• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The CW50 - No.20-11

Matt79

Global Moderator
So, Sangakkara missed out altogether?

Begs the question, would he make the list if he was still 'keeping?
Will be interesting to see where he places in the end. Shouldn't have been too far away. Flower missed out as well, and he had a better case for inclusion IMO (which is why I voted for him).
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I had:

Botham: 13th
Ambrose: 25th
Gilchrist: 12th
Hammond: 11th
Lillee: 4th
Lara: 22nd
Miller: 7th
McGrath: 9th
Barnes: 25th
You're slipping, Ikki. I believe I had Miller higher up than you do :p

Can't believe Murali, Miller ,Gilchrist, McGrath didn't make the top 10.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Will be interesting to see where he places in the end. Shouldn't have been too far away. Flower missed out as well, and he had a better case for inclusion IMO (which is why I voted for him).
tbh I think it's crazy that Flower/Sanga miss out on the top 50 altogether while Gilchrist makes the top 20, UNLESS you make the argument that Flower/Sanga weren't really "proper" 'keepers (I can't remember exactly, but I think it's particularly hard to make this argument for Flower as he kept in a vast majority of the matches he played?).

I know Gilchrist set a standard for ALL batsmen as far as speed of scoring, but it really irks me when I hear "Gilchrist set the standard for what is expected with the bat from 'keepers", when it's pretty clear that there were 3 players, all roughly contemporaries of each other, and all similarly prolific with the bat (and more prolific than any others before them).

It also seems to me that Gilchrist gets rated above his contemporary batsmen as an overall cricketer because of the fact that he was a 'keeper as well. I agree with this logic but think it should also apply to Sanga and Flower- even if they didn't keep in every match -keeping in only, say, half the matches they played still counts for something imo. I think it would be perfectly tenable to say that Sanga and Flower are overall better cricketers than e.g. Ricky Ponting, because they were at least somewhat comparable as batsmen, but also kept. I'd be tempted to say the same with e.g. Sanga v Tendulkar, but then I'd really cop it....
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Sangakkara averaged something like 39 as keeper, TH. Might as well vote for Dhoni (who averages 60+ as captain) too while you're at it.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah Sanga's overrated because he's near Bradmanesque when not keeping. When keeping, Gilchrist > him, any day.

Mind you, Flower was good, but his keeping....
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
And hence perhaps deserved to get some more votes for that Bradmanesque batting. Sangakkara is a funny one - I usually tend to need players to be finished before I am comfortable rating them. It's only inthe last six months that I've had Ponting and Tendulkar in my best 25 and XI respectively. In another couple of years, I'd predict Sangakkara will berated higher. I do think that him being a keeper and his batting improving when he gave up the gloves in some weird way has counted against him in general perceptions - not sure why that should be the case though.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Sangakkara averaged something like 39 as keeper, TH.
Then you could argue, in the alternative, that had he never had to keep he would be the second best batsman ever behind Bradman. :)

Might as well vote for Dhoni (who averages 60+ as captain) too while you're at it.
If Dhoni keeps improving as a test batsman than why not? But not yet, obviously.

As for Dhoni as a one-day player...well I think there was just a thread about how highly he should be rated...put me in the camp that says he's already one of the greats
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
If he continued to bat as good or nearly as good while keeping, I think he would have made the top 50. For mine it's just a bit of a stretch to find room for him in my 25, but if we were all selecting 50 Cricketers he might have been in with a chance.
This is really the main point. We only picked 25 to obtain 50. Had everyone picked 50 the likes of Worrell, Walcott and Weekes would almost certainly have made the eventual 50.
Sangakkara wouldn't make a Top 100 if his mother was voting, but that's beside the overall point in relation to the selection method and explaining the absence of certain players.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
This is really the main point. We only picked 25 to obtain 50. Had everyone picked 50 the likes of Worrell, Walcott and Weekes would almost certainly have made the eventual 50.
Yep, exactly right - the three Ws seem to be players who just miss out on most people's 25 but would make everyone's 50. You're correct in that if all voters had submitted 50 players the Ws would certainly have made the final list, but making everyone submit that many players would have significantly decreased the number of contributors we got.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I think its because there's a hint of surrender to it, rightly or otherwise. I've mentioned it before I think, chronology plays a very important part in how people perceive a player. Its like Dravid's ODI career in reverse. Dravid started keeping wickets after playing as a pure batsman, and that element of accomodation and sacrifice elevated his status as an ODI player in the eyes of many. However, if he'd made his ODI debut as a compromise keeper who later gave up the keeping to concentrate on his batting, he'd have been perceived a lot differently, and marked down a bit.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
He should definitely make a top 50, let alone top 100.
Just leave him be. He follows me around making devastatingly witty comments anytime I praise a player that anyone under 40 has seen play, or any player who had the temerity to score runs or take wickets and therefore amass impressive statistics.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He follows me around making devastatingly witty comments anytime I praise a player that anyone under 40 has seen play, or any player who had the temerity to score runs or take wickets and therefore amass impressive statistics.
Why does this make me think of your reaction any time someone praises Vettori????? ;)
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Yep, exactly right - the three Ws seem to be players who just miss out on most people's 25 but would make everyone's 50. You're correct in that if all voters had submitted 50 players the Ws would certainly have made the final list, but making everyone submit that many players would have significantly decreased the number of contributors we got.
I'm not knocking it, but it does mean that only the Top 25 is truly representative of who Cricket Web Forum members consider to be the top players.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Just leave him be. He follows me around making devastatingly witty comments anytime I praise a player that anyone under 40 has seen play, or any player who had the temerity to score runs or take wickets and therefore amass impressive statistics.
Follows you around?:laugh: YOU quoted two of my posts, which I made no response to because the points you made were bollox.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
See what I mean? And the :laugh: is there so you don't need me to tell you it's funny.
Yes I see. My replying to something you've written for the first time in a year means I'm following you around even though I only replied to correctly shoot down your silly and baseless claim. Your line of logic reflects your line of cricketing logic.
 

Top