ESPN's legends of cricket series

[hourn]

website at http://www.legendsofcricket.com - also shown in a series on ESPN on Foxtel in Australia.

Anyones thoughts on the top 25 list which is found on the main site of the list, also the 50 finalists, which are here - http://www.legendsofcricket.com/top50.html

my thoughts:
1 - of the 15 people on the judging panel, 7 of them were actually in the 50 finalists, which i dont agree with as it can influence they're decision (they may put themselves too high or too low)

2 - Obviousbly voted by a pretty respectable great of people, so its pretty hard to argue against although IMO:

- Warne at 4 is too high. Is it just me or is he unbealivably overrated. He is a great bowler but i still reckon he's third to O'Reilly and Grimmett.

- Tendulkar at 7?? top 20 yes but not quite that high as of yet for me.

- Very happy to see Imran Khan at number 8 because he often seems to be forgotten to Miller and Sobers when talking of the best all rounders of all time.

- Lillee at 6 means he was considered the number 1 quick bowler. Pretty big call that one.

- Herb Sutcliffe should've been in the top 10/15, but missed out.

- Malcolm Marshall should've been a bit higher.

[Edited on 8/12/2002 by hourn]

[Edited on 8/12/2002 by hourn]

 

[warrioryohannan]

The Wisden rating of the top 25 players is similar to this one.Of the judges, i think, Gavaskar,Hadlee and Bothom shouldn't have been in the panel as their names are in top 15 !

Marshall is ranked too low at 16 whereas Warne is certainly a bit higher at no 4.REst is fine!

 

[TendulkarMark2]

Interestingly there is no player from SL, not even in the top 50 finalists list.Muralitharan has 437 wkts in Test cricket, just 54 less than Warne's 491(Murali has played 78 while Warne has played 107 Tests).By the end of his career Murali will probably get 600 test wkts and there will be hardly a bowler who would ever match him.
So if Warne is rated 4th , then Murali should atleast be in top 20! Interestingly even Wisden seems to ignore Murlai, is his action a problem with the judges??

 

[wahindiawah]

Two of the Judges happened to be Holding and Gavaskar.While Holding had express doubt about Murali's action recently, Gavaskar had also once expressed his reservation about Murali's action.
I don't think i will ever see Murali's name in a such a rating, to many former cricketers, Murali's action is still illegal

 

[royGilchrist]

Keith Miller should be higher than Hadlee and Botham.

Sachin is just fine.

Murli should atleast have been in there, unless they consiously penalized him for his action.

Waqar should be in there, especially with the strike rate he has.

WG Grace is obviously an icon, but I dont see the point of including him so high on the list, maybe I am missing something. Also if he is included than others can be included as well from that era, like Ranjitsinjhi.

I dont agree with Dennis Lillee at such a high position, and Marshall should replace Warne at number 4.

Now one problem that I have is the criteria. Is this solely based on test performance, becasue otherwise people like Murali and Waqar should definetely be there. So lets assume that this is solely based on test cricket, then how did Barry Richards make it to the top 25! Ofcourse I am not denying that he was one of the most talented batsmen of his generation, some rated him as potent a batsman as Viv, but Hick also tore up the county and domestic scene as B Richards did. And no one could have predicted that Hick would be the failure at international level that he was. So B Ricjards could have been a similar bust, who knows. There is no way that without playing any international cricket someone can make it to the top 50 of all time, let alone top 25.

Another problem that I have with this list, and other lists of this kind, is that it seems to be batsman heavy. Does that mean that batting is more important than bowling. Roughly, I think a batsman with 8000 runs and average of 52 should be treated the same way as a bowler with 350 wkts and average of 23. But they are not, batsmen get the edge. On pure bowling along, only 4 out of top 25 are there. But on batting alone there are 15 out of top 25 (I hope I counted correctly). It should be roughly the same, but due to the general perception that batsmen are more important than bowlers.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by TendulkarMark2

Interestingly there is no player from SL, not even in the top 50 finalists list.Muralitharan has 437 wkts in Test cricket, just 54 less than Warne's 491(Murali has played 78 while Warne has played 107 Tests).By the end of his career Murali will probably get 600 test wkts and there will be hardly a bowler who would ever match him.
So if Warne is rated 4th , then Murali should atleast be in top 20! Interestingly even Wisden seems to ignore Murlai, is his action a problem with the judges??

Very good point. If Murali is allowed to play, then he should be in that list....

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmmmmmmmmm....................I think this list is populated by too many sentimental former players.

I mean what the heck are Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock and George Headley doing in the list? I'd question Frank Worrell's inclusion too. Keith Miller is rated too highly too. Again, a great player but I'd rate Botham slightly above him. I wouldn't put Kapil in there either.

Ah, all these lists are crapola anyway. Too many sentimental favourites in there from former players who probably only heard how good most of these guys are.

And of course the question has already been asked; is this on performance at the highest level, on how good the players were rated at the time or actual Test perfoemances? To me, the lists are too general to be of any use.

 

[Kimbo]

ESPN's history of cricket is the funniest- they document matches and series from the past. The voiceover that comes on occassionally is really serious and makes it sound really documentary like. I think the producers are trying to make cricket seem really boring- jeez, its a game forgodsake...
the funniest thing is that sometimes the games are like - 95 series aus vs nz... ( i dont know when the series was, just making a point, but there was one with nz wearing the black/teal)

 

[royGilchrist]

TC, why do you say Keith Miller should be lower, he didnt play as much but he was a more accomplished all rounder, Botham was a world class for not very long, and Hadlee wasnt a world class batsman (only on special occasions). BTW, you dont need to complain, Miller is below both Botham and Hadlee.

I disagree with you about Kapil, I think he should definetely be there, not outstanding but his country's mainstay with the ball (not as good as Imran or Hadlee) and decent with the bat (not as good as Imran and Botham). He was one of the main reasons India won a world cup something that aint happening again for a long time. His longevity was also worth the reward.

So whats with the WG Grace inclusion, someone please explain this one...You English guys?

 

[hourn]

I think this list is not so much the **best** cricketers purely. The word "Legends" doesn't just mean the best player. It is also means who has had great influence over the game, and who have been figures that people immediately identify with cricket.

Hence, the reasons for inclusions of W.G. Grace and Frank Worrall being so high. CLyd Walcott is a much better cricketer than Worrall.

Also, probaly the reason for how Botham ended up at 11. There is no way on this planet, that Botham can possibly be rated higher than Miller. But on a basis that Botham is one of the most well known cricketers of all time, then yes, perhaps he is infront of Miller in that category.

 

[royGilchrist]

'legends', 'most impact on cricket' and 'most recognizable' is all about perception.

Why is Warne more recognizable than Sachin? Or Wasim less than Graeme Pollock?

I just read how this waqs determined and the process doesnt sound that bad, but there should be equal representation from every test playing country and they should debate it out instead of just voting. Im sure a person like Wasim, who doesnt have much idea about the players of yesteryears, like SYdney Barnes for exmaple, would have changed his opinion if there was a discussion.

 

[royGilchrist]

And an even better way would be to just tell Ian Chappell to make the list himself and give reasons for his thinking. That would be a lot better and more interesting piece of work.

 

[aussie_beater]

Shane Warne is overrated as the best leg spinner ever..... I don't feel he should be up there in the fourth position.

 

[suchchin]

Two notable exceptions are,

1 Muralitharan ..Should be in top 25
2 Waqar Younis..Should be in 50 finalists.

Sachin i think is ranked appropriately, Warne seems to me ranked a bit too high.I disagree with TC on Kapil, i think he was the fourth best allrounder after Imran,Bothom and Hadlee and all four of them have been ranked accordingly.

As pointed out by Roy, the list seems to be dominated by batsmen, just 4 bowlers in Warne,Amram,Marshall and Lillee have been able to find a place in top 25 cricketers.No explaination has been given on it.

BTW, how are you guys able to give your opinion on players like Miller and the likes who played way back?.I haven't even seen them in action once, impossible for me to tell as to how good they really were.

 

[hourn]

Originally posted by suchchin

Two notable exceptions are,

1 Muralitharan ..Should be in top 25
2 Waqar Younis..Should be in 50 finalists.

yep agreed, particularaly on Waqar. Murilithiran, even though i believe he throws, is still classes as legal and therefore should've been there IMO given his record.

Originally posted by suchchin
I disagree with TC on Kapil, i think he was the fourth best allrounder after Imran,Bothom and Hadlee and all four of them have been ranked accordingly.

Miller and Sobers?? undenieably number 1 and 2.

Originally posted by suchchin
BTW, how are you guys able to give your opinion on players like Miller and the likes who played way back?.I haven't even seen them in action once, impossible for me to tell as to how good they really were.

Most people would've seen old footage of them playing, and even if you haven't, you just have to look at their respective records to see how good they would've been. Its like saying how do you know Don Bradman was any good?? you never saw him play. But you don't even have to watch him bat, just look at how many runs he scored to know he was great.

 

[royGilchrist]

Miller and Sobers?? undenieably number 1 and 2.

Sobers numerb 1 undeniably, but Miller number two undeniably? No ways, there can be amny arguments, and I think Imran gets this honour after many arguments

 

[anzac]

please forgive me for perhaps being a little off topic, but not having seen either the list or the program - I would like to express my admiration for those players who became dual internationals for their country - particularly those that achieved a measure of success at both at the same time, while never perhaps reaching the dizzying heights of the 'Legends' in either of their sports.

Mark Burgess & Jeff Wilson come to mind for NZ, and I am aware of some English soccer pros that have done it in the pre / post WW2 era as well - Crompton?????

 

[marc71178]

Sobers numerb 1 undeniably, but Miller number two undeniably? No ways, there can be amny arguments, and I think Imran gets this honour after many arguments

I was going to counter this by claiming Botham as a better all-rounder, but then I looked at the stats! Imran's figures are amazing

Having said that, I do feel Botham somewhat ruined his figures by carrying on for too long - Comparing them over 88 matches (Imran's career length) Botham scored 1002 more runs, but had a lower average owing to Imran's not outs) and 4 more wickets in 380 more balls (again at a worse average)

Interestingly his career went on for another 5 and a half years after that, but performances suggest he should've quit after that first bad injury?

 

[marc71178]

Miller and Sobers?? undenieably number 1 and 2.

Looking at his Test figures, I'd have to doubt Sobers, OK his batting was a lot better than the others discussed here, but his bowling was also a lot worse!

Indeed Kallis bears a reasonable comparison to him, having scored his runs at an average that is 86.5% of Sobers, but taken his wickets at an average that is 83.2% of Sobers!

 

[Bazza]

Originally posted by Top_Cat
Ah, all these lists are crapola anyway. Too many sentimental favourites in there from former players who probably only heard how good most of these guys are.

And of course the question has already been asked; is this on performance at the highest level, on how good the players were rated at the time or actual Test perfoemances? To me, the lists are too general to be of any use.

At the end of the day one of the reasons this was compiled would have been to create a talking point, which it quite clearly has....