But you may be right since he has chosen he is choosing his top cricketers and not just in one discipline. He could have given much greater weightage to Gilly's enormous batting talents which is more difficult to argue against.
But I am amazed to see Andy Roberts (and even Garner) out of that list and Walsh in.
Last edited by SJS; 16-05-2009 at 07:41 PM.
Lets take Aussie cricketer's first. There are four all rounders included by CMJ. Here they are in the order ranked.
- Keith Miller (Australia)
- Richie Benaud (Australia)
- Jack Gregory (Australia)
- Warwick Armstrong (Australia)
It is not possible to argue with the credentials of these four worthies to be in that let but . . . . no Monty Noble !!
and what about the man called the WG of Australia . . . George Giffen. I know George Giffen is not a name many of you may be familiar with but then so is Arthur Shrewsbury
Then we come to Australian Keepers.
There is just one name in that list. . . Ian Healy - a great keeper no doubt but what, what, what ??? only one wicket keeper (with Gilchrist maybe still to come in the last ten) from the land of great wicket keepers ? . . . what about these guys (listed in the order of their appearance on the cricketing firmament)
I suspect CMJ is not a great fan of wicket keeping skills and does not believe they make great keepers. One may disagree but then one cant deny him his opinions/preferences as he has included Stewart, Sangakarra, Walcott, Ames and Andy Flower all top class batsmen (and Gilchrist by common consensus is just the last list away). I listed all the wicket keepers in the world and then ranked them by Test centuries scored and guess which six came on the top - Stewart, Sangakarra, Walcott, Ames, Andy Flower and, of course, Gilchrist.
So CMJ wanted wicket keepers who could score Test centuries more often (kidding). Next in that list I made was Kamran Akmal (6 centuries) and then Boucher Knott and Dujon with five. Healy is next with four along with Waite and Moin. So okay, we conced that he picked Knott and Healy from these two subgroups for their superior keeping skills besides Test century scoring capability. I cant tell you how happy I felt at having solved this particular mystery
I dont like mysteries . . . not in cricket lists anyway
.... to be continued
I'm sorry I just can't take this list seriously, Ambrose at 51 and Marshall at 11....utterly ridiculous. If I was making an all time team, I think Marshall would be the first on my list, above even the Don, undoubtedly the best quick ever.
Guessing his top 10 will feature Bradman, Sobers, Murali, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Warne, Grace, Richards, not sure about the other 2 spots.
Dissappointed at no Sehwag. No Davidson is very suprising too (unless he's in the top 10 which is too high). Dexter above Abbas, Donald, Harvey, Smith, Merchant? CB Fry shockingly low IMO. No Hazare will raise an Indian eyebrow or 2. Flintoff shouldn't be anywhere near that list considering the other names on it. Who the hell would want Flintoff in their team above Pollock, Donald, Holding or Statham? Think Saqlain was a better bowler than Qadir but that's probably just me. Gower and Jayasuriya placed so highly on aesthetic value, no way were they better than some of the names below them. Jon Snow very high IMO. No Hayden either is very harsh. I'd expect an England bias but some of the choices are hard to justify, e.g Bedser above Akram?
Last edited by oitoitoi; 17-05-2009 at 04:01 AM.
Diuretics are used to look good at TV shows
I played for 20 years in the Lankan team, I did not have any problems as a Tamil - Muralidaran
No one comes close to Bradman, as he is twice as good as the next best batsman of alltime and probably twice as good as the next best player of alltime. To average almost 100 over such a long period of time, without any deteriation is merely unbelievable. No other player has come close to something as spectacular. Get someone to average close to 10 with the ball for 20 years or average over 50 (with the bat) and under 20 (with the ball), like Bradman averaged 100 for and then you can't stake an arguement for someone being better then Bradman. Bradman is not only easily the best cricketer of alltime, but probably the best player out of any form of sport.
No complaints from me regarding his 11-100 selections.
In the end CMJ is attempting to fit 150+ more than worthy cricketers into 100 places. For sure he may have the order wrong at times. But is it truly an insult for Bedser to be 5 places higher than Wasim? Or for Muralitharan to just miss out on a top 10 spot? Just shows that we have been blessed with a wonderful amount of fantastic cricketers over the years.
In the end it is just one cricket writers opinion. What better way to create debate than to include Walsh and leave out Roberts. Or only place a limited amount of specialist wicket keepers. Creates a discussion point and an issue where there is no correct answer.
forgot about roberts, definitely should be there. not having marshall in your top 10 is just criminal to me, but i see where you're coming from.
This list shows a strong bias towards contemporary players and a lack of appreciation for cricket history. Sanath Jayasuriya, Mahela Jayawardene, Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen at the expense of golden age greats like George Hirst, Stanley Jackson, Tom Richardson, Monty Noble, Aubrey Faulkner, Barton King and Clem Hill? No George Giffen – the Australian WG?
No appreciation for the legends of early cricket such as Fuller Pilch, Billy Beldham, Alfred Mynn, George Freeman and Fred Lillywhite.
No appreciation for the greatest wicket keepers of all time such as Jack Blackham, Don Tallon, Godfrey Evans or Bob Taylor.
Courtney Walsh ahead of Joel Garner or Andy Roberts? No Mike Proctor or Alan Davidson?
Not a very comprehensive list IMO.
Last edited by a massive zebra; 17-05-2009 at 03:24 PM.
THE ULTIMATE CRICKET WEB ARCADE EGGS CHAMPION
RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1990-2006
RIP Craig Walsh (AKA "Craig"), 1985-2012
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)