David Gowers's 50 best cricketers-evaluation

[rkt.india]

Sometimes' date=' there is a worrying tendency to forget the past and the richness of cricket's culture, but at other times, it is equally worrying to see a simplistic belief that bowlers and batsmen of yore were automatically much better.[/quote'] Balance is needed. People says teams getting out to low scores in green pitches these, like it never happened in the past on green tracks. Don't know if those batsmen were so good, how come so many bowlers averaged in low 20s in that era. One of the biggest factor today against bowlers is that even tailenders are not really tailenders they used to be in the past, even they have improved their batting so much.

[Marut]

Yes with the advent of ODI and T20 cricket batsman are attempting more shots in test matches, which can damage a bowler’s confidence. However wouldn’t you agree that more shots equals more risks and therefore more wickets for bowlers? Also, for what its worth, the economy rates in test matches from 2005-2010 have actually gone down in the 2010-2015 period from 3.21 to 3.1 runs per over. Economy rates from 20 Aug 2005 to 15 Mar 2010: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmax1=15+Mar+2010;spanmin1=20+Aug+2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Economy rates since 15 Mar 2010: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmin1=15+Mar+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling I agree that the greats of one era (post 1900) are the greats of other eras in general. However how many such greats do you see this era apart from Steyn? 0 (with the exception of Harris who could have been listed as a great if not for his fitness issues).

You know what? There are lots of old timers who don't rate Steyn highly. Gower put him at #40 and Harsh Thakor "improved" it to #47. So what exactly must a bowler do these days to be called great?

[Vijy]

You know what? There are lots of old timers who don't rate Steyn highly. Gower put him at #40 and Harsh Thakor "improved" it to #47. So what exactly must a bowler do these days to be called great?

According to many posters, only the old-timers were good and they will refuse to add any cricketer from the 21st century - bye bye Sanga, Steyn, ABDV, etc.

[adi B]

Steyn is easily the top 5 pacer of all time,my 2nd best

[express bowling]

The early era of cricket had high standard deviations in terms of stats. There were numerous bowlers with bowling averages in the teens or low 20s and there were batsmen with high batting averages. Looks like there were a few good bowlers and batsmen who feasted on the majority of mediocre batsmen or bowlers.

I have always felt the same way. This always happens in any sport before the professional era sets in. Happed the same in tennis in the pre-Open era. In the professional era....the quality of every average player representing their country goes up leaps and bounds. Playing becomes more hard work with discipline and less fun and games. Hence...a 50+ average of a batsman or a 25- average of a bowler would carry much much more meaning.

[Vijy]

I have always felt the same way. This always happens in any sport before the professional era sets in. Happed the same in tennis in the pre-Open era. In the professional era....the quality of every player representing their country goes up leaps and bounds. Playing becomes more hard work with discipline and less fun and games. Hence...a 50+ average of a batsman or a 25- average of a bowler would carry much much more meaning.

So true. This is why the stats of people like Tilden, Renshaw, Budge, Moody, Lenglen, etc should be taken with more than a pinch of salt... perhaps with a pound of it.

[express bowling]

Just like all lists of past players or well known cricket writers....this list carries massive personal biases. How can Muralidharan not be in the top 5 if he has been included , Gavaskar so low down, no Holding, Steyn at 40, Botham included, Wilfred Rhodes included, Barry Richards considered great after so few tests, too many "not great" Englishmen, no Kumble, ....!!!!!

Edited December 4, 2015 by express bowling

[HippoSucks]

You know what? There are lots of old timers who don't rate Steyn highly. Gower put him at #40 and Harsh Thakor "improved" it to #47. So what exactly must a bowler do these days to be called great?

Steyn is an ATG, that is uncontested. However this is a list of the 50 best cricketers ever, so you have to include ATG batsman, all-rounders and bowlers. So if some ATG bowler is placed on the bottom of the list, what is wrong with it? It depends on how the writer views Steyn relative to other ATG bowlers. I disagree with putting Steyn just above Thomson though, however I can understand why someone would have that opinion (I'm assuming Harsh saw Thomson as well, so that may be why he is rating him so highly).

[Forever Indian]

How is Rohit Sharma not in the list? He is the combination of wg Grace and Dons flair....

[Harsh Thakor]

I have no attraction for putting old names at the top of these lists. Honestly I wouldn't have W.C.Grace in top 50!! Similarly' date=' Kallis does not deserve to be high on these lists.[/quote'] Do read the history of Cricket.No cricketer made an equal impact.To score 54,211 runs nad take 2876 figures was a staggering performance.Grace pionerred the forward and backward defensive stroke.On the wettest of tracks he scored centuries.John Woodcock,English cricket writer puts Grace at 1.Imagine scoring 344 on a wicket with uncut grass.

[Harsh Thakor]

Dravid not there just as I suspected. The rest of the world know him for who he is. Only the cheerleaders on ICF cant see the truth

I agree with you.Dravid was the best one down batsmen after Bradman and Viv Richards.To me his centuries marginally served India's cause more than even Tendulkar.In a crisis he overshadowed any batsman in the world.He lacked the flamboyance of a Lara or Sachin but when the ship was sinking he was the ultimate champion.

[Harsh Thakor]

I think modern batsmen have fallen a bit from the batsmen of earlier decades (because they are playing on easy pitches most of the time and don't raise their game when conditions are difficult)' date=' but this is not true of bowlers. Bowlers are fighting against the odds and many of them are not able to last longer due to workload and injuries - Australia have had several quality bowlers who keep getting injured. India has produced some of our fastest bowlers ever in Umesh and Aaron who also keep getting injured due to workload. Pakistan had world class bowlers in Asif and Amir who disappeared due to non cricketing reasons. The Kiwis keep producing top bowlers like Boult. All of these bowlers have as much potential as former greats, but the odds are stacked against them so they may not statistically achieve what the former bowlers achieved. But Steyn fought the odds and matched the stats of former greats.[/quote'] Agree with you on modern batsmen.Today pitches are far more conducive for batting and all kinds of protection are available.

[Harsh Thakor]

I think modern batsmen have fallen a bit from the batsmen of earlier decades (because they are playing on easy pitches most of the time and don't raise their game when conditions are difficult)' date=' but this is not true of bowlers. Bowlers are fighting against the odds and many of them are not able to last longer due to workload and injuries - Australia have had several quality bowlers who keep getting injured. India has produced some of our fastest bowlers ever in Umesh and Aaron who also keep getting injured due to workload. Pakistan had world class bowlers in Asif and Amir who disappeared due to non cricketing reasons. The Kiwis keep producing top bowlers like Boult. All of these bowlers have as much potential as former greats, but the odds are stacked against them so they may not statistically achieve what the former bowlers achieved. But Steyn fought the odds and matched the stats of former greats.[/quote'] I agree that today conditions are much easier for batting.The pitches are flatter than yesteryear and every possible form of protection is available.

[Harsh Thakor]

How is Botham justified at #17 and Kapil at #37? Botham was mostly an Ashes hero and against WI the toughest team of his era' date=' he usually failed with both bat and ball. Kapil was a superior batsman as well as bowler compared to Botham. In fact Botham struggled against top teams, with both bat and ball. After his first four years, he was practically a nobody in bowling averaging in the region of 40 against all good sides.[/quote'] Remember ,Botham at his best was the closest to Sir Gary Sobers.From 1977-82 Botham's figures were better than any all-rounder in his peak after Sobers.At his best Botham even edged Sobers as a match-winner if you recall the 1981 Ashes and the 1980 Jubilee test.No all-rounder has turned the complexion of a match or series as Botham had done then.Imran peaked as a batsman and bowler in different parts of his career and did not equal Botham in turning matches with both ball and bat.Botham excelled against powerful Australian teams which should be noted.383 wickets and 14 centuries speaks for itself as well as taking 5 wickets and scoring a century in a test a record 5 times.

[Harsh Thakor]

no dravid? what a joke

agree with you.No doubt an all-time great and the best batsman of his time in a crisis.Arguably his centuries had more value than even Sachin Tendulkar to the team.

[Harsh Thakor]

I would say' date=' other than WG Grace, I would agree with top 10 of David Gower and order of top 10 as well.[/quote'] Please do read the history of Cricket in regard to W.G.Grace's achievements.No cricketer ever made a greater impact.Fascinating that otherwise you completely agree with the order.

[rkt.india]

Do read the history of Cricket.No cricketer made an equal impact.To score 54' date='211 runs nad take 2876 figures was a staggering performance.Grace pionerred the forward and backward defensive stroke.On the wettest of tracks he scored centuries.John Woodcock,English cricket writer puts Grace at 1.Imagine scoring 344 on a wicket with uncut grass.[/quote'] Not a big deal scoring 344 if bowling is amateur playing like in the backyard.

[sage]

WG Grace was a horrible person and a nothing special player. He was very rich and he'd often pay off the umpires to give him not-out and a large amount of time the umpires didn't give him out since he funded the games. Despite this he only averaged in the 30's.

[Marut]

Remember ' date='Botham at his best was the closest to Sir Gary Sobers.From 1977-82 Botham's figures were better than any all-rounder in his peak after Sobers.At his best Botham even edged Sobers as a match-winner if you recall the 1981 Ashes and the 1980 Jubilee test.No all-rounder has turned the complexion of a match or series as Botham had done then.Imran peaked as a batsman and bowler in different parts of his career and did not equal Botham in turning matches with both ball and bat.Botham excelled against powerful Australian teams which should be noted.383 wickets and 14 centuries speaks for itself as well as taking 5 wickets and scoring a century in a test a record 5 times.[/quote'] Botham's peak were so short that it could be termed a purple patch. His bowling average hovered around 40 mark during the second half of his career. This is Botham's second half of his bowling career, in an era supposed to be friendly towards the bowlers. How is a such a bowler worth of being rated at #17?

[Marut]

Do read the history of Cricket.No cricketer made an equal impact.To score 54' date='211 runs nad take 2876 figures was a staggering performance.Grace pionerred the forward and backward defensive stroke.On the wettest of tracks he scored centuries.John Woodcock,English cricket writer puts Grace at 1.Imagine scoring 344 on a wicket with uncut grass.[/quote'] Era of amateurs.