Cricket Books

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by shivfan

I'm currently reading CMJ's 'Top 100 cricketers of all time', and I must say, I find it very disappointing....

He makes errors thru poor research, i.e. saying that Holding was an outstanding hurdler in his youth. No, CMJ, he was a long-jumper, and only to a school standard - he was never national standard.

And ranking players from 1-100 is always going to be a contentious issue, but even there, CMJ makes some baffling selections. For example, is Andrew Flintoff really a more outstanding cricketer than either Michael Holding or Courtney Walsh? And was Ian Botham really a greater cricketer than Brian Lara?

CMJ alleges that Lloyd maintained a successful record in Test cricket captaincy because his bowlers had a slow over rate that ensured that the Windies didn't lose a Test match. That is a cheap shot by CMJ with no facts or statistics to back up that off-the-cuff assertion. I have a big problem with journalists who make these unsubstantiated comments, and fail to come up with the evidence. So, I went back and looked at all of the Tests captained by Lloyd, and I found that in the vast majority of draws, the other teams were the ones hanging on for a draw. There was only one match I could find where the Windies were hanging on for a draw, and they were batting in that game, so a slow over-rate would've been useless in that match!

It's WI vs Pakistan in 1977 at Kensington Oval....

I find it disappointing that journalists like CMJ can follow the Wisden line of the time, espoused by forgettable editors such as David Frith, trying to denigrate the achievements of Lloyd's West Indies by harping on about slow over-rates, the use of bouncers, and how 'boring' Lloyd's West Indies were....

Here is my review Cricket Web - Cricket Books: The Top 100 Cricketers seems I enjoyed it.

I think the criticism of the WIs was never about their batting but the slowness of their over rates. You know you are good when they have to change the rules to stop you dominating. So the reduction of bouncers allowed was to curb the Windies

[hang on]

He makes errors thru poor research, i.e. saying that Holding was an outstanding hurdler in his youth. No, CMJ, he was a long-jumper, and only to a school standard - he was never national standard.

not saying u are wrong, but jamaican school standards are pretty much national standards elsewhere, aren't they, shivfan?! bolt and co. are products of the same system.

[vcs]

Yeah, Holding had great potential as an athlete (pretty obvious from watching that action!). Could have easily been a world-beater in 400m or long jump.

[hang on]

sorry to be a pedant, but do u mean warne vs. muralitharan?

One thing both the casual cricket fan and the cricket tragic love to do is debate the merits of contrasting great players; Warne V Tendulkar. Lillee V Hadlee, and one of the new debates, the merits of Sobers V Kallis.

In all three of the above, the author is clear in his rating, with Warne and Tendulkar finishing nine apart. Lillee and Hadlee six apart and Sobers and Kallis 49 apart. Although the last would be no real surprise for those who purport to know their cricket (again you will have to buy the book to find the results).

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by hang on

sorry to be a pedant, but do u mean warne vs. muralitharan?

A long time ago, but I think yes W V M

[hang on]

btw, without divulging actual ordering, could anyone confirm whether there is a difference in the ratings (at least the top 10) in the way it appeared in the times and the actual book. i remember someone telling me that there was a difference.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by hang on

btw, without divulging actual ordering, could anyone confirm whether there is a difference in the ratings (at least the top 10) in the way it appeared in the times and the actual book. i remember someone telling me that there was a difference.

No idea tbh

[hang on]

it would be playing spoilsport if i dredged up the list as it appeared in the times, wouldn't it?

on the other hand, if there is actually is a difference, that would be quite remarkable! might get the sales going even more.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by hang on

it would be playing spoilsport if i dredged up the list as it appeared in the times, wouldn't it?

on the other hand, if there is actually is a difference, that would be quite remarkable! might get the sales going even more.

Can only be picked up 2nd hand now, I should think. So will be no problem for you to disclose

[hang on]

from the times, the top 10:

Don Bradman's star would shine in any era - Times Online

bradman
grace
sobers
warne
hobbs
richards
barnes
hammond
tendulkar
gilchrist

do they correspond to the list in the book?

i find lara to be at a ludicrously low 24!

[chasingthedon]

Have the same book - always had a problem with KP being ranked ahead of Steve Waugh.

However, this is after all a personal ranking - he explains that, although all selections are Test players, they've been judged on all of their achievements. For example, CB Fry was not hugely successful as a Test player but features quite highly nonetheless.

[hang on]

apologies for my importunate request, but any idea if the top 10 in the book match up with the 10 i've listed up there? ta in advance.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by hang on

from the times, the top 10:

Don Bradman's star would shine in any era - Times Online

bradman
grace
sobers
warne
hobbs
richards
barnes
hammond
tendulkar
gilchrist

do they correspond to the list in the book?

i find lara to be at a ludicrously low 24!

The same as the book mate

[hang on]

thanks!

a flea in the ear moment awaits the person who led me up this garden path.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by hang on

thanks!

a flea in the ear moment awaits the person who led me up this garden path.

Roosevelt said if you are right more than 50% of time then you are doing well (not an exact quote)