.

Hmm so now its personal attack time. Well Bumper what you consider me "beleivin hype" I actually think you are cricket illiterate, specially when it comes to cricket history. You talk of stats and know nothing of stats, else most bowlers of 1900 eras would be there. So why are they not there? Well because they did not play 50 tests( a loophole to accomodate a player, a batsman at that!). So you do realize what your list becomes now? From a list of 25 great cricketers to a list of 25 great cricketers post Second World war era. That effectively removes all cricket greats before that. Not even a mention of Fredrick Spofforth or Hedily Verity or Clyde Wolcott or Leanie Constantine. You, in your inherent smartness, deem they all as "hype"(your words) while I am thinking - shouldnt a cricket fan read about these greats? and if he/she doesnt then is she not a cricket illiterate?

U are far too sensitive, than u think Lurker. :hic: Your illiterate references, dont bother me, as its just your opinion. I'd rather be illiterate than gullible. :hic: And because of the 50 test criteria which doesnt accomodate one or two cricketers (Barnes & Grimmet), it does not become a post-war era list. U do jump to conclusions quite quickly, my friend.

Errr you say poetry in motion and then you imply me asking to list Holding's artistic value. Make up your mind Bumper.

U cannot selectively pick one or two things i said, without context. I said i rate Holding for his artistic value etc, but the bottom line is stats. IMO, Holding is not SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than Walsh, interms of numbers. Now lets take Shoaib Akhtar. If he has the stats of a Holding after 60 tests (which is not unlikely), would u rate him ahead of Walsh after 60 tests, because he is a mean, scary, tear away fast bowler ? Knowing how quickly he breaks down, whats the likelyhood that he would go on to play 132 tests ? Walsh deserves some credit for playing that long, doesnt he ?

Holding was the better of fast bowler. He was the most dangerous fast bowler of West Indies till Malcolm Marshall arrived. And it took Marshall a good 25-30 tests to arrive there(check his career stats). Holding's greatness can be exemplified in many ways - that great over to Boycott(mentioned by some as greatest ever, sorry that would not rank anywhere in your list as it ended up with "mere" one wicket), or the time when he stream rolled England on a dead Oval wicket. When was the time Walsh was considered the best West Indies bowler, let alone of the world? Even in his own team(he was always a stock bowler till everyone retired) he was never the best.

Sure. I didnt deny Holding his greatness. I just denied him a top 10 spot. Do u think anyone could produce a fast bowling spell more destructive than Akhtar in Colombo ? Do u want me to rate him in the top 10 for that spell ?

Holding was the spearhead, the striker. Walsh was well a potent workhorse at best.

So was Shoaiby.

Thats your opinion. I dont think Walsh will ever make the cut as a fast bowler ahead of Michael Holding in an all-time West Indies XI.

So now you agree that Holding over Walsh or Walsh over Holding, is just an opinion ? So its not a blunder to list Walsh over Holding, as u made it out to be. Incidentally, u said the same about Akram over Walsh. Surely u must have changed your opinion after u checked the head-to-head stats of Walsh & Akram.

Good. So that would explain one reason why you do not have any single player prior to 1950 in your list. People did not travel much.

U are stating this as if its a handicap for the oldies. Its also an advantage. As less games played => Fitter bowlers => Better stats, as well as longer career.

As for your concerns about more cricket, new umpiring gadgets, modern day bowlers and all I am more than willing to concede that they are all fair arguments. But no way modern day bowlers, umpiring gadgets and more cricket become deadlier than Bobby Peel on a rainy wicket. See my stand has all along been that you cannot, and should not, rate players on pure stats and hence I have objected to your position, which is just opposite.

Clearly one opinion vs another. I dont contend that my way is the best way to rate players, but u seem to. The truth is somewhere in between. Players can neither be rated on hype nor on pure numbers. The best rating system, would clearly be more biased towards numbers with some consideration for subjectivity.

Now help me understand why with the same yardstick Clarrie Grimmett doesnt get in. 37 Tests 216 wickets@24 first clss - 248 matches 1424 wickets @22 Years played - 11 Series played in - 9 Just to extrapolate if Grimmett had played in the same era as Warne he would have ended up with 693 wickets after 11 years. Warne's record - 561 wickets. Tell me why Clarie Grimmette doesnt make the cut. Will check Lohmann some other time.

Now this extrapolation is what i have problems with. Thats an unknown territory. We dont know if he would have been a great. Its like ranking Shane Warne in 1995 as a great after 4 years and 40 test of international cricket. But i conceded that the criteria of 50 tests, is a bit unfair for SOME great players of the pre 1950s era. Hey, show me a rating that is 100% fair to all players of all era ? The only way i can see us strike a compromise is that based on the era they played in, i need to relax the minimum tests criteria to 25 (pre 50s) or 50 (post 50s). If we do this, then Barnes & Grimmet would swap places with Donald & Lillee.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Same in the case of Lara. U guys saw the POOR averages i posted for Lara against SA & Pak. Yet u ignore that & ack Lara a great' date=' but promptly hound Dravid for his poor stats vs McWarne. How fair is that ?[/quote'] Arite. Looks like we all went around in a big circle on that argument. If you think numbers... If you think numbers are not...

Am not sure I understand ? Is this a troll lingo ? Is it fair or not fair to Dravid, to judge him vs the best bowlers of his era, while ignoring the same for the rest ? YES or NO ?

[audioman]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Not fair to Dravid. Not fair at all. You came up with the argument that Hayden is a no-show against better attacks and I simply put up Dravid's record against McWarne as a counter-argument.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Not fair to Dravid. Not fair at all. You came up with the argument that Hayden is a no-show against better attacks and I simply put up Dravid's record against McWarne as a counter-argument.

Even after conceding that point on Hayden, tell me why Hayden is better than Dravid, statistically ?

[chanakya]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers I do not like the idea of 50 tests. Purely becase of the amount of cricket played in those days. However when we talk of statistics it is totally unfair those before the 80s to the current crop. How many playes do you see today that go out and bat without helmets? Just remove the helmets from the current crop and the one bouncer an over rule :wall: and lets see how well the so called current players do. And i believe Gilchrist should be in there after sobers. He has definitely played more than 50 tests i reckon. And is there a more consistent destructive force in test cricket since Viv Richards with an average above 45?

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Lurker , You are quite simply beating around the bush for whatever reasons on that topic of 50 Tests ... Bumper has patiently explained why he chose that criteria and what he would do if Bradman had played 47 tests or 45 tests ... and somehow only you dont seem to grasp it.

BB, With all due respect, it is upto Bumper to prove his viewpoint and to me to approve/disapprove of it. You do not come into the picture. Period. Unless you have a role here of debate moderator, which it would be nice to establish. If you do not have that role then I respectfully want you to stay away from doing that or else your run the risk of me ignoring your post where you enter in between needlessly. Hope I have made myself clear. xxxx

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

50 tests is not a hard & fast rule. I came up with what i thought was a fair amount of tests to judge players across all eras. And i already explained i would not have relaxed the criteria any further than atmost 5 test matches, regardless of whether Bradman would pass the criteria or not. Am not sure how much more i should make myself clear.

And I beleive we have estbalished that there is no way a player of early 1900's could have played 50 tests. Let me remind you of the whole ship transportation thingy. Even players who have played 11 years did not play 50 tests. So now you have two options - 1) Agree that your list is made of players of POST-WAR era. 2) Take down your 50 test limit. What is it going to be?

U are far too sensitive, than u think Lurker. Your illiterate references, dont bother me, as its just your opinion. I'd rather be illiterate than gullible. And because of the 50 test criteria which doesnt accomodate one or two cricketers (Barnes & Grimmet), it does not become a post-war era list. U do jump to conclusions quite quickly, my friend.

Arrogance and Ignorance...two words with same number of alphabets and same syllables mmmm. Bumper boss with all due respect your "literacy"(or lack thereof) could very well be limited to your ability to surf cricinfo and howstat. The day your internet connection is out you would be hard-pressed to compare Keith Miller with Imran Khan. Dont start typing a response..give it a serious thought. Personally I would much rather know of players like George Lohmann and his exploits rather than dismissing him with a ignorant weave of hand. Coming to Barnes/Grimmett you have not yet explained why they do not make the cut. In fact give me reasons why you think your list is OVERALL representation of cricket players of all era.

I said i rate Holding for his artistic value etc, but the bottom line is stats.

Direct from the horse's mouth. If your bottomline is stats then this discussion is futile. I am no stats fan. Would much rather sit back and enjoy a discussion of cricket with a person who talks from his knowledge and not his skills to search statsguru.

I just denied him a top 10 spot. Do u think anyone could produce a fast bowling spell more destructive than Akhtar in Colombo ?

Of course I can dear Bumper. From right on top of my head I would say Bob Willis's spell at Headingley in that game is milesssss ahead of what Shoaib turned up(again you may not find a mention of Willis based on stats but hey!). Or Trueman's spell when he reduced India for 0-4. Many more to quote, tell me when you have time to listen.

Incidentally, u said the same about Akram over Walsh. Surely u must have changed your opinion after u checked the head-to-head stats of Walsh & Akram.

You are quick to assume my friend. That I did not bring up Akram again meant I gave up on him! Wow! Listen check the matches won by Akram. Check the number of MOM won by Akram. Check any stats you want to really and you would see Akram better than Walsh. I speak as a fan who has seen them both and I would say whole-heartedly Wasim Akram was the better of the lot. He could bowl 6 different balls an over, could Walsh match his versatlity/ability?

Players can neither be rated on hype nor on pure numbers. The best rating system, would clearly be more biased towards numbers with some consideration for subjectivity.

I have started to wonder what you mean by hype? I shall let you explain your position on that since you seem to bring that up fair bit.

But i conceded that the criteria of 50 tests, is a bit unfair for SOME great players of the pre 1950s era. Hey, show me a rating that is 100% fair to all players of all era ?

Bingo!!! Which is what I stand for. Now you know, even if you may not admit, that compiling such a list is no easy task. Specially if the list has to represent all era. I suppose now you understand why WG Grace, Syndey Barnes, Jack Hobbs, Hutton have a case in being the greatest players of all times. Here is what I beleive in - to compare players of all era you have to understand/know the game of all eras. Of else you would be quick to dismiss someone like WG Grace. I hope the discussion has made you change your position, if only slightly.

i need to relax the minimum tests criteria to 25 (pre 50s) or 50 (post 50s). If we do this, then Barnes & Grimmet would swap places with Donald & Lillee.

Great! Now that you have relaxed your criteria to 25 do tell me why George Headley and Graeme Pollock dont make as good a case as Ricky Ponting. Are you going to dismiss them simply cos they played 3 tests less?? George headley Test 22 2190 runs@60. 10 centuries, a grand average of 1 century every 4 innings miles ahead of the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc. Years played - 24(WWII intruded in between) Series played in - 8 Graeme Pollock 23 tests 2256 runs@60.97 Years played - 7(South Africa got banned) Series played - 6 Help me understand why you would dismiss two players with such phenomenal record, a record over many years and series. Why does Sydney Barnes get in but not Grame Pollock. Ah and also think of Bill O' Reilley. 27 tests 144 wickets@22.6 Years played - 14(career cut-short by war) Series played - 7 Help me understand what wrong has Bill O Reilley done not to be picked ahead of Warne, Kumble etc. xxxx

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Lurker, i dont have as much as time as yesterday, for the rest of the week. I'll try & respond as soon as i can, but we may not be able to go on forever.

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Lurker' date=' i dont have as much as time as yesterday, for the rest of the week. I'll try & respond as soon as i can, but we may not be able to go on forever.[/quote'] Fair enough. We can do this some other time, I am kinda caught up today too. Cheers! xxx

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

So now you have two options - 1) Agree that your list is made of players of POST-WAR era. 2) Take down your 50 test limit. What is it going to be?

I agreed to bring down the cut off to 25 for stone age cricketers.

Arrogance and Ignorance...two words with same number of alphabets and same syllables mmmm. Bumper boss with all due respect your "literacy"(or lack thereof) could very well be limited to your ability to surf cricinfo and howstat. The day your internet connection is out you would be hard-pressed to compare Keith Miller with Imran Khan. Dont start typing a response..give it a serious thought.

Am not the one to to be upset with personal insults. Its to be expected in any debate. Regardless, my respect for you as a poster, is the same. I always thought very highly of you, as a poster & still will. But u gotta very short fuse, mate. :hic: & could be wound up in no time. As for cricket history, everyone's knowledge of oldies, including yours, is what u read not what u saw. If my internet connection goes kaput, i'd be as much handicapped, as you, when the Borders book store, close by your home, closes.

You are quick to assume my friend. That I did not bring up Akram again meant I gave up on him! Wow! Listen check the matches won by Akram. Check the number of MOM won by Akram. Check any stats you want to really and you would see Akram better than Walsh. I speak as a fan who has seen them both and I would say whole-heartedly Wasim Akram was the better of the lot. He could bowl 6 different balls an over, could Walsh match his versatlity/ability?

Please compare Akarm & Walsh's head-to-head stats & tell me why Akram is CLEARLY better than Walsh. Akram being better than Walsh is an opinion at best. Its not like a comparison between Murali & Walsh, where one is clearly better than the other.

I have started to wonder what you mean by hype? I shall let you explain your position on that since you seem to bring that up fair bit.

Hype is summarised by this statement from the Wisden Cricketer's Almanack of the Fab four. It calls "WG Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman" as irreplacables, holding them at a very high pedestal, as if comparing them with other batsmen is a crime. Agreed they were great cricketers of the pre 50s. But thats about it for me. You cant take these statements & extrapolate it any further, unless u have strong statistical evidence, which can back up these claims. In WG Grace's case, there is no such evidence.

Bingo!!! Which is what I stand for. Now you know, even if you may not admit, that compiling such a list is no easy task. Specially if the list has to represent all era. I suppose now you understand why WG Grace, Syndey Barnes, Jack Hobbs, Hutton have a case in being the greatest players of all times. Here is what I beleive in - to compare players of all era you have to understand/know the game of all eras. Of else you would be quick to dismiss someone like WG Grace. I hope the discussion has made you change your position, if only slightly.

Contrary to what u may believe am no stickler. I conceded that i missed out Keith Miller (i really missed him), i conceded my 50 test criteria did not account for travel limitations of the pre 30s. When i see evidence, i will concede. When i dont, i wont. But i have not seen you acknowledge the modern day professionalism, importance of playing quality attacks to justify greatness, importance of longevity etc.

Great! Now that you have relaxed your criteria to 25 do tell me why George Headley and Graeme Pollock dont make as good a case as Ricky Ponting. Are you going to dismiss them simply cos they played 3 tests less??

So you want to relax 25 to 22 ? Even if we reduce it to 22, you'll quote Lohmann & ask for reduction of further 5 tests. Look, there has to be a cut off somewhere and thats 25 for players of pre 40s era. In Pollock's case he played in the 60s, IIRC.

Ah and also think of Bill O' Reilley. 27 tests 144 wickets@22.6 Years played - 14(career cut-short by war) Series played - 7 xxxx

Its clear to me, no matter what i come up with, u are not going to conform, as u have already stereotyped me as a illiterate statistician :hic: Let me do this. There was this guy from Cornell who posted some website on the old board, which does these rankings more professionally including weighted averages. I dont know if thats still there or not. I'll try to dig it out. Hopefully that will throw some light on how bad my stats are, as u are making it out to be. If my list is way off from what he has come up with, I'll concede that my ranking is bull dust, as u say.