Top 20 Cricketers of all time

So, someone's status update got me thinking.

Rules? 8 bowlers, 8 batsmen, 2 allrounders, 2 keepers

Keepers: Gilchrist, A
Knott, A

- the world's best batsman/keeper and the world's best keeper/batsman. Both revolutionised the game. Knott standing up to Underwood on a wet pitch was the equivalent of Gilly's 70 ball hundreds.

Batsmen:
Bradman, D.G.
Hammond, W.
Hobbs, J.
Shrewsbury, A
Headley, G.
Richards, I.V.A
Chappell, G.
Compton, D

Bradman, Hammond, and Hobbs are obvious. Shrewbury was the finest batsman of his age - W.G.Grace agreed - and as such, deserves a spot considering the paddocks he played n. Headley was the black Bradman. Compton gets the nod because at his very peak, he was Bradmanesque

Bowlers:
Lohmann, G.
Barnes, S.F
Hadlee, R.J.
O'Reilly, W.
Akram, W.
Davidson, A.R
Rhodes, W.
Laker, J.

3 spinners, 2 oddities, 3 quicks. Lohmann and Barnes were the finest bowlers ever O'Reilly the finest legspinner, Laker the finest offspinner, Rhodes the finest left arm orthodox. Akram and Davidson get the nod for pace and variety, and Hadlee for shoring up a very weak team for years.

Allrounders:
Grace, W.G
Sobers, G.

No contest here

world's best batsman/keeper = andy flower.

also, I see that you list seems to show a strong bias towards player that you've never watched playing...

yeah, can't really get into rating players i've never seen play :/

Thought Dennis Lillie would of been in the bowlers??

^^^ What they said..... I thought Shrewsbery was a biscuit

You always fuck up these threads for this reason Z, now try again 1980 + please

Reckon. Way to pick a team based on numbers and numbers only...

Where's Mark Greatbatch??

Keepers

A. Gilchrist
A. Flower

Gilchrist is an automatic choice, and well A. Flower because keepers are more than just wicketkeepers. They have to be good with the bat as well, and Andy Flower was a world class batsman.

Batsmen

D. Bradman
S. Tendulkar
W. Hammond
J. Hobbs
R. Ponting
V. Richards
G. Pollock
S. Gavaskar


Bowlers

R. Hadlee
F. Trueman
G. McGrath
S. Warne
M. Muralitharan
W. Akram
M. Marshall
C. Ambrose

All Rounders

I. Khan
G. Sobers

Well it was my post about Ponting on my fb that started off Vads thought train here.

Don't rate Ponting as highly as others do TBH. Sure he's a great modern day player, but let's not forget he's only really blossomed over recent years where the bowling attacks have been pretty fucken mediocre. Every time Punter has come up against a good, young quick he's been put in his place. He's been worked over by Bond, Ishant, Harmison and now Roach. If Ponting had to play in the 80s against those Windies his record would have been no better than anyone elses, and in fact for that reason I would pick Border EVERY TIME over Ponting. If Ponting had to face his own bowling attack (Warne & McGrath in particular) there is no way his average would be 55.

As I said on my Facebook, Ponting would be lucky to make my top 20 batsmen, let alone cricketers.



gc.

... wat

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround
Had a pretty solid average every year since he started? Except for 96 and 98..

Or are you meaning "recent years" as in 90s/2000s, and therefore discrediting the batting performances of, well, everyone since then?

Also, his lowest average against a specific country is India @ 47... So it's not just that he's beating up weaker teams.

Actually from the looks of that he's actually been pretty lean the last 3 years.

But yeah I was talking more from about 2000 onwards, and looking at that chart I would say 2002 onwards would be more accurate. Don't get me wrong he has a fantastic average and has done some awesome things, but we also have to look at the quality of opposition he usually faces.

The likes of Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond etc didn't get to play Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

And the 2 of the 3 greatest bowlers of the last 20 years were on his team, so he didn't have to face them either. for me he just doesn't stack up against some of the other names.



gc.

And also he plays 50% of his cricket on awesome, modern Australian pitches.

If there were more consistent bowling units around, and not just 'one offs' like Bond, Harmison and co he would have been in a lot more trouble. But after Ambrose and Walsh retired Ponting was still playing 5 match series against a hapless Windies attack, and playing 5 match series against an equally average English attack.

I guess you can only play what's in front of you, but I don't think he's as good as what others think he is.



gc.

tbh, I'm a bit weary of how everyone always goes on about what legendary bowling opposition the batters of yester-year had to face. Admittedly I only really got into cricket about 1995-ish so I don't really know, but it all seems so counter-intuitive.

Generations generally get better at sports right? Technology improves, learning increases, funding increases etc. Why are we so reticent to give modern-day bowlers the credit? Sure, there were some legendary bowlers back then, but for every one there must've been 10 average ones - and surely bowlers these days have more variety in their armoury than before? Also they do more targeted research than before etc..

Same case can be made saying Bradman only really played against one team.

Bradman never had to face the West Indian attack of the 80s, or the Pakistani trio of Khan, Akram and Younis. Or Muralitharan in Colombo. Or Harbijan and Kumble on the sub-continent.

Ya exactly... He played 37 games against England, and then like 5 games each against 3 other teams?

It's better to look at how dominant a certain player was during his time.

Are you seriously questioning The Don?

While I do agree with the general analysis of sportsmen getting better, the evidence is pretty clear that the large majority of bowlers today just don't compare to Warne, McGrath, Akram, Younis, Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Thompson, Lillee and Hadlee.

Obviously I can't pass comment on the really old guys that I haven't seen, but we also have to remember what a big part the pitch plays in cricket. If you're playing on sticky mud or an absurd green top, you're going to be much more up against it right from the start.



gc.

Thats a good point.

Of all the bowlers around now, who has the potential to be a great?

Only one sticks out.

Dale Steyn.

By most accounts, that England attack was the best in the world at the time by a long way. Bradman also had to face bodyline, and given the relatively low number of tests he played compared to other greats (WW2 and all that) it could have had a devastating effect on his average.

Agreed.

Comparing players from different eras directly is a waste of time imo.

Well yeah, for the most part. But when your awesomeness clearly supercedes any before or after you then some concessions must be made. Ala Mr Bradman.



gc.

Yeah, facing Hedley Verity, Harold Larwood was like facing Grant Bradburn and Kerry Walmsley. Lol.

You realise he batted on a lot of uncovered pitches - that Larwood was regarded as fast as Tyson, who in turn was as quick as Thomson, who was clocked at 160 ?

I never saw Alexander the Great either, but I can evaluate him as superior to, say, Vespasian, can't I?

I've read loads about these players. You know, the written word, television's superior cousin

Disagree totally. Keepers today keep on fucking ironing boards, and they still fuck up. Knott and other keepers of the past kept on much, much rougher pitches, up to the stumps, with inferior equipment, and hardly ever missed a chance.



No Lohmann, no Barnes??



Any list without W.G.Grace is ridiculous.

ok Z. I take it back...your thread does have milage

Again though...the problem I have with you using "the written word" is the fact authors are nearly always biased. I note you seem to have a particualr bias towards English playrs and lo and behold whats this... most the writers you have pored over ARE Wisden/ English

No Kallis, S Pollock, Donald or Greame Smith ... this thread is a joke, Im out of here!

I put Graeme Pollock in my team.

Does that count?

Equipment doesn't make Keepers better.

And the "ironing board pitches" would make keeping harder - more pace and carry = keepers have to have faster reactions and be more athletic and skilled to take chances...

Ah, so you read secondary sources. You know, primary sources' (Television) retarded cousin...

lol neil

The hardest thing about keepimg is variable bounce Grant...are you sure you play cricket?

Yeah but when that variable bounce is usually lower and slower than today's its not as bad as it seems

What i'm trying to say is that today's pitches are generally quicker than previosuly, so that the ball comes through to the keeper more quickly = less time to do something about it. Yes pitches these days will have more consistent bounce, but unless the keeper is standing up to the wicket, bounce isn't that much of an issue.

Not just this, but it means that the Top 20 list is nothing more than an exercise in reading comprehension.

I think Tendulkar is the greatest batsman I've seen in my lifetime. Lara is awesome but Tendulkar just does it for me.

Bowler... Gotta be Warne. That cunt was unreadable at his prime. And the turn he got!

So?

You guys think a single performance in a test or something defines greatness

Rhodes took 4204 first class wickets. Endurance is as much a part of sports as anything

No, they aren't quicker actually. As the commentators pointed out, the WACA for example is a lot slower than it was in the 1970s

Keepers used to keep on sticky dogs: wet underneath, hard thin surface on top. The ball would occasionally bite through the top and turn a ridiculous amount, extremely rapidly. There are no sticky dogs today - we cover our pitches.

If players today had to deal with the underprepared pitches of yesteryear, they'd score all of 50 all out

I can make pretty good arguments for all of them.

Arthur Shrewsbury averaged a touch under 40 on mid-19th century pitches. Let's be honest here - compared to his contemporaries, he was absolutely head and shoulders above them. We aren't talking about the 1920s here, but pitches well before good rollers, good turf management etc.

Hobbs - 197 first class tons. Nuff said.

Sutcliffe averaged over 60 in a lengthy test career. He's the ONLY player never to have his test average dip below 60. Add in his astonishing first class career, and you cannot even consider replacing him with (for example), Tendulkar or Ponting.

Dennis Compton is the ONLY iffy choice in my bats.

Bowlers - look at the stats for Barnes and Lohmann. Some say Lohmann was a flash in the pan, but the fact was he made the most of what chances he had. (And consider the batsmen who were the contemporaries of Barnes and Lohmann and still scored heavily!)

O'Reilly > Warne. Both Aussies. O'Reilly a better strike rate, better average, and was regarded by the Don as one of the very best. Could have easily gone with Grimmett.

Rhodes - 4204 first class wickets. Nuff said.

Laker - 19 wickets in a test. Name a better offspinner.

Warne, for all his supposed greatness, cannot even compare. Averaged +25.

Davidson is very underrated. Look at his stats. He played some darned good teams as well.

You guys are FAR too focused on the current generaiton. Cricket's been played for 150 years in a recognisably modern form. My players span the full range.

Again, W.G.Grace should be the FIRST name on any list, ahead of Bradman.
Bradman perfected an existing method, Grace invented that method (in the same way the guy who invented the internal combustion engine is a better engineer than the guy who designed the latest Formula One engine)

You don't know this, you are just guessing.

This whole subject is redundant. Yes your list is full of greats, however you have no idea how they would perform in todays conditions with todays technology ...

Vads, averages aren't everything.

Case in point. Michael Hussey.

Awesome first 20 tests, very very very average after that. Still has an average over 50.

Why Isn't Shane Bond in the running?

LOL

Get your hand off it. WG Grace was a notorious cheat. In the game of the gentry, he used his status to influence more than just leather on willow. Don Bradman is the greatest cricketer to ever grace the pitch.



gc.

Also, his technique is fucking shoddy



Where's the footwork? Completely off balance, bat way too far away from the body, his hands are too far apart.

That's a posed photo

you do know Grace invented backfoot play, right?

he's just announced his retirement from test cricket

talking about dale steyn and shane bond... it feels like only yesterday that dale steyn started playing, but he's played almost twice as many test matches as shane bond who has been playing since forever...

What proof today

India vs. Sri Lanka called off with Sri Lanka 83-5 because the pitch is substandard

Diddum

I recall one year I think it was WI vs India and the Windies quicks put 4 or 5 indian batsmen off the field and into hospital... the Indian captain protested.

But that's real cricket.

Teams have been all out for 26 in tests in the past... that's where real technique comes through