Top Ten Greatest cricketers of all Time
chessplayer
the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
The first 3 for me are straightforward.
Don Bradman, Garfield Sobers and Adam Gilchrist.
The next three are not so easy and maybe disputed.
Shane Warne, Vivian Richards and Ian Botham.
The next 4 are even harder.
W.G. Grace, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar.
Now I realize this list is completely biased towards more recent
players since I have not even seen players before the 1970's play any
cricket. Therefore, I am writing Grace's name purely for his reputation
and his contribution to the game of cricket. I could be wrong here and
others more adept at naming players of the past could write down some
other names instead of the more recent cricketers names that I have
listed.
Maybe some past great of England can replace Sachin's name from this
list. Maybe there are couple of all time greats I am not mentioning and
therefore both Lara and Sachin may have thier names removed from this
list. However, I included Brian Lara for his amazing records, his
phenomenal batting and facing unbelievable odds inspite of playing in a
team which is currently just barely maintaining test standards. For
more than half his career he has played in a weak test team. Only about
25 percent of his career has been in a good strong test team and the
other 25 percent in a weaker not so good test team. And as I mentioned
above the other 50 percent has been spent in a really weak WI team. In
Sachin's case he has contributed a lot to the popularity of cricket. Of
course here he is lucky that the Indian market is vast. Therefore,
cricketers from other countries who are equally or even more gifted may
not have recieved the attention that he has. But since he has had a
huge impact to increase the popularity of cricket in India and India is
today contributing a huge part of the cricketing wealth, Sachin just
maybe squeezes in, not purely for cricketing achievements although they
are quite impressive but for how his playing style (at least in the
early and middle part of his career) has contributed to crickets
popularity in India.
Still these two names can be removed by some who feel some past greats
merit a bigger name for their all round contribution to cricket both in
their cricketing achivements as well as in how they have contributed to
the popularity of the sport.
Three cricketers who could come in defintely in the next list to round
up a top 20 would be Imran Khan of Pakistan, Sanath Jayasuriya of Sri
Lanka and Richard Hadlee of New Zealand. Of course some might want to
place one of these in the top 10 list. But the above 10 would be mine
and like I said difficult to place numbers 6 to 10. So, making a list
of top 20 actually becomes easier as there are another 7 or 8 names who
would make it in that list and difficult to choose which from the 11 to
20 deserves a place in the top 10 and which ones don't.
daftb
Adam Gilchrist is a great cricketer but there's no way he'd be an
automatic selection for the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
Ponting would probably rank above him.
I'd also probably include Jack Hobbs, Malcolm Marshall and Michael
Holding in my top ten. And if you're going to include Grace for his
reputation then you'll have to include Sydney Barnes too.
chessplayer
I would put Gilchrist ahead of Ponting. Gilchrist has won many matches
for Australia purely as a batsman. However, his other function is that
of a wicketkeeper which also he has done admirably well. Ponting has
matured into a terrific batsman for Australia. In the last couple of
years he has really been outstanding. However, Gilchrist's record
throughout most of his career has been simply outstanding. Purely as a
batsman I believe he would rank as one of the all time greats. However,
the fact that he is an excellent wicketkeeper and his record bares
testimony to that I would certainly place him as a truly exceptional
great all round cricketer.
>
> I'd also probably include Jack Hobbs, Malcolm Marshall and Michael
> Holding in my top ten. And if you're going to include Grace for his
> reputation then you'll have to include Sydney Barnes too.
True. Barnes could come in. But Barnes played only 20 odd test matches.
So, I do have him in my list of my all time test eleven. However, it
was a tough call to put him in my list of the greatest ever cricketers.
But you could certainly put him based on his test match performaces.
Marshall is a tough call. Would certainly be in my top 20 list.
However, Marshall is there in my all time test XI. I would not put
Holding there in an all time top 10 list. May not even come in my all
time top 20 list.
JPD
chessplayer wrote:
> Since the discussion of Kallis Vs Sobers just what would be my list of
> the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
>
> The first 3 for me are straightforward.
>
> Don Bradman, Garfield Sobers and Adam Gilchrist.
>
> The next three are not so easy and maybe disputed.
>
> Shane Warne, Vivian Richards and Ian Botham.
>
> The next 4 are even harder.
>
> W.G. Grace, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar.
I'm not convinced Gilchrist should appear in a Top Ten of All Time
list. This is not to disparage his talent or his impact on the game,
but there are arguments against the quality of his wicket-keeping and
suggestions that his batting has commenced a downhill spiral. Where
has his 50+ average gone?
>From your list above, I will take -
Grace - because he is responsible for the game as we know it, IMHO
Bradman - because his superiority over every other batsman is
unarguable
Sobers - because he excelled at all aspects of the game more than any
other
Warne - because he revolutionised his craft, wrist-spin bowling,
setting a new all-time standard for slow bowling
Tendulkar - who achieved batting mastery when young and maintained it
in spite of the attention of the modern media (with which Bradman did
not have to contend)
And I will add the following -
Hadlee - a superb bowler and the best cricketer his nation has produced
Hobbs - the most productive batsman of all, six days per week for 30
seasons
Rhodes - the bowling version of Grace and Hobbs as the game became what
we know today, and holder of the first-class wickets record
Proctor - would have dominated the 70s in Test cricket, had he had the
chance; better than Botham
Border - the cornerstone of Australian cricket through the 80s, and
whose resilience can be thanked for the restoration of our customary
success in the 90s.
--
JPD
JPD
> his record bares testimony to that
People really should THINK about what they write.
Does his record BARE testimony?
--
JPD
chessplayer
JPD wrote:
> chessplayer wrote:
> > Since the discussion of Kallis Vs Sobers just what would be my list of
> > the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
> >
> > The first 3 for me are straightforward.
> >
> > Don Bradman, Garfield Sobers and Adam Gilchrist.
> >
> > The next three are not so easy and maybe disputed.
> >
> > Shane Warne, Vivian Richards and Ian Botham.
> >
> > The next 4 are even harder.
> >
> > W.G. Grace, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar.
>
> I'm not convinced Gilchrist should appear in a Top Ten of All Time
> list. This is not to disparage his talent or his impact on the game,
> but there are arguments against the quality of his wicket-keeping and
> suggestions that his batting has commenced a downhill spiral. Where
> has his 50+ average gone?
Its only the last year or year and a half which have been relatively
poor for Gilchrist in terms of his batting. For most of his 7 plus
years in test match cricket he has been exemplary both in batting and
keeping. In fact its not just that his average is almost 49. (which is
still remarkable) its the way he has batted and won games for
Australia. Even if Gilchrist retired today he would go down as one of
the truly all time greats.
As regards to his keeping its difficult to say how well someone else
may have kept. Gilchrist has 355 victims from 85 test matches. I
believe that statistic lays testimony to his excellent keeping skills.
I know people say that statistics do not tell the full story. Well,
when someone has played only about 10 or 15 test matches statistics may
not tell the full story. However, for anyone who has played over 40 or
50 test matches, statistics does tell quite a lot. And if you compare
his keeping record to that of any of the all time greats it would still
stand out.
I believe he has been unfairly criticized as a keeper. I guess
sometimes its difficult to imagine that someone can be so gifted in
both batting and keeping. While its true that he's a better batsman
than a keeper. However, that's a tribute I am giving to his batting
rather than criticizing his keeping. In Gilchrist's case he's not just
an outstanding phenomenal batsman but an excellent keeper as well.
JC
"chessplayer" <chessp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147161885....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> I would put Gilchrist ahead of Ponting. Gilchrist has won many matches
> for Australia purely as a batsman. However, his other function is that
> of a wicketkeeper which also he has done admirably well. Ponting has
> matured into a terrific batsman for Australia. In the last couple of
> years he has really been outstanding. However, Gilchrist's record
> throughout most of his career has been simply outstanding. Purely as a
> batsman I believe he would rank as one of the all time greats. However,
> the fact that he is an excellent wicketkeeper and his record bares
> testimony to that
errr..have you watched his whole Test keeping career?.
Don't let the odd spectacular catch mask the many many misses!
He has been one of the worse keepers if not the worst that i have seen play
for Aus.
His attempt at keeping to spinners is to say the least at times deplorable.
His batting has been something else though, and i mean 'something esle'
<snip>
dougie
wrote:
>Since the discussion of Kallis Vs Sobers just what would be my list of
>the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
>
Haven't thought about it too long but here goes (only players I've
seen live in action so it's not all time, not in any particular order,
I started watching in '76):
Gilchrist
V. Richards
Ponting
Botham
Laxman
Lillee
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
S. Waugh
Had to leave out Allan Donald, Tendulkar, Akram, etc from o/s because
I've never seen them at their best. As for Lara, I saw some of the 277
and wasn't impressed, it was done on a flat deck, only 19 wickets fell
in the match iirc, he just took advantage of the flattest and meekest
pitch the SCG curators have ever turned out.
Wanted to squeeze Walters in there somewhere but I never saw him at
his absolute best either.
As for best of all time, I have no idea. Bradman, daylight, Sobers,
then the rest. Wish I saw them all.
JM
> He has been one of the worse keepers if not the worst that i have seen
> play
> for Aus.
Ummmm..... Wayne Phillips ring any bells? Gilly is way better than him to
name just one.
Begs the question, what would you prefer, a keeper who takes 100% of
opportunities (I know, not possible) or a keeper who takes 75% and averages
50-55+ with the bat? I know who I'd have.
My guess as the best keepers for Aus. in recent (last 30 odd years) times
would be either Healy or Marsh - how many catches/stumpings did they make
that turned a match or won the match for Australia? How many times did they
score hundreds which put Australia on top for the win, or smashed an
opponent out of the game? Compared to Gilly I don't think either of them
would compare.
Just my 2 cents.
JM
> Tendulkar - who achieved batting mastery when young and maintained it
> in spite of the attention of the modern media (with which Bradman did
> not have to contend)
>
I'm not 100% on this, but was there not a front page headline "He's Out!"
regarding Bradman?
He played during the depression, when Australian's (and a lot of the Western
World) were deep in the depression and had little more to look to than
sport. Do you really think the media wasn't looking at Bradman at every
turn?
Sure the Indian press might be all over Sachin's every move but the rest of
the cricketing world hardly puts that kind of pressure on him.
Not saying Tendulkar shouldn't be top ten, but I can't agree with your media
comment. Compare times for times....
JM
"dougie" <noe...@hotmail.scum> wrote in message
news:lhm062he7cqi7jo3m...@4ax.com...
From the players I've seen (30-ish years old), I'd include:
Warne
Viv Richards
Only from your list... These are two players who have exceled amongst truely
great teams. The others were great, but given the quality of their team
were not all that outstanding (i.e. Hadlee was great, but hey, NZ suck arse
in cricket History so 1 Player is obviosuly going to take more wickets given
who he is bowling with - even if he is half arsed)
So open to discussion it doesn't really make any sense to comment.... On
2nd thoughts, just delete this :)
SultanOfSwing
> Since the discussion of Kallis Vs Sobers just what would be my list of
> the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
>
> The first 3 for me are straightforward.
>
> Don Bradman, Garfield Sobers and Adam Gilchrist.
I don't think that Adam Gilchrist is not an automatic
choice in the Top 10.
> The next three are not so easy and maybe disputed.
>
> Shane Warne, Vivian Richards and Ian Botham.
I would have Keith Miller instead of Ian Botham.
Warnie and Richards definitely merit their places.
> The next 4 are even harder.
>
> W.G. Grace, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar.
I would have Imran Khan ahead of Jacques Kallis. No arguments
about Lara, Tendulkar and W.G. Grace.
> Maybe some past great of England can replace Sachin's name from this
> list. Maybe there are couple of all time greats I am not mentioning and
> therefore both Lara and Sachin may have thier names removed from this
> list.
It is rather surprising that not a single opening batsman features
in your Top 10. I would definitely have Sir Jack Hobbs in the top
10. It is a very difficult task to define a Top 10 list. Instead I
have thought of having a list of top 20 cricketers. So my top
20 would be as follows:
1. Don Bradman
2. Garfield Sobers
3. Jack Hobbs
4. Shane Warne
5. Vivian Richards
6. W.G. Grace
7. Keith Miller
8. Sachin Tendulkar
9. Brian Lara
10. Imran Khan
11. Malcolm Marshall
12. Sunil Gavaskar
13. Dennis Lillee
14. Muthaiah Muralitharan
15. Richard Hadlee
16. Adam Gilchrist
17. Dennis Compton
18. Sid Barnes
19. Jacques Kallis
20. Richie Benaud
As you can see, my list too is composed mainly of modern-day
players. That's probably because I've grown up watching most of
my cricket in the 80's and 90's. Of course, this is my personal
Top 20 and others may beg to differ. As you can see, there are
a number of all-rounders in this list. Sobers, Miller, Imran,
Kallis and Benaud form a fine set of all-rounders.
keef
Best bat - Bradman
Best AllRounder - Sobers
Best bowler - Lillee
Best Spin - Warne
Best Keeper - Marsh
Then:
Sir Viv
Border
Holding
Akram
Ponting (also best ever feilder)
Somehow I would sqeeze in Lara, Sachin, Donald, Imran, Clive, Botham,
Garner, Ambrose, Roberts, S.Waugh, Murili, Hadley, Richardson, Gavaskar...
and on and on... gee the last 30 years have seen some great cricketers.
My top X1:
Greenich and Haynes
Bradman
Richards
Ponting
Border
Gilly
Akram
Warne
Holding
Lillee
Imagine Lillee and Holding opening the bowling... The ultimate bowler and
the ultimate shock bowler.This tem beats any, must be Greenich and Haynes at
the top, they did the job against the best bowling era
I'm starting to drool...
"chessplayer" <chessp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147159404.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
JC
"JM" <jm> wrote in message
news:446069b5$0$25129$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> He has been one of the worse keepers if not the worst that i have seen
>> play
>> for Aus.
>
> Ummmm..... Wayne Phillips ring any bells? Gilly is way better than him to
> name just one.
yeah forgot him...but i don't think you find anyone else in the last 30 yrs
who has missed as many chances on a per match ratio, missed so many dead set
dollys, and performed as poorly to spinners.
>
> Begs the question, what would you prefer, a keeper who takes 100% of
> opportunities (I know, not possible) or a keeper who takes 75% and
> averages 50-55+ with the bat? I know who I'd have.
Yep, i haven't said i don't want him in the team, no dramas there
Obviously his batting has been excellent and even though he has constantly
fumbled chances, we've had arguably the best bowling attack ever over the
past 7 odd yrs and so the opportunity for another dismissal in the next over
or two was almost always strong.
And having arguably the best bowling attack ever, is the reason Gilly has
such a high dismissal rate and it could have even been extraordinary higher
had he taken just half of his misses.
The year Aus toured SL was a shocker for Gilly. One of
commentators(Roebuck?) on abc radio mentioned he missed 20something chances!
A Healy/Marsh keeper would most probably have had 400-420 dismissals to his
name by now compared to Gilly's current 355
Anyways his keeping has improved somewhat in the last two series..i'll give
him that
Fred
There are some names that just have to be on any list.
Bradman.
Grace.
Sobers.
Then there's a whole bunch of brilliant players who you could make
excellent cases for:
Warne
Viv Richards
Lara
Tendulkar
Hobbs
Marshall
Holding
Rhodes
Barnes
Lillee
Worrell
Hadlee
Imran Khan
etc etc etc
There are those who my glance through the record books and my scant
knowledge of cricket history makes me think they might be contenders or
about whom I've heard stories of brilliance or whose figures stand out
in Wisden but about whom I know frankly very little:
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
George Headley
Sutcliffe
Tyson
Spofforth
Lohmann
C.B. Fry
Patsy Hendren
Ponsford
Woodfull
Ranjitsinhji
Titch Freeman (although the figures don't look so good at test level)
CP Mead
At least it's made for fun reading trawling through the cricinfo
profiles of some of the older people on this list!
There are probably lots of others who I've missed...
The problem is that it's so hard to compare people accross different
time periods. How can you compare the weight of runs scored by someone
in the 20s against different bowlers and with many more first class
matches played than those scored in this decade where there is much
more test cricket, covered pitches, less first class cricket and
different bowlers?
Then there are those who some have listed in their top 10s who are
quite simply not "all time greats" and make me splutter coffee over my
screen before laughing to see thier names in this company:
Gilchrist (wtf! Top 10 of all time? Give me a break...)
Kallis (You're having me on!)
Border (Of all the batsmen you could pick...)
Agarkar (Surely it's only a matter of time before his case is put...)
For what it's worth, this is a link to the list Wisden compiled in 2000
for the best players of the 20th century:
sdavmor
The older names are all very sensible selections based on reading I
did over the years starting as a boy in the UK. I can't really comment
on anybody playing today since my ability to see them play is limited
to what I can get my hands on via DVD. What I've seen of Warne
suggests that he may be the best leg-spinner ever. Certainly he's the
best I've ever seen. I'd be interested in entertaining other
suggestions if anyone has them.
I saw both Sobers and Proctor playing in the late 60s and early 70s in
County cricket. Also in the entertaining "Rest of the World" series
that replaced the South African our of 1970. Both were outstanding,
game-changing, all-rounders. My summer holidays that year were spent
glued to BBC1 and 2 and the radio commentary when I couldn't see it on
TV. I think the quality of the cricket played in that series converted
me from a lover of cricket into an absolute fanatic.
I'd moved to the US before ever seeing Richard Hadlee bowl. To this
day I've never seen anything other than still photos of him in action.
But my cousin David who did see him play several times says he was a
magnificent world-class all-rounder -- a very good late-order batsman
and very hostile accurate fast bowler.
I also never have seen anything other than stills of Imran Khan,
another all-rounder with a legendary big-game reputation. I was a huge
fan as a boy of his cousin Majid's batting when he played for
Glamorgan (my family are Welsh on my mother's side). I plan on
remedying that soon via the magic of DVD.
I'd add Larwood as candidate for opening fast bowler. The accounts
I've read and am reading right now (Frith "Bodyline Autopsy" for the
third time) suggest he was not only very fast but very accurate. The
little footage I've seen of him backs up both points. I'm thinking
this morning about how effective he would have been on the pitch the
SA and NZ just played on at Johannesburg (sp?) or the Lords wicket
that McGrath used to such wicked effect last summer in the Ashes. No
slouch with the bat either, though he'd never be classed as an
all-rounder. Larwood playing today, growing up with better diet and
modern rigorous training, would have been a staggering proposition IMO.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
NP: nothing
sdavmor
Of those that I saw I'd rate Knott and Marsh the best keepers. Both
were pretty handy with the bat, too. I never saw Healy so I can't
comment. Gilchrist is quite decent behind the stumps but not in the
Knott/Marsh class. I've only seen his batting on the Ashes 2005 DVDs,
and he clearly was stalemated by the English pace attack (especially
Flintoff who absolutely owned him). But reading about his exploits I
know I've not seen anything like his best (game-changing) work with
the bat.
ashu
Bob Dubery
daftb wrote:
> chessplayer wrote:
> Adam Gilchrist is a great cricketer but there's no way he'd be an
> automatic selection for the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
> Ponting would probably rank above him.
>
> I'd also probably include Jack Hobbs, Malcolm Marshall and Michael
> Holding in my top ten. And if you're going to include Grace for his
> reputation then you'll have to include Sydney Barnes too.
Grace would be my 2nd pick at worst. His stats don't look that great to
modern eyes - especially as they are reduced by virtue of him playing
on past his sell-by date for several years, but in his prime he was the
only batsman you can compare to Bradman as regards a large gap in
performance between a player and his contemporaries.
Plus I'd like to see him being called up in front of some upstart match
referee.
Archisman
That will (somewhat conveniently) exclude players who have played all
or most of their cricket in the pre-War Era. Leaving out DGB, WRH, JBH,
Grace, Barnes, Trumper, Rhodes, Macdonald, Larwood, Verity, Headley,
Sutcliffe, Trott, Noble, Cotter, etc. will provide a better platform to
choose 10 all time greats who have played their cricket in conditions
that have not undergone any drastic change.
That said, it is a tad surprising not to find the name of Leonard
Hutton getting a more frequent mention in the previous posts. He must
have been the bravest English cricketer ever, Compton's heroics in Old
Trafford 1948 notwithstanding. Every fast bowler across the globe
wanted to knock his head off (including the volatile & brilliant KRM)
but Hutton withstood all that with that grim & dour Yorkshire tenacity
and ended up with an average of approximately 56 in tests. As an
Indian, much as I would like to believe that SMG was the best & bravest
ever opener, there is no way by which he can displace Hutton from that
honourable spot.
Another player whose name ought have been mentioned more often should
be Wasim Akram. A fast bowler most likely to succeed in ALL playing
conditions (something that cannot be said about the great DKL as well).
And to poffer my humble opinion on the debate of 'whether Gilly is an
automatic choice as an all time great or not', he most certainly is.
Let the last 12 months not cloud our opinion. He is just awesome.
My list of 10:
Sobers
Gilchrist
Richards (Viv)
Hutton
Akram
Warne
Lara
Lillie
Tendulkar
Marshall
(Wish SA played more cricket for me to gleefully include R.G. Pollock)
Regards-Archie.
Chan
JC wrote:
snip
>
> His batting has been something else though, and i mean 'something esle'
>
I understood it better before you described what you really meant.
- Chan
Yuk Tang
news:1147162717.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Chessplayer is simply telling the naked truth. If you're uncomfortable
with that, belt up.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>It may not be a bad idea to confine the choice from 1947 till date.
It may not, but I still can't do it.
I can do an all-time Five (WG, Hobbs, Barnes, Bradman, Sobers), but
about the next I could do would be an all-time Forty.
Post-WW2, I can do a One (Sobers), and I can make a Three with Hutton
and IVAR.
Compton, May, Warne, Lara, Trueman, Lindwall, Miller, Lillee,
Marshall, McGrath, Imran, and Wasim make up a Fifteen - and I can't
even manage to squeeze Tendulkar into that. I can't take it down to
ten, and it's still missing Pollock, Richards and Procter because of
exile, Murali because there just isn't space and Flintoff because his
career still has a long way to go so I'm already up to a Top Twenty.
Except of course there's Gavaskar and Botham and Ambrose and Roberts
and Laker. Not to mention three Ws, Gilchrist, and Hadlee. Oh damn,
that's Thirty.
But what about Hanif, Waqar, Donald, Kanhai, Greg Chappell, Dravid,
Martin Crowe, Turner, Davidson (who hasn't turned up in the
all-rounders thread, much to my shame), and Evans? Forty.
And I've still got Bedser, Wes Hall, Chandrasekhar, Rod Marsh, Colin
Cowdrey, Harvey, Lance Gibbs, Ponting, Swaugh and Border.
Well, that's 50 I'm not going to be able to leave out. And I haven't
even mentioned Boycott or his granny. Or Kallis, for that matter.
Why oh why do people want to reduce things to such pitiful numbers as
ten?
Cheers,
Mike
Wog George
"Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97BEDA4EEFBA7...@130.133.1.4...
> "JPD" <john_p...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> news:1147162717.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
>> chessplayer wrote:
>>
>>> his record bares testimony to that
>>
>> People really should THINK about what they write.
>>
>> Does his record BARE testimony?
>
> Chessplayer is simply telling the naked truth.
Touché!!
Spelling lames are all well and good when someone's a smartarse or they
claim to be Einstein, but aside from that it shows a distinct lack of
substance on the part of the lamer.
--
George
"Strike me down while you can, but it won't make your dried up ovaries any
more fertile." - Eric Cartman - 3 May 2006
moby_dick11
> > chessplayer wrote:
> I would put Gilchrist ahead of Ponting. Gilchrist has won many matches
> for Australia purely as a batsman. However, his other function is that
> of a wicketkeeper which also he has done admirably well. Ponting has
> matured into a terrific batsman for Australia. In the last couple of
> years he has really been outstanding. However, Gilchrist's record
> throughout most of his career has been simply outstanding.
> Purely as a batsman I believe he would rank as one of the all time greats. However,
> the fact that he is an excellent wicketkeeper and his record bares
> testimony to that I would certainly place him as a truly exceptional
> great all round cricketer.
I really think Adam Gilgricht is a great batsman....still do not think
purely as a batsman he ranks as one of the best in nineties, let alone
all time great. He gets so much attention to his batting simply becoz
he can bat very good in addition to wicketkeeping. Definetly not in
same league as Don bradman or Gary sobers...still may be good enough to
break into all time list of 11...bradman and sobers are obvious choice
but who could be the third....for me it can be macgrath
Andrew Dunford
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bt162hls6qmg97i8...@4ax.com...
> On 9 May 2006 12:17:51 -0700, "Archisman" <arch...@yahoo.co.in>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >It may not be a bad idea to confine the choice from 1947 till date.
>
> It may not, but I still can't do it.
>
> I can do an all-time Five (WG, Hobbs, Barnes, Bradman, Sobers), but
> about the next I could do would be an all-time Forty.
>
> Post-WW2, I can do a One (Sobers), and I can make a Three with Hutton
> and IVAR.
>
> Compton, May, Warne, Lara, Trueman, Lindwall, Miller, Lillee,
> Marshall, McGrath, Imran, and Wasim make up a Fifteen - and I can't
> even manage to squeeze Tendulkar into that. I can't take it down to
> ten, and it's still missing Pollock, Richards and Procter because of
> exile, Murali because there just isn't space and Flintoff because his
> career still has a long way to go so I'm already up to a Top Twenty.
>
> Except of course there's Gavaskar and Botham and Ambrose and Roberts
> and Laker. Not to mention three Ws, Gilchrist, and Hadlee. Oh damn,
> that's Thirty.
>
> But what about Hanif, Waqar, Donald, Kanhai, Greg Chappell, Dravid,
> Martin Crowe, Turner, Davidson (who hasn't turned up in the
> all-rounders thread, much to my shame), and Evans? Forty.
It's interesting you mention Crowe - I expect most people would look at his
numbers and think "ho-hum". However Crowe was a graphic illustration of
your earlier contention that statistics ain't everything. To watch him bat
was to see in an instant what pure class looks like.
<snip>
Andrew
chessplayer
SultanOfSwing wrote:
> chessplayer wrote:
> > Since the discussion of Kallis Vs Sobers just what would be my list of
> > the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
> >
> > The first 3 for me are straightforward.
> >
> > Don Bradman, Garfield Sobers and Adam Gilchrist.
>
> I don't think that Adam Gilchrist is not an automatic
> choice in the Top 10.
>
> > The next three are not so easy and maybe disputed.
> >
> > Shane Warne, Vivian Richards and Ian Botham.
>
> I would have Keith Miller instead of Ian Botham.
> Warnie and Richards definitely merit their places.
>
> > The next 4 are even harder.
> >
> > W.G. Grace, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar.
>
> I would have Imran Khan ahead of Jacques Kallis. No arguments
> about Lara, Tendulkar and W.G. Grace.
>
> > Maybe some past great of England can replace Sachin's name from this
> > list. Maybe there are couple of all time greats I am not mentioning and
> > therefore both Lara and Sachin may have thier names removed from this
> > list.
>
> It is rather surprising that not a single opening batsman features
> in your Top 10. I would definitely have Sir Jack Hobbs in the top
> 10. It is a very difficult task to define a Top 10 list. Instead I
> have thought of having a list of top 20 cricketers.
I agree. It is easier making a list of the top 20 vs top 10. In the top
10 maybe 3 or even 4 names would be there for all. However, the other 6
or 7 names would be debated upon due to personal choices of every
individual who sees the list. So, in that sense a top 20 would be
easier to make and a top 30 probably even easier than that.
chessplayer
Well, an all time test XI would comprise of certain players in my list
who may not be in a top 10 greatest cricketers of all time. For
instance I would pick Gavaskar as my opening batsman with Jack Hobbs.
Neither however are in my all time top 10 greatest cricketers of all
time.
My all time test XI would be
Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
Richards
Lara
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall
Lillee
Warne or Muralitharan
Barnes
chessplayer
Well, I had both Gilchrist and Kallis in my top 10.
> Border (Of all the batsmen you could pick...)
Would not have put Border in my top 10.
> Agarkar (Surely it's only a matter of time before his case is put...)
This must have been a joke.
chessplayer
dougie wrote:
> On 9 May 2006 00:23:24 -0700, "chessplayer" <chessp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Since the discussion of Kallis Vs Sobers just what would be my list of
> >the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
> >
>
> Haven't thought about it too long but here goes (only players I've
> seen live in action so it's not all time, not in any particular order,
> I started watching in '76):
>
> Gilchrist
> V. Richards
> Ponting
> Botham
> Laxman
> Lillee
> Hadlee
> Marshall
> Warne
> S. Waugh
Well you have eleven so I guess Laxman is the twelth man. (However,
Laxman over Lara). Laxman has played at best 3 awesome knocks vs more
than 10 or 15 outstanding awesome knocks by Lara in test match
cricket). Before Laxman I would have Dravid in my all time list. And
then there are quite a few others.
>
> Had to leave out Allan Donald, Tendulkar, Akram, etc from o/s because
> I've never seen them at their best. As for Lara, I saw some of the 277
> and wasn't impressed, it was done on a flat deck, only 19 wickets fell
> in the match iirc, he just took advantage of the flattest and meekest
> pitch the SCG curators have ever turned out.
What about the second greatest test match innings ever played.
(According to Wisden). According to me Laras 153 not out against
Australia in 1999 was probably the greatest test match innings ever
played. No batsman on EITHER side scored even a test match 50 in that
match. What about holding the world test record of 375 for almost 10
years, then losing it to Hayden. (who got it against Zimbabwe) and then
reclaiming the record by being the only batsman in the history of the
game who has scored 400 runs in a single innings in test match cricket
(Done against a superb England attack). Add to that being the only
batsman in the history of the game to score 500 runs in a single
innings in first class cricket.
Lara has played the fiercest of fast bowlers in his peak and excelled
against all of them. He has also played Warne better than most, and has
played Muralitharan better than anybody. According to Muralitharan
himself. Lara has played him better than Tendulkar and even your pick
Laxman.
The second most number of test double centuries. All against terrific
attacks and the one against Sri Lanka was done in Sri Lanka when all
the other WI batsmen were flopping and not scoring anything.
Even at the end of his career. He is now 37, he scored that magnificent
double hundred against the Aussies at Adelaide. And the Aussie attack
was quite fierce. Mcgrath, Warne, Macgill and Lee. They were all
bowling well. Lara made it look so easy.
To me if anyone should come after Bradman its Lara. In fact I rate him
higher than even Richards when it comes to test match cricket.
Bob Dubery
sdavmor wrote:
> Of those that I saw I'd rate Knott and Marsh the best keepers. Both
> were pretty handy with the bat, too. I never saw Healy so I can't
> comment. Gilchrist is quite decent behind the stumps but not in the
> Knott/Marsh class. I've only seen his batting on the Ashes 2005 DVDs,
> and he clearly was stalemated by the English pace attack (especially
> Flintoff who absolutely owned him). But reading about his exploits I
> know I've not seen anything like his best (game-changing) work with
> the bat.
I'm intrigued by the notion that somebody who is interested in the game
and saw both Knott and Marsh keeping wicket - which has you watching
the game over 20 years ago - has not managed to see Gilchrist bat or
Healy keep.
Calvin
"JPD" <john_p...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> I'm not convinced Gilchrist should appear in a Top Ten of All Time
> list.
I'm not convinced Gilchrist should appear in a Top Ten list of anything.
cheers,
calvin
sdavmor
I've been living in the US since 1974. Not much chance of seeing any
cricket other than the club grade I was playing (Southern California
Cricket Association). Once in a while one of my cousins would send me
newspaper clippings or a copy of "The Cricketer", or I'd talk to
someone visiting from the Caribbean, but I was in a test match
wasteland until recently (amen for DVD).
dougie
wrote:
>What about the second greatest test match innings ever played.
>(According to Wisden). According to me Laras 153 not out against
>Australia in 1999 was probably the greatest test match innings ever
>played.
I didn't see it. As I mentioned I'm only commenting on people I've
seen live in person in action. I saw Lara but to be honest the 277
wasn't that good. Sure he played some great shots, but as I said it
was on probably the most docile pitch ever turned out in Sydney. Only
19 wickets fell in the whole match.
Aus 503/9 dec
WI 606
Aus 117/0
bore draw.
Wog George
>
> Fred wrote:
>
>> Agarkar (Surely it's only a matter of time before his case is put...)
>
> This must have been a joke.
>
Unless Fred's surname is Agarkar.
--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006
sdavmor
> "chessplayer" <chessp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1147224240.0...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>> Agarkar (Surely it's only a matter of time before his case is put...)
>> This must have been a joke.
>>
>
> Unless Fred's surname is Agarkar.
<rimshot>
Ian Galbraith
> Since the discussion of Kallis Vs Sobers just what would be my list of
> the top 10 greatest cricketers of all time.
>
> The first 3 for me are straightforward.
>
> Don Bradman, Garfield Sobers and Adam Gilchrist.
Gilchrist is straightforward?
> The next three are not so easy and maybe disputed.
> Shane Warne, Vivian Richards and Ian Botham.
> The next 4 are even harder.
> W.G. Grace, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar.
Kallis???? If you're including him because he's an all rounder then I'd
have him behind Miller, Imran and Hadlee. If I was picking a team I'd
pick players like Ponting, Waugh, and Border ahead of him.
[snip]
My list would be something like:
Bradman
Sobers
Barnes
WG Grace
Jack Hobbs
Trumper
Warne
Marshall
Ambrose
Lillee
--
You can't stop the signal
Fred
lol
Luke Curtis
wrote:
>
Both records were at Antigua, the 400 was on the flattest of flat
pitches, Batty and Hoggard hardly the worlds best batsmen stayed in
for 50 minutes, Simon Jones for over a hour and a quarter,
In the 375 test Caddick stayed in for just under an hour and a half
batting at 9 and this is against Ambrose and Walsh at their prime.
Against South Africa last year there were 8 centuries, 1462 runs and
only 16 wickets.
In 2002 Vs India 1142 runs, 5 centuries and 4 half centuries and only
18 wickets
That pitch is a disgrace to cricket.
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)