Cricket Player Manager
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Defining a a true great in Test cricket

  1. #1
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131

    Defining a a true great in Test cricket

    How do you do it in defining as somebody as a true great of cricket (ie Shane Warne, SRT, Sir Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards, Sir Garry Sobers etc.)? And in the real game of cricket, Tests. And I will give credit to SJS for giving me this idea in the Virender Sehwag thread.

    For me as a general run down:

    Consistentcy - always performs no matter what, sure they might have a slight dip in form (that would be almost impossible not to), but that is few and far in between the periods when they are on top of their game.

    Technique - It may not be coached, but it must be good enough to either take a lot wickets (ie a good run up and action) or to be able to score a lot of runs. Somebbody with a shocking technique like Virender Sehwag can't be considered a great, because in my opinion having a bad technoqie can lead too your downfall whilst batting, or lack in consistentcy and therefore not score as many runs and be in and out of the team. Bearing in mind that being as technically correct as a Daren Ganga or Ramnaresh Sarwan (Camps to correct me in 5..4..3 ) isn't a surefire bet to being a legend of the game. It has a lot to do with the midnset and application of the individual.

    Which brings me to the next point:

    Mental - You must never be scared or defeated. Look at Shane Warne, many a batsman as got the better of him (Brian Lara in 1999, VVS Laxman in 2001), but he is never defeated mentally. I can't think of too many times for example that SRT was defeated mentally by the Australians. And this is also under the banner of being able to perform when the going gets tough and is able to raise above it.

    Genius - Something no mere mortal or standard Test cricketer could do. Just watch at how Warne or BCL batted or McGrath bowled, I could practise either one of leg spin, batting or fast bowling for every day till the cows come home, and still no do anything extraordinary

    I'll add more as I see it, but this is just a general run down of it all and what I could think of at this time being.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,197
    You have to have the record, the reputation and the CV with game changing performances.

    For me the cut-off is around Boycott and Wasim.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  3. #3
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,436
    There is the intangible aspect too. No one has to look at statistics or technique to say that Sachin Tendulkar is a great, because he 'just is'. (Oh dear, that reads like it was written by a 5 year old, I hope you get the point).
    The speed at which a fielding team gets through the innings is overrated.

  4. #4
    U19 12th Man Bees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    297
    What about Kallis and Steve Waugh?



    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    There is the intangible aspect too. No one has to look at statistics or technique to say that Sachin Tendulkar is a great, because he 'just is'. (Oh dear, that reads like it was written by a 5 year old, I hope you get the point).
    AWTA. Not many folk like these... the true gems.


  5. #5
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I could probably define some sort of criteria, but am too tired right now.

    For me, you can have short-term "greats" as well as more sticking-it-out greats.

    For example, Botham was unquestionably one of the greatest cricketers in history between 1977/78 and either 1981 or 1982 depending on your viewpoint. From 1984 onwards he was first pretty poor and then later abysmal, but this doesn't stop his 4 earlier years from being phenomenal.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  6. #6
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    Technique - It may not be coached, but it must be good enough to either take a lot wickets (ie a good run up and action) or to be able to score a lot of runs. Somebbody with a shocking technique like Virender Sehwag can't be considered a great, because in my opinion having a bad technoqie can lead too your downfall whilst batting, or lack in consistentcy and therefore not score as many runs and be in and out of the team. Bearing in mind that being as technically correct as a Daren Ganga or Ramnaresh Sarwan (Camps to correct me in 5..4..3 ) isn't a surefire bet to being a legend of the game. It has a lot to do with the midnset and application of the individual.
    .
    Utter bollocks. A good technique is one with which you score a lot of runs. A bad technique is one with which you don't score many runs. Sehwag doesn't have a bad technique, else he wouldn't have scored at an average of 53 after 100 innings.

    Maybe what you meant to say was "must have an orthodox technique" which is, once again, utter bollocks.

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,991
    Greatness is like an elephant: easier to recognise than to define.

  8. #8
    U19 Cricketer Speersy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Utter bollocks. A good technique is one with which you score a lot of runs. A bad technique is one with which you don't score many runs. Sehwag doesn't have a bad technique, else he wouldn't have scored at an average of 53 after 100 innings.

    Maybe what you meant to say was "must have an orthodox technique" which is, once again, utter bollocks.
    Yeah thats what I was thinking when reading the first post. Who decides what is good technique? Does Murali have a good technique? Does Chanderpaul have a good technique?
    Who cares, just look at what they have accomplished and there performances under pressure. Thats the only criteria for an All Time Great imo.
    Time: "Despite its gentlemanly manner, the sport generates tremendous passion in Britain and its former colonies."



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Great Test Matches..
    By Neil Pickup in forum General
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 08:17 PM
  2. The Great Cricket Web Smilie Test Thread
    By Jamee999 in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 31-07-2009, 09:18 PM
  3. Replies: 143
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 05:25 AM
  4. School cricket - great fun
    By Barney Rubble in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2004, 05:06 AM
  5. Great News if true
    By Blewy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-2003, 11:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •