FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Lurker, i found the website finally. The guy's name is Chula. He started this as a hobby & has been doing this for 5 years, apparently. He lists all the criteria for his picks (but does not list the weights). He has done a fair evaluation of players of ALL ERA. Go thru this & tell me what u think. http://people.cornell.edu/pages/cww22/ PS: I went thru the batsmen, bowlers list. I dont think my list is way off from his. So there is enuff credibility to my list, unlike what u believe :hic:

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Lurker, i found the website finally. The guy's name is Chula. He started this as a hobby & has been doing this for 5 years, apparently. He lists all the criteria for his picks (but does not list the weights). He has done a fair evaluation of players of ALL ERA. Go thru this & tell me what u think. http://people.cornell.edu/pages/cww22/ PS: I went thru the batsmen, bowlers list. I dont think my list is way off from his. So there is enuff credibility to my list, unlike what u believe :hic:

So we moved from one list to another now Bumper. I take it you would much rather beleive Chula's ratings and not ESPN's. Well all powers to you I say. The list(Chula's) obviously has his flaws. Inzamam ahead of Viv Richards. Hayden ahead of Barrington, Chappell, Miandad not to mention Hobbs and Hutton. Amongst bowlers Walsh ahead of Holding, Imran, Dennis Lillee. Derek Underwood ahead of Kapil.. :tired: Look we can go from pillar to post about this. There is no way my list of 25 greats would agree with yours and thats all fine. My problem has been when people choose to ignore history and do their selection purely on stats. I will tell you what I appreciate on the website though. The fact that the gentleman has ranked his players on era-basis. I beleive that is a much better way of ranking players. xxxx

[Lurker]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

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.

Its all in here Bumper(taps the side of his forehead). No seriously do you think you get cricket books at Borders? Or Barnes and Nobles? Not quite. I love reading books, specially cricket books. They are a good way of enriching one's cricket knowledge.

Please compare Akarm & Walsh's head-to-head stats & tell me why Akram is CLEARLY better than Walsh

Akram 104 tests 414 wickets@23.6 strike rate 54.6 3.98 wickets per test 2.3 wickets per innings bowled Walsh 132 tests 519wickets@24.4 strike rate 57.84 3.93 wickets per test 2.19 wickets per innings bowled. Tell me whose stats are more impressive? I am not even talking of ability and variety here.

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.

Thanks for the definition. Now do tell me how do you think I have fallen for this hype?

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.

What statistical evidence would you like? He topped batting averages of his time. When he reached 100 centuries in first class cricket there was noone with even 50 centuries. Imagine SRT with 75 or so International Hundreds today, then imagine someone with 150 of them. Does that make for some tangible evidence?

But i have not seen you acknowledge the modern day professionalism, importance of playing quality attacks to justify greatness, importance of longevity etc

You have not seen me acknowledge because you chose to do so. Or else you would have seen me pick Kapil ahead of Imran. Thats purely on games they played and professionalism. Imran's career stopped around 80 tests, Kapil went on forvere. Imran did not bowl in his last 10 tests, had he played Kapil's amount of test who knows if his stats would have gone kaput? Greatness to me are SRT and Lara from modern era. I wont pick Dravid, Ponting ahead of the likes of Pollocks and Headley. If that is deemed as lack of acknowledgment so be it.

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.

Thats the whole point isnt it? George Lohmann played 18 tests not because he wasnt fit but because there was only so much cricket played in those days. 18 tests 112 wickets @ 10 and he is not even considered? Heck if an Indian bowler gets me 112 wickets in 18 tests(6 wickets per test) I would not mind it if he takes them at 3 times that average(30). Goes back to my whole point of respecting players across eras. Okay let me summarise my stand(I beleive we have spent too many hours on this anyway). My stand is not that your list of 25 is crap. Not at all. Your list is pretty impressive but anytime one makes a list there are bound to be issues. But a knowledgable cricket fan should realize where people are coming from. If a WG Grace is selected in 25 greatest cricketer there should not be a hungama about "goray racists". If Barnes is picked ahead of Kumble it can be due to skills and not bias. And if Kapil Dev gets picked after Imran Khan...well then there is a definite bias. xxxx

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Lurker, i found the website finally. The guy's name is Chula. He started this as a hobby & has been doing this for 5 years, apparently. He lists all the criteria for his picks (but does not list the weights). He has done a fair evaluation of players of ALL ERA. Go thru this & tell me what u think. http://people.cornell.edu/pages/cww22/ PS: I went thru the batsmen, bowlers list. I dont think my list is way off from his. So there is enuff credibility to my list, unlike what u believe :hic:

So we moved from one list to another now Bumper. I take it you would much rather beleive Chula's ratings and not ESPN's. Well all powers to you I say. The list(Chula's) obviously has his flaws. Inzamam ahead of Viv Richards. Hayden ahead of Barrington, Chappell, Miandad not to mention Hobbs and Hutton. Amongst bowlers Walsh ahead of Holding, Imran, Dennis Lillee. Derek Underwood ahead of Kapil.. :tired: Look we can go from pillar to post about this. There is no way my list of 25 greats would agree with yours and thats all fine. My problem has been when people choose to ignore history and do their selection purely on stats. I will tell you what I appreciate on the website though. The fact that the gentleman has ranked his players on era-basis. I beleive that is a much better way of ranking players. xxxx

Did u read Chula's criteria for his picks tho ? U cant dismiss his list as u did mine. The guy has put in 5 years of effort into it. Is ESPN's criteria half as elaborate as this ? Just incase u missed his criteria here it is: Batting Factors: The following factors are considered to rate Test batting performances. 1. Batting Base points The batting base points are given for runs scored. 2. Percentage of Score Index This reflects the percentage of team runs scored by the batsman. Surprisingly, Bannerman's 166 in the first test ever is still the highest % score in a completed innings. 3. Bowling Quality Index The bowling quality index is based on the quality of bowlers who have bowled in the innings. Only bowlers who have bowled at least 15% of the total overs are considered so as to make sure that the fifth bowler does not lower the Index determination adversely. 4. Not out Index This is a low rated parameter, with bonus points being awarded for unbeaten innings under 300 runs. The points awarded diminishes as the score increases. 5. Point of Entry Index This index reflects the entry point and distinguishes between 5 for 1, 27 for 2, 35 for 3 etc. 6. Wickets falling while at crease Index This index reflect the number of wickets seen through by the batsman. An opening batsman, carrying his bat through, gets the highest value. 7. Highest score Index This is another low rated parameter, and is given to the innings if the same is the highest for the team. 8. Home/Away Another low rated parameter with points awarded if the innings was played away from home. 9. Match Status Index This is a complex index, which reflects the status of the match. The highest value is given to a successful and close fourth innings chase (Lara's 153*) or a great match-winning innings after a follow-on (Laxman's 281). 10. Result Index This index is based on the player's contribution to the match result. The match should be a win or a draw for points to be allocated. 11. Milestones Index This is the lowest rated parameter, with small bonuses awarded if the runs scored is over 200, 300 or 400. In addition, the ratings calculated is downsized proportionately if the innings is less than 100. To a lesser extent, the number of matches played, the number of 50s, 200s and 300s are also considered. In addition, bonuses are awarded for achieving milestones such as 6000, 8000 or 10000 runs. Penalties are introduced to make the ratings index more consistent and accurate. Batsmen who have played less than 80 innings are penalized accordingly. This is to ensure that the batsman proves himself for around 3-4 years to attain his full rating. Batsmen who plied their trade before 1914 - when pitches offered extravagant movement, are awarded bonus points. Only retired players are included in the ratings lists that are sorted by era. Click here for the Greatest Test batsmen based on actual figures. -- Bowler Factors: The following factors are considered to rate Test bowling performances. 1. Bowling Base Points The bowling base points are given for wickets taken. 2. Bowling Accuracy Index This index reflects the accuracy of bowling. The runs given away by the bowler is compared to the opposing team's total score. 3. Pitch Index This index is determined based on the runs scored in the match. Normalizing is done to take care of wide variations. 4. Dismissed Batsman Quality Index This is an important index, which distinguishes between two bowlers who have taken 5 wickets each, the first one, batsmen 1-5 and the second one, batsmen 6-10. 5. Highest Wickets Index This is a low rated parameter, and is given to the analysis if the same is the highest for the team. 6. Home/Away This is another low rated parameter with points awarded if the innings was played away from home. 7. Match Status Index This is a complex index, which reflects the status of the match. The highest value is given to a successful, close fourth innings defense (de Villiers' 6-43). 8. Result Index This index is based on the player's contribution to the match result. The match should be a win or a draw for points to be allocated. 9. Milestones Index This is the lowest rated parameter, with small bonuses awarded if the wickets taken in the innings is over 6 or 8. In addition, the ratings calculated is downsized proportionately if the wickets taken are less than 5. To a lesser extent, the number of matches played is also considered. In addition, bonuses are awarded for achieving milestones such as 300, 400 or 500 wickets. Penalties are introduced to make the ratings index more consistent and accurate. Bowlers who have bowled in less than 40 innings and those who had less than 125 wickets are penalized accordingly. This is to ensure that the bowler proves himself for around 3-4 years to attain his full rating. Bowlers who plied their trade before 1914 - when pitches offered extravagant movement, are penalized points. Only retired players are included in the ratings lists that are sorted by era. Click here for the Greatest Test bowlers based on actual figures.

[Bumper]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

No seriously do you think you get cricket books at Borders? Or Barnes and Nobles? Not quite. I love reading books, specially cricket books. They are a good way of enriching one's cricket knowledge.

I mentioned Borders in a so-to-speak tone. Never meant to imply that u'll find a cricket book in an American book store.

Akram 104 tests 414 wickets@23.6 strike rate 54.6 3.98 wickets per test 2.3 wickets per innings bowled Walsh 132 tests 519wickets@24.4 strike rate 57.84 3.93 wickets per test 2.19 wickets per innings bowled.

So these stats show Akram is CLEARLY BETTER than Walsh ? It only shows both are comparable. And here is more stats for you (top line: Walsh, bottom: Akram) [code:1:10f7b81c75] Mat O R W BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 v Australia 38 1426.4 3872 135 6/54 9/146 28.68 2.71 63.4 4 0 13 498.2 1288 50 6/62 11/160 25.76 2.58 59.8 4 1 v Bangladesh 0 - - - - - - - - - - 2 21.4 54 0 - - - 2.49 - 0 0 v England 36 1469.4 3683 145 6/74 10/117 25.40 2.50 60.8 5 1 18 663.4 1748 57 6/67 9/103 30.66 2.63 69.8 2 0 v India 15 520.4 1316 65 6/62 10/101 20.24 2.52 48.0 4 1 12 488 1299 45 5/96 7/142 28.86 2.66 65.0 2 0 v New Zealand 10 375.2 943 43 7/37 13/55 21.93 2.51 52.3 3 1 9 421 1021 60 7/119 11/179 17.01 2.42 42.1 6 2 v Pakistan 18 561.4 1452 63 5/22 7/77 23.04 2.58 53.4 4 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - v South Africa 10 471.3 1010 51 6/61 8/108 19.80 2.14 55.4 2 0 4 141 387 13 4/42 5/88 29.76 2.74 65.0 0 0 v Sri Lanka 3 97.1 278 8 4/73 6/135 34.75 2.86 72.8 0 0 19 545.4 1340 63 5/43 8/73 21.26 2.45 51.9 3 0 v West Indies 0 - - - - - - - - - - 17 591.4 1645 79 6/61 11/110 20.82 2.78 44.9 4 1 v Zimbabwe 2 80.3 134 9 3/21 5/67 14.88 1.66 53.6 0 0 10 400.1 997 47 6/48 10/106 21.21 2.49 51.0 4 1 [/code:1:10f7b81c75] To me these stats show, against Australia, NZ they were comparable. Against Engerland, India, SA & Zim Walsh is WAY BETTER (5+ point avg differential) Against Lanka Akram is way better. Now, based on these stats, i wont conclude Akram or Walsh is CLEARLY THE BETTER bowler, thats not correct. When stats are this close, u gotta take other TANGIBLES these players have achieved into account. Walsh for me, slightly (only very slightly) pips Akram for his longevity and world record feat. Remember, this is not a ranking of players in terms of raw talent. This is a ranking of players based on their achievements Akram may be more talented of the two, but definitely Walsh has achieved more. Hence Walsh gets into my list.

Thanks for the definition. Now do tell me how do you think I have fallen for this hype?

I dont like stereo typing people, but 5 out of 10 players u mention are just rated for their potential, with no stats to back them up. U believe in their potential, based on literature (much of which were written by whitemen). U choose to believe most of what u read, as evident in your arguments.

What statistical evidence would you like? He topped batting averages of his time. When he reached 100 centuries in first class cricket there was noone with even 50 centuries. Imagine SRT with 75 or so International Hundreds today, then imagine someone with 150 of them. Does that make for some tangible evidence?

A batsman who has played 22 tests at an avg of 33, 870 FC games at an avg of 40 ? Even by the pre 30s standards, i dont consider this a GREAT record, irrespective of his 126 tons (which came in 870 + 22 FC games)

When he reached 100 centuries in first class cricket there was noone with even 50 centuries

Now this is what i call hype. How many played cricket in that era, mate ? Because he topped averages & got to 100 tons first, he is supposed to be accepted as a great forever across all future eras ?

You have not seen me acknowledge because you chose to do so. Or else you would have seen me pick Kapil ahead of Imran. Thats purely on games they played and professionalism. Imran's career stopped around 80 tests, Kapil went on forvere. Imran did not bowl in his last 10 tests, had he played Kapil's amount of test who knows if his stats would have gone kaput? Greatness to me are SRT and Lara from modern era. I wont pick Dravid, Ponting ahead of the likes of Pollocks and Headley. If that is deemed as lack of acknowledgment so be it.

U are twisting the argument here. I said applying a semblance of modern standards when judging stone age cricketers.

Thats the whole point isnt it? George Lohmann played 18 tests not because he wasnt fit but because there was only so much cricket played in those days. 18 tests 112 wickets @ 10 and he is not even considered? Heck if an Indian bowler gets me 112 wickets in 18 tests(6 wickets per test) I would not mind it if he takes them at 3 times that average(30). Goes back to my whole point of respecting players across eras.

The point is not whether 112 wickets in 18 tests is a great achievement. It is. But there has to be a min criteria & it is 25 tests. Besides per Chula's website, prior to 1914 all wickets were juiced up. (He specifically penalizes bowlers prior to 1914 because wickets offered extravagant movement) So his achievements cannot be compared to modern stats as apples-to-apples. I have spent a lot more time on this thread than i originally planned. To summarize, u asked me to come up with my 25 greatest cricketers, (based on whatever criteria) to prove to you that i can also create and not just criticize. And i think i have done that. :hic: So i am free to be critical of any Benaud's list, that may show up on the board again!

[King]

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Couple of things I want to point out : 1. When you look at the records, do make an attempt to consider the ODI records as well. I know the purists don't like to use this stats but still can be used as a barometer to measure how well rounded a player is. 2. Also have you made any attempts at using other yardsticks such as bowling and fielding for a batter and vice versa? It is no secret that a great cricket player usually are good at all facets of cricket. Tendulkar for instance is a handy bowler and excellent fielder to boot. Unfortunatley Tendulkar's batting may mask his ability as bowler and a fielder. Similarly with Steve Waugh, he was a good enough bowler in both formats of cricket and an excellent catcher at Gully. When you pick 25 great cricketers of all time you need to look at the all round ability of the players including fielders in my opinion.

[The Outsider]

This was a good thread - give it a read if you can!

[Lurker]

Yes this was a great thread. Actually this was a spin-off from some other topic if I remember correctly.

[Lurker]

This nostalgic thread made me more nostalgic :((. Kinda hard to see such long, and in my opinion meaningful, discussions happening these days. We have become more stat driven, joingoistic fans who somehow have lost both a bit of history and sense of cricket. What a difference a couple of year make!

[bunny]

1. Having followed RD's cricket from the day he joined the ODI team, I'd like to say that the guy is an absolute fantastic player of pace bowling. For those who are pointing out his record against Pollock, Donald, McGrath, Wasim etc. you need to understand that in most of those games he was getting out to spinners like Warne, Saqlain, Adams (even Symcox). RD is definitely not an all time great player of spin, but if that causes his exclusion I'm not sure how one can include Richards, Ponting, Chappell, and many of those guys. 2. There have been very few players (less than 5 for sure) in the history of the game who have the talent to score consistently against an attack comprising Marshall, McGrath, Donald, Warne on a seaming/deteriorated wicket. 3. I also dont like ppl vouching for Hayden, Border and even Lara. LHBs have so much of an advantage. A LHB (on average) consistenly averages 4-5 points more than a RHB. Given that, if these guys still average less than an RD, Kallis, Ponting or SRT, and also havent been consistent against great attacks, then not sure how they can be included ahead of the others. 4. Also I find it surprising that Indian fans question RD's place, but never utter a word against Gavaskar's record. SMG was probably an all time great (especially of spin) but a) he didnt play against a single all time great spinner b) he played against one freaky spinner (Underwood) and struggled against him on a lot of occasions c) he had some terrible time against Marshall, Imran, and Lillee. His record outside the subcontinent when playing against Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee or Underwood is poor. ---- Regarding the list itself, I find the names of Walsh and Kumble surprising but I am not sure of replacements.

[coffee_rules]

He failed again in 2004-05 Aus but was in great form before and after the series. He is suspect against McWarne and for that reason is rated below Tendulvaskar. What a fall RD has from that peak in 2006. I doubt very many will place him in thr top 25 list now.

[Lurker]

1. Having followed RD's cricket from the day he joined the ODI team, I'd like to say that the guy is an absolute fantastic player of pace bowling. For those who are pointing out his record against Pollock, Donald, McGrath, Wasim etc. you need to understand that in most of those games he was getting out to spinners like Warne, Saqlain, Adams (even Symcox). RD is definitely not an all time great player of spin, but if that causes his exclusion I'm not sure how one can include Richards, Ponting, Chappell, and many of those guys. 2. There have been very few players (less than 5 for sure) in the history of the game who have the talent to score consistently against an attack comprising Marshall, McGrath, Donald, Warne on a seaming/deteriorated wicket. 3. I also dont like ppl vouching for Hayden, Border and even Lara. LHBs have so much of an advantage. A LHB (on average) consistenly averages 4-5 points more than a RHB. Given that, if these guys still average less than an RD, Kallis, Ponting or SRT, and also havent been consistent against great attacks, then not sure how they can be included ahead of the others. 4. Also I find it surprising that Indian fans question RD's place, but never utter a word against Gavaskar's record. SMG was probably an all time great (especially of spin) but a) he didnt play against a single all time great spinner b) he played against one freaky spinner (Underwood) and struggled against him on a lot of occasions c) he had some terrible time against Marshall, Imran, and Lillee. His record outside the subcontinent when playing against Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee or Underwood is poor.

I think you are being harsh on Sunny there. He did play against some quality spinners and rarely came out second best against them. In his debut series he played against Lance Gibbs. Admittedly this was only 1 test and the legendary spinner was on his last leg but Sunny did score a century, as he did against every bowler in that series. Underwood was an all time great spinner and but for Bedi would have been the greatest left arm spinner of his time. So not surprising that Sunny had some unpleasant time in the middle against him. Still the man performed well enough to score around 45 against England, just a shade under his career average of 51. This included centuries both at home and abroad and also coincided with the phase where his batting overall lost touch till he regained form. Then there is the small matter of him playing legendary quartret at home in Ranji games and almost always came on top. However my personal favorite story with Sunny and spinners is the Bangalore game against Pakistan in 87 where he played on an absolute minefield against Iqbal Qasim and Tauseef Ahmed with spinners turning the ball square(they took 35 of 40 wickets to fall). Sunny scored 96 in a game when second highest score was 50. I beleive it was Ayaz Menon who visited Pakistani dressing room the night before final day and saw Qasim and Tauseef all solemn wondering how to dismiss Sunny. Tauseef was wondering if Sunny's bat was a cricket bat or a wall while Iqbal Qasim admitted Pakistan wont win till Baba Adam was still playing. This was of course Sunny's last innings and shows his skills against spinners easily. xxx

[bunny]

I think you are being harsh on Sunny there. He did play against some quality spinners and rarely came out second best against them. In his debut series he played against Lance Gibbs. Admittedly this was only 1 test and the legendary spinner was on his last leg but Sunny did score a century, as he did against every bowler in that series.

As you said 1 test is too small a sample size. The SR of Gibbs is too low for him to be a threat against an all-timer such as SMG. More likely than not any of the modern Indian greats would have easily handled him.

Underwood was an all time great spinner and but for Bedi would have been the greatest left arm spinner of his time. So not surprising that Sunny had some unpleasant time in the middle against him. Still the man performed well enough to score around 45 against England, just a shade under his career average of 51. This included centuries both at home and abroad and also coincided with the phase where his batting overall lost touch till he regained form.

In matches that Underwood played, SMG averaged 38. Underwood has got him out 12 times in 20 matches or so. That's ridiculously high (even exceeding RD's troubles with Warne). A lineup of McGrath, Underwood and Gillespie would have given almost as much trouble to SMG as it would have to RD (if not more).

Then there is the small matter of him playing legendary quartret at home in Ranji games and almost always came on top. However my personal favorite story with Sunny and spinners is the Bangalore game against Pakistan in 87 where he played on an absolute minefield against Iqbal Qasim and Tauseef Ahmed with spinners turning the ball square(they took 35 of 40 wickets to fall). Sunny scored 96 in a game when second highest score was 50. I beleive it was Ayaz Menon who visited Pakistani dressing room the night before final day and saw Qasim and Tauseef all solemn wondering how to dismiss Sunny. Tauseef was wondering if Sunny's bat was a cricket bat or a wall while Iqbal Qasim admitted Pakistan wont win till Baba Adam was still playing. This was of course Sunny's last innings and shows his skills against spinners easily. xxx

I dont deny that and that's why I said he is one of the best against spin but he himself had some trouble against a particular spinner. I'd go on to say that SG's resume is filled with as many holes as that of RD's. It's the same when one compares RD to Ponting (RD to Lara or even RD to SRT). While talent-wise SRT (and maybe Lara) are much above RD, run-production wise RD is second to none (since 1970 onwards). For those who think RD was in his prime after pitches getting flat in the 2000s, he averaged 49.x in 1990s. RD was our mainstay against NZ in 2002. He was quite above the others when India where playing against Zim on a seaming wicket in 1997. He played an awesome innings against WI in 2006 when Lara was made to look like a rookie. He was the one guy in the Indian batting lineup who had a very good 4th innings average (which has come down a lot because of his loss of form in the last couple of years). He had a very successful tour against WI in 1996 (although the pitches were on the flatter side). (Additionally in ODIs, he was handling Donald and Pollock quite well in 1996 when SRT was shuffling himself up and down the order to find some form. In Toronto, he was able to negotiate Wasim's swing quite well although he did slow down a lot). One cant ignore all this and just harp that he didnt score against McWarne. Against Warne too he had 2 good series and 2 bad ones. And it's not as if Warne or McGrath were making him look like their bunny. He was still managing to play 100 or so balls, it's that the survival mode wasnt fetching him runs. In 2 of those series (ie. 1999 and 2004) he could have helped India draw a game each, if a few others would have helped along.

[Lurker]

I dont deny that and that's why I said he is one of the best against spin but he himself had me trouble against a particular spinner. I'd go on to say that SG's resume is filled with as many holes as that of RD's.

You have summed up the entire premise in that line. One can pick holes in any great's resume. Sunny(or Sachin for that matter) is no aberration. When one compiles a list of 25 greatest cricketers many all time greats are bound to lose out. I doubt any cricket fan does not recognize Dravid's greatness but at the same time I can see why many would place SG, SRT, even Sehwag ahead of him. It is probably as much to do with the cricketer as it is with the fan themselves. I personally place Kapil ahead of Imran but that doesnt mean everyone should do so. xxx

[bunny]

You have summed up the entire premise in that line. One can pick holes in any great's resume. Sunny(or Sachin for that matter) is no aberration. When one compiles a list of 25 greatest cricketers many all time greats are bound to lose out. I doubt any cricket fan does not recognize Dravid's greatness but at the same time I can see why many would place SG, SRT, even Sehwag ahead of him. It is probably as much to do with the cricketer as it is with the fan themselves. I personally place Kapil ahead of Imran but that doesnt mean everyone should do so. xxx

Ok I buy that. What ticks my nerves is when someone places a former great unquestionably above a current great just based on selective stats. The current players go through so much scrutiny from "knowledgeable" fans, it's unbelievable.