ESPN's Legends of Cricket

[Deja moo]

So this is an innocent statement?

Yeah, those old-timers were superheros..did he really give keeping up so his buddy Dujon could get into the side ? What a guy!

It looked just a little sarcastic to me, so taking it in conjunction with the other 'Ashes' discussion we have been having (where Sanz is now kicking your butt), I naturally wondered why you seem to think that cricketers from as recent as the 1980's are no longer worthy of consideration.

You know, just for clarification.

Nope, the "Any DVD with lots of Gilchrist and no numbers would suffice too I would imagine ?" was a straightforward statement, which you, in your current jumpy mood twisted as a challenge to Viv. The sarcastic statement then was your "Oh, yes - although Viv's probably got the edge as far as wicketkeeping is concerned. ."
So, I figure, two can play at that game and you know what happened next. ( oh, and feeling insecure, are you now ? You and Sanz might keep blabbering your variations on the "we had a rivalry FIRST, and we're keeping it that way" line all you want, doesnt change what happened in the past 15 years)

 

[luckyeddie]

Nope, the "Any DVD with lots of Gilchrist and no numbers would suffice too I would imagine ?" was a straightforward statement, which you, in your current jumpy mood twisted as a challenge to Viv. The sarcastic statement then was your "Oh, yes - although Viv's probably got the edge as far as wicketkeeping is concerned. ."
So, I figure, two can play at that game and you know what happened next. ( oh, and feeling insecure, are you now ? You and Sanz might keep blabbering your variations on the "we had a rivalry FIRST, and we're keeping it that way" line all you want, doesnt change what happened in the past 15 years)

I really think you ought to consider calming down - you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Francis]

When someone can explain to me how/why Dennis Lillee considered a better cricketer let alone bowler than both Malcolm Marshall and Hadlee i would really like to hear that argument.

You ask anybody who saw him in the 70/80s and they'll tell you he's the best ever. Botham said he was the best bowler ever, Hadlee says he's the best fast bowler ever. He is renound as the only complete bowler in cricket history in that he could do anything. He had pace that intimidated batsman that Hadlee didn't have... yet he had Hadlee's control.

Lillee was a big impact man as well. Against a world XI he took his REAL career best figures of 8-27 I think. His last six wickets went for no runs. In sanctioned games his most famous was in 1981 when he demolished arguably the best cricket team in history, the West Indies, by taking 7 wickets.

People here tend to care a lot about stats and stats seem to lead them to think who's better than who. Things like eras, conditions, history etc come into play. Lillee played in perhaps crickets toughest era and worked on becoming a complete bowler that could bowl in most conditions (he failed in Pakistan).

In fact had he not joined World Series Cricket, no doubt he would have passed the 400 mark and everybody knew it. England only ever won one Ashes when he played too... Botham's Ashes.

Really I don't see why Lillee shouldn't be that high. One could easily argue Marshall fed off his three other fast bowlers, especially Joel Garner. Others can use the case that Hadlee got wickets because he had nobody to contend with and he was good enough to get them... only it took long spells. Lillee in 1981 had a year that was almost similar to Warne's 2005. While McGrath didn't play some games, and that allowed Warne to get more wickets, Thompson was out for a little while in 1981 as well.

I maintain that the best judge of a cricketer is the eye. At the start of 2005 I was ready to call Adam Gilchrist the best cricketer since the turn of the century... I wouldn't now. But the ammount of times Australia were 5-200 and he came in and got them over 400 is incredible. Gilchrist has impacted so many games for Australia with quick scoring in desperate times... yet stats don't show that. In the same way stats wont show how Dennis Lillee got wickets when they most mattered, or in big games such as the 1981 game.

Thing is. Nobody who voted on that list disputed Lillee was undoubtedly the best. Dickie Bird, Botham, Hadlee... they all rated him the best fast bowler of all time. It's just a recognised fact for all who saw him and his impact on games.

Really I think there's too much stock in stats here because when it comes down to it, it's often how players rise to the occassion and deal with pressure. How they can will wickets when they need them etc.

 

[Slifer]

Yes. which is y Marshall has a better strike rate, lower average and a slightly lower wicket per match ratio (despite facing more competition for wickets) than Lillee. add to that his performances in the sub continent. Rising to the occasion? how about coming out to bat with one hand in a plaster and then turning around to shoot out England for a 7 for. I wont even mention Hadlee because on bowling alone he is at least the equal of Lillee but when u look at his overall package he beats Lillee and most other cricketers (save Sobers, Bradman, Miller and Khan)

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes. which is y Marshall has a better strike rate, lower average and a slightly lower wicket per match ratio (despite facing more competition for wickets) than Lillee. add to that his performances in the sub continent. Rising to the occasion? how about coming out to bat with one hand in a plaster and then turning around to shoot out England for a 7 for. I wont even mention Hadlee because on bowling alone he is at least the equal of Lillee but when u look at his overall package he beats Lillee and most other cricketers (save Sobers, Bradman, Miller and Khan)

I guess that ESPN approached the wrong people to work out their top 100.

Should have got you and Deja Moo to do it.

 

[Fusion]

I guess that ESPN approached the wrong people to work out their top 100.

Should have got you and Deja Moo to do it.

Eddie,
Those two have a disagreement with ESPN (and you I guess). They are stating their arguments as to why they have their particular point of view. We can all either agree or disagree with their argument. But why do you have to have a statement like this seemingly mocking their right to argue?

 

[Slifer]

I guess that ESPN approached the wrong people to work out their top 100.

Should have got you and Deja Moo to do it.

Yes they should have. i'm the ultimate cricket expert. there i said it. happy now?? Seriously never realised having an opinion was such a big deal.

 

[luckyeddie]

Eddie,
Those two have a disagreement with ESPN (and you I guess). They are stating their arguments as to why they have their particular point of view. We can all either agree or disagree with their argument. But why do you have to have a statement like this seemingly mocking their right to argue?

One of the pair this week has been gain-saying everything I say on about 3 separate subjects - it gets very tedious but it's probably all he's got for entertainment.

The other one had his query answered quite reasonably. He then asked the same question again.

I'm certainly not mocking their right to argue (well, not much anyway) - I AM, however, questioning how anyone could feel so strongly about someone's position within a 'top 100' list when the actual person concerned is one of those who was ON THE PANEL!!!

They both obviously thought that they could do a better job, so I said so.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes they should have. i'm the ultimate cricket expert. there i said it. happy now?? Seriously never realised having an opinion was such a big deal.

Having an opinion isn't a crime - no problem with that at all.

You asked why Hadlee was ranked so lowly - I told you that Richard Hadlee was on the panel. You chose to ignore that and asked the same thing again.

So I'll tell you again.

Sir Richard Hadlee was actually part of the ESPN panel who chose the 'Legends of Cricket'.

The others were, I believe, Ian Chappell, Richie Benaud, Sunil Gavaskar, Dickie Bird, Mike Procter, Michael Holding, Martin Crowe, Wasim Akram, Ian Botham, Allan Border, Christopher Martin Jenkins, Tony Cozier, John Knowles and Robin Marlar.

I'm not disagreeing with you over your opinion as to where Hadlee should be placed - but I do think that the whole idea of making any sort of an issue over a 3 year old series of programmes is, frankly, silly.

 

[Deja moo]

I guess that ESPN approached the wrong people to work out their top 100.

Should have got you and Deja Moo to do it.

Thank you. Care to read my posts in this thread? Or is it "Goddammit, the infidel dared to question the Ashes, lets take potshots at him' time still ?

 

[honestbharani]

Eddie, I watched the shows and like I said, some of the explanations they gave were very funny. BTW, how could they rate Sachin as the alltime no.7 when he was still only 25 years old? I guess the fact that Sachin had a ESPN exclusive contract played no part in it at all. I watched the shows and I am telling you it was biased. IT was worser than when the ICC had one guy from each test playing nation pick an all time world XI. I watched that show too and that one seemed to be a more cricketing selection than this one.

 

[Francis]

Yes. which is y Marshall has a better strike rate,

Allan Donald and Waquar Yunis have better strike-rates yet nobody would say they're as great as Wasim Akram.

lower average

Is three or so runs really that big a difference? Average is just a ratio of much many runs one gets per wicket. Lillee was capable of getting a few wickets per X overs and then he was capable on having days where he wasn't lucky. Does average measure his impact?

and a slightly lower wicket per match ratio (despite facing more competition for wickets) than Lillee.

Far more than any other combination in cricket history, the West Indians fed off one another. I seriously question how many wickets Marshall could have gotten if he didn't have somebody who was 6'10 at the other end. Garner could create a bouncer when the ball was pitched up at somebody. Marshall was 6'0 and had a skiddy bouncer.

add to that his performances in the sub continent.

That's something he has over Lillee... well Lillee was just bad in Pakistan, as far as I know, he was godo in India.

Rising to the occasion? how about coming out to bat with one hand in a plaster and then turning around to shoot out England for a 7 for. I wont even mention Hadlee because on bowling alone he is at least the equal of Lillee but when u look at his overall package he beats Lillee and most other cricketers (save Sobers, Bradman, Miller and Khan)

That's all and well. That was by far his most famous moment. Lillee destroying the West Indies and bowling Viv Richards with the last ball of the day was his. Lillee has others that are famous such as his match against the World XI.

Hadlee's New Zealand are similar to todays Sri Lanka in tests. Hadlee was the most economical bowler ever... perhaps not in stats, but it's just plain obvious. Hadlee accumulation of wickets is very similar to Murali's. Hadlee often relied on long spells to get wickets, while batsman didn't want to score of him. Runs came while the other people were bowling. Hadlee's strike-rate is mostly just a ratio of wickets he got after long long spells. If there was a good bowler at the other end, he wouldn't get those wickets. Hadlee has great performances that rocked and won games... but mostly he was a marathon bowler who padded up wickets. Lillee wasn't a marathon bowler... he could bowl long spells, but not like Hadlee. Lillee was all about getting quick wickets with the new ball... which he did as good as anybody.

The way batsman played Hadlee is like how they play McGrath. Batsman just don't touch his stuff. But imagine if McGrath played without Warne and all them... he'd be economical like Hadlee and his average would go down as he pads up wickets... especially at the tail.

Allan Donald dismissed more top order batsman on average, than any bowler in history (that I'm aware of), strikes better than Marshall and has a lovely average.

Again, I repeat myself, stats are just ratios. They don't measure impact, they don't discriminate against tough and weak competition. I'm suprised how much stock is being put into stats here. It's like a universal fact for everybody who saw Lillee play that he was the best fast bowler ever. The guys your saying are better themselves rate Lillee the benchmark. Lillee even gave Marshall some tips.

Facts can indicate who's better when they're ridiculously loaded. But when Marshall strikes only perhaps four balls faster than Lillee and there's like three runs inbetween wickets... it's close. And there are so many more factors that come into play.

Most of all, I seriously doubt Marshall was as great as Lillee with the new ball, or that he could be as great, if he didn't have Joel Garner.

 

[Francis]

I thought I'd also state that Lillee - who played 70 tests, had 23 fourfers, 23 fivers, and seven tenfers.

Marshall - who played 81 tests, 11 more than Lillee - had 19 fourfers, 22 fivers, and 4 tenfers.

Who knows, maybe the fact that Lillee didn't play with three brilliant fast bowlers allowed him to get more recognised wicket-hauls? It's a logical thing to say.

It was said that in comparing Hadlee and Marshall - Marshall didn't get as many wickets as he could have because he had to share them. But Marshall would never have had such a good average if he didn't have his three bowlers around them. While Hadlee had plenty of time to bowl long spells and get many wickets per game while striking close to Marshall.

I think if Hadlee had great bowlers around him he'd have less wickets, but a better average. His strike-rate might not be as good, or it may be better. He wouldn't have the time to knock over the tail as great bowlers would assist there... but there'd be more pressure on batsman to score off him, meaning he could have striked better. Stats will never reveal who was greater between those two.

I see Lillee as a balance between the two. He had Thompson to feed off, both nothing anywhere near as potent as four great pacemen, yet he striked not far behind Marshall (6 balls). While he could bowl long spells like Hadlee and often did in 1981 but was more potent than Hadlee in long spells - striking around 45 wickets per balls in 1981, better than Marshall's career record. Like Hadlee, batsman tried to leave his stuff alone... while they had to play Marshall because there were no easy bowlers. This aids Marshall's strike-rate... but hurts his accumulation of wickets.

I think that sums it up well. Players left Lillee alone, they had to play Marshall and thus he had a better strike rate. However, competing with three other great bowlers hurt Marshall's ability to get as many wickets per test and hurt his ability to get fivers.

Do I think Lillee could strike six balls quicker if batsman were foced to play him more often due to a great bowling attack? Yep.
Do I think his average would go down? Yep. There'd be too much pressure on batsman to get wickets.
Do I think Lillee would have had less fivers? Yep. He'd have to share wickets.

But none of that happened. Lillee had more great bowlers around him than Hadlee, but no where near as many as Marshall.

If you want to debate Hadlee as well that good. He would be similar to Murali in my comparisons because he bowled long spells, accumulated wickets over time and his ratio of wickets per balls remained consistent. But NZ normally needed scores around 400 to start with because a one-man bowling attack can't consisently keep teams below 300 in the first innings.

 

[Jono]

God Eddie, sometimes you really act like a jerk. People have a differing opinion, and if you disagree with that you can say so like I did with Honest and others did, instead of useless smart-**** comments which are just unnecessary.

And boy, I didn't think I'd ever see the day when you'd start kissing up to Sanz because he happens to have the same opinion you have on a certain issue. Poor form, just poor.

 

[luckyeddie]

Thank you. Care to read my posts in this thread? Or is it "Goddammit, the infidel dared to question the Ashes, lets take potshots at him' time still ?

This is quite ridiculous.

Over the last week, you have come across as just disagreeing with me for the sake of it (on about three different subjects). Perhaps you have some valid point; if so, you are putting it across extremely badly or I am so stupid as to not being able to distinguish it from the rhetoric. If not, you're just whining. Let's assume the former.

I have just wasted half an hour of my life going right back to the start of this thread and reading EVERY post - not just yours - in order to establish their context.

I think your first appearance was when you spoke about Sachin being in his prime in 1998 (this being relevant how? The list was compiled in 2002-2003). No comment from me.

My first appearance was replying to Blaze who had LOLed at Botham being above Hadlee. I pointed out that both were on the panel, and that I didn't care who was higher than who anyway (to establish that I had no axe to grind).

Then one of the Essex Boys LOLed at Viv's exalted position, despite having an average of 'only 44' - after a few had said that averages weren't everything, Neil suggested that he bought a DVD 'without numbers' (implying that in his opinion, if he actually WATCHED the great man, his greatness would be self-evident). The Essex Boy agreed.

You then chipped in posing a question about Gilchrist. Whatever the point was you were trying to make, the implication to me was that 'A DVD would reveal Gilchrist's true greatness too'.

Now Gilchrist, in my mind, might well turn out to be the greatest wicketkeeper batsman in test history, but at the current time he is not a 'legend' - and of course he's not even on the list. Your mention of him is the first. I make no secret of my admiration for him, so naturally I suggest that seriously, you cannot even compare the two.

Your response to that was to imply that I was suggesting that a DVD of Gilchrist wouldn't show him in a good light (well, no to imply it - that was your direct question). Note that all I had said was that you couldn't compare Gilchrist and Viv - I had never intended to even imply that Gilchrist was just a lucky old banger with one shot who eventually would be found out by Flintoff to such an extent that Australia would have to keep resting him from meaningless ODI's in order for his shattered nerves to repair (that bit's a joke - I thought I'd better tell you now).

I then made a quite deliberate and obvious joke about the fact that it would show Viv as a better keeper (remember that a few years ago, the only criticism of Gilchrist was his keeping? I stress that's not the case now in case you wish to be selective regarding my comments).

Your seemingly ageist comeback about Viv allowing Dujon to have the gloves I thought was rubbish, and this is where I possibly misinterpreted it as having some real meaning. Looking back, I'm still not sure if it was humour, sarcasm, vindictiveness or stupidity.

My problem there was that I asked a genuine question about whether you didn't rate any players who predated your interest in cricket (I still think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do) - and now you get personal, accusing me of twisting an innocent statement.

The rest is history. Someone else got involved because I lost my patience with people who just can't read an answer where their name is actually quoted in the reply and ask the same question again, and then I lump him in with you into my mental "this guy is being pig-headed" file.

I apologise to him and to Slifer and Fusion who told me off.

 

[luckyeddie]

God Eddie, sometimes you really act like a jerk. People have a differing opinion, and if you disagree with that you can say so like I did with Honest and others did, instead of useless smart-**** comments which are just unnecessary.

And boy, I didn't think I'd ever see the day when you'd start kissing up to Sanz because he happens to have the same opinion you have on a certain issue. Poor form, just poor.

I made ONE comment for crying out loud (an extremely mild dig), and you are the fourth person to pick me up about it, leap on my case and lecture me on it.

In your case, about 10 hours after I apologised.

I'm sorry, right? If I had the people concerned's email, I would write to them and unreservedly apologise. I haven't, so I've done it on a public message board. It certainly didn't go as far as calling anyone a jerk - and as far as agreeing with Sanz is concerned, what is that to do with you?

Now as far as the issue is concerned, I'm done with it.

I don't expect an apology from you - but you have done far more than you just accused me of. I only made a smart-botty comment - sure, I'm a smart-botty. Always have been - especially on here.

 

[Jono]

I actually didn't realise so many people complained about your comments though, but it does say something.

And I didn't call you a jerk, but accused you of acting like one sometimes. I'd like to think there's a difference, but I did try and use the least 'offensive' word possible. Maybe I should have used doofus.

 

[luckyeddie]

I actually didn't realise so many people complained about your comments though, but it does say something.

And I didn't call you a jerk, but accused you of acting like one sometimes. I'd like to think there's a difference, but I did try and use the least 'offensive' word possible. Maybe I should have used doofus.

Just shows that you didn't read the thread - but let's not let that get in the way of propogating a half-truth, shall we? They didn't complain about my 'comments' - they complained about ONE - and all I blooming said was that ESPN should have asked Slifer and Deja moo to have written the list instead of the 14 or 15 legends and exalted journalists.

I have actually gone back and re-read the comment about a dozen times, and frankly I still cannot fathom what the fuss is about. It wasn't a personal attack - they are only ever aimed at me it seems (obviously it's open season).

Yes, doofus.

A man so stupid he thinks that he is a genius, or a stupid, incompetent or foolish person.

I think I prefer 'jerk', but thanks all the same for your thoughtfulness.

 

[Deja moo]

This is quite ridiculous.

Over the last week, you have come across as just disagreeing with me for the sake of it (on about three different subjects). Perhaps you have some valid point; if so, you are putting it across extremely badly or I am so stupid as to not being able to distinguish it from the rhetoric. If not, you're just whining. Let's assume the former.

I have just wasted half an hour of my life going right back to the start of this thread and reading EVERY post - not just yours - in order to establish their context.

I think your first appearance was when you spoke about Sachin being in his prime in 1998 (this being relevant how? The list was compiled in 2002-2003). No comment from me.

My first appearance was replying to Blaze who had LOLed at Botham being above Hadlee. I pointed out that both were on the panel, and that I didn't care who was higher than who anyway (to establish that I had no axe to grind).

Then one of the Essex Boys LOLed at Viv's exalted position, despite having an average of 'only 44' - after a few had said that averages weren't everything, Neil suggested that he bought a DVD 'without numbers' (implying that in his opinion, if he actually WATCHED the great man, his greatness would be self-evident). The Essex Boy agreed.

You then chipped in posing a question about Gilchrist. Whatever the point was you were trying to make, the implication to me was that 'A DVD would reveal Gilchrist's true greatness too'.

Now Gilchrist, in my mind, might well turn out to be the greatest wicketkeeper batsman in test history, but at the current time he is not a 'legend' - and of course he's not even on the list. Your mention of him is the first. I make no secret of my admiration for him, so naturally I suggest that seriously, you cannot even compare the two.

Your response to that was to imply that I was suggesting that a DVD of Gilchrist wouldn't show him in a good light (well, no to imply it - that was your direct question). Note that all I had said was that you couldn't compare Gilchrist and Viv - I had never intended to even imply that Gilchrist was just a lucky old banger with one shot who eventually would be found out by Flintoff to such an extent that Australia would have to keep resting him from meaningless ODI's in order for his shattered nerves to repair (that bit's a joke - I thought I'd better tell you now).

I then made a quite deliberate and obvious joke about the fact that it would show Viv as a better keeper (remember that a few years ago, the only criticism of Gilchrist was his keeping? I stress that's not the case now in case you wish to be selective regarding my comments).

Your seemingly ageist comeback about Viv allowing Dujon to have the gloves I thought was rubbish, and this is where I possibly misinterpreted it as having some real meaning. Looking back, I'm still not sure if it was humour, sarcasm, vindictiveness or stupidity.

My problem there was that I asked a genuine question about whether you didn't rate any players who predated your interest in cricket (I still think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do) - and now you get personal, accusing me of twisting an innocent statement.

The rest is history. Someone else got involved because I lost my patience with people who just can't read an answer where their name is actually quoted in the reply and ask the same question again, and then I lump him in with you into my mental "this guy is being pig-headed" file.

I apologise to him and to Slifer and Fusion who told me off.

Listen Eddie, today when I asked you to read my initial comments on that list, I was referring to the Sachin-Lara one. Now the list had Sachin at 7 and Lara at 34 or something. All I did was ofer a suggestion that Sachin being in his prime at the time and Lara being in his stay away from cricket mood and appearing to be in decline was probably a factor for the wide disparity in their rankings. I don't see how that has anything to with a perceived lack of respect for players of the 80s or beyond, or any preference for subcontinentals. I realise that you adore Viv, and its a difference of opinion I have that Viv was as good a player as suggested by his entire career rather than just his peak years. I also realise that Gilchrist (or any current batsman for that matter) really doesnt deserve the averages he has, but IMO a DVD package of the 2 wouldnt show Gilchrist up in bad light because thats what DVD packages do, they highlight the good. They'll portray Viv in his peak years while ignoring his late career, and they'll do the same for Gilly.

 

[luckyeddie]

Listen Eddie, today when I asked you to read my initial comments on that list, I was referring to the Sachin-Lara one. Now the list had Sachin at 7 and Lara at 34 or something. All I did was ofer a suggestion that Sachin being in his prime at the time and Lara being in his stay away from cricket mood and appearing to be in decline was probably a factor for the wide disparity in their rankings. I don't see how that has anything to with a perceived lack of respect for players of the 80s or beyond, or any preference for subcontinentals. I realise that you adore Viv, and its a difference of opinion I have that Viv was as good a player as suggested by his entire career rather than just his peak years. I also realise that Gilchrist (or any current batsman for that matter) really doesnt deserve the averages he has, but IMO a DVD package of the 2 wouldnt show Gilchrist up in bad light because thats what DVD packages do, they highlight the good. They'll portray Viv in his peak years while ignoring his late career, and they'll do the same for Gilly.

I never once mentioned Sachin or Lara - not once did I say anything that could be construed by anyone as being in any way, shape or form connected in even the remotest way to either of the gentlemen concerned.

More to the point, I refuse here to discuss the merits of either gentleman with you or anyone else. I have been entirely consistent throughout this thread, and I have maintained from the start that I have no axe to grind as to who ranks higher than whom.

Gilchrist didn't even make the list, consequently as far as I am concerned mention of him in the context of comparisons is as irrelevant as any other as far as I am concerned.

I haven't a clue what upset you (other than the fact that you now claim to be saying that you were really talking about two entirely different cricketers). What seemed to upset everyone else (well, the usual people who like to pick me up on such things) was that I suggested that ESPN had wasted their time getting Ian Chappell, Richie Benaud, Sunil Gavaskar, Dickie Bird, Mike Procter, Michael Holding, Martin Crowe, Wasim Akram, Ian Botham, Allan Border, Sir Richard Hadlee, Christopher Martin Jenkins, Tony Cozier, John Knowles and Robin Marlar to do the selection, and that you and Slifer knew better.

I now realise that was a terrible mistake on my behalf, that it was a dreadful insult of Danish and French newspaper proportions and that I had no right to say it.

I think I'm saying 'get a life, people'.