CMJ's top 100

[Goughy]

Marshall and Richards faced up to each other many times in County Cricket

One would imagine they faced each other often in WI domestic cricket as well.

 

[The Sean]

Well I'm going to come out and say I really like the list. Of course I don't agree with it all - there are some glaring ommissions, some very surprising inclusions, and some players ranked nowhere near where I'd have them. But what this illustrates is that we've been blessed with so many great cricketers over the past 132 years that there are at least another 100 players, probably more, who would be worthy inclusions in the list and that narrowing it down to just a century of men is a near-impossible task - CMJ has done it better than most in my opinion.

Certainly I rate this effort more noteworthy than Woodcock's fairly embarrassing effort in 1997, which might as well have been titled English cricketers are the bestest players ever ever ever in the whole world so there!

I've always said I thought it would be a fascinating exercise for CW to produce something similar.

 

[King Pietersen]

I like the fact that Barry Richards is in the Top 30. I knew CMJ rated him incredibly highly, after watching the ESPN Legends of Cricket series, so it was good to see him getting a decently high rank in this.

 

[Slifer]

Maybe that was because Marshall didn't bowl to batsmen who were as good as the batsman that McGrath bowled to. Marshall bowled to Gavaskar & Chappell at the latter ends of their career and he never had to bowl to Sir Viv. The best batsmen he bowled to was Javed Miandad & Allan Border, who both are quite frankly no Sachin Tendulkar & Brian Lara. McGrath dominated the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis, etc, when they were all in their prime. At the end of the day, Marshall isn't the undisputed best paceman of alltime and therefore can't be considered close to Bradman.

Who ever said he was. Quite frankly he isnt. And ftr Mcgrath got as good as he gave from the likes of Dravid and Lara. No one or no team has ever dominated MArshall as expressed by his record (not averaging over 23 against ne team). And dont use that Viv angle either, Mcgrath never bowled to Hayden, Ponting, Langer, the Waughs etc. My point is, if u put Mcgrath in the 1980s Wi team or do vice versa with Marshall i expect both to still maintain their bowling excellence, they were both damn great

 

[Goughy]

My point is, if u put Mcgrath in the 1980s Wi team or do vice versa with Marshall i expect both to still maintain their bowling excellence, they were both damn great

I think that is a pretty fair and accurate assessment. When you are talking about the best seamers, a lot comes to personal preferance as there isnt much to choose between them.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

mate, you are doing the Chappells, esp. Greg a HUGE disservice by that statement..


Greg Chappell, was for me arguably at the same level as Richards as a batsman... At least, that is what my folks who have seen the great men in their pomp, say..

I said Greg Chappell at the latter end of his career. Not his PRIME.

Marshall and Richards faced up to each other many times in County Cricket

And this effects his International record in what way?

Who ever said he was. Quite frankly he isnt. And ftr Mcgrath got as good as he gave from the likes of Dravid and Lara. No one or no team has ever dominated MArshall as expressed by his record (not averaging over 23 against ne team). And dont use that Viv angle either, Mcgrath never bowled to Hayden, Ponting, Langer, the Waughs etc. My point is, if u put Mcgrath in the 1980s Wi team or do vice versa with Marshall i expect both to still maintain their bowling excellence, they were both damn great

A guy a few pages said he'd rank Malcom Marshall as the greatest cricketer ever, above Sir Donald Bradman. As far as recieving it back, Dravid was like a sitting duck, waiting to be shoot whenever he faced McGrath. He played one fabulous knock against McGrath but was well and truly outclassed in every other instance. The point I was trying to make was that McGrath bowled to better batsman on a more regular basis then what Marshall did.

 

[Migara]

wfdu_ben91>>On the same note, did Bradman face up a legendary spinner in test cricket. Laker is teh closest, but don't tell me that he's in the same class of Warne, Murali, O'Riely or Grimmet.

 

[fredfertang]

And this effects his International record in what way?

None at all - the article is about the 100 Greatest Cricketers of All Time - it isn't qualified by reference to international cricket only - your original statement was, with the greatest of respect, incorrect.

 

[Uppercut]

The one that looks odd to me is Graham Gooch at 44- seven places above Curtly Ambrose. He may be letting his Englishness come to the surface a little bit there.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree with nine. I dont think Gilchrist will be there. I do not see Andy Roberts in the 90 (unless I missed it somehow) and he will be there.

I am also do not see Miller which is very surprising. But I cant imagine who he might leave out from these ten to accommodate the great Miller unless he decides that WG is above such mundane excercises

Nope- bagapath got it spot on, actually. No Keith Miller or Andy Roberts in the hundred. I'd have been shocked if Roberts had made the top ten, but not even in the top hundred is a strange one. Miller even moreso IMO.

 

[NUFAN]

Nope- bagapath got it spot on, actually. No Keith Miller or Andy Roberts in the hundred. I'd have been shocked if Roberts had made the top ten, but not even in the top hundred is a strange one. Miller even moreso IMO.

Mate, Miller is there: 16 Keith Miller (Australia);

 

[The Sean]

wfdu_ben91>>On the same note, did Bradman face up a legendary spinner in test cricket. Laker is teh closest, but don't tell me that he's in the same class of Warne, Murali, O'Riely or Grimmet.

Laker would have plenty of backers to say that he was at least on that level, even if there would be very few who'd place him at the top of that list.

To be fair though, Bradman faced Laker before he became truly great. The best spinner The Don faced at Test level during his career was Hedley Verity, who I also feel is certainly worthy of "legendary" status.

 

[SJS]

I think that is a pretty fair and accurate assessment. When you are talking about the best seamers, a lot comes to personal preferance as there isnt much to choose between them.

You are right. I think Marshal and Macgrath were very different in the sense that MacGrath relied on his uncanny accuracy which continuously tested the batsman's focus and concentration where as Marshall was the truly explosive fast bowler capable of the unexpected unplayable delivery out of nowhere which could get you even if you were focussed and did your damndest to play it right.

Its the classic Trueman versus Statham, Larwood versus Tate kind of debate and it does boil down to what kind of bowler appeals to you.

 

[GIMH]

Certainly I rate this effort more noteworthy than Woodcock's fairly embarrassing effort in 1997, which might as well have been titled English cricketers are the bestest players ever ever ever in the whole world so there!

I've always said I thought it would be a fascinating exercise for CW to produce something similar.

Well I had an article in the offing but you went and pissed on my title!

 

[Fusion]

Well I had an article in the offing but you went and pissed on my title!

 

[bagapath]

hayden
sehwag
i.chappell (c)
m.crowe
de silva
g.a.faulkner
marsh (wk)
davidson
kumble
roberts
garner

is a team i would be proud of. and none of them is in this list.

 

[The Sean]

hayden
sehwag
i.chappell (c)
m.crowe
de silva
g.a.faulkner
marsh (wk)
davidson
kumble
roberts
garner

is a team i would be proud of. and none of them is in this list.

Wow, a few guys there (Davo, Faulkner and Garner in particular) who I'd consider to be absolute locks for a 100, and pushing for top 50. Still, if nothing else it shows just how difficult a task it is to choose such a list.

 

[Goughy]

Wow, a few guys there (Davo, Faulkner and Garner in particular) who I'd consider to be absolute locks for a 100, and pushing for top 50. Still, if nothing else it shows just how difficult a task it is to choose such a list.

It is interesting what a low profile and small reputation Davidson has in the UK.

Seems to be a massive difference on how well he is remembered in Aus and Eng.

 

[The Sean]

It is interesting what a low profile and small reputation Davidson has in the UK.

Seems to be a massive difference on how well he is remembered in Aus and Eng.

It wasn't as though his performances against England were in any way poor either (84 wickets at 23), even if they slipped slightly below his figures against other countries.

To be fair though mate, while Davo is a bigger name back in Australia he still seems comparatively underrated and unrecognized when compared to Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall or Miller.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

No Imran in top 10 & Wasim at # 34 really speaks what bias is!