The CW50 - No.20-11

[GingerFurball]

Gilly's pretty much redefined what is expected of a wicketkeeper and is also one of the best ODI openers of all time.

The first of those 2 definitely makes him an all time great in my opinion.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

I'd put Ambrose ahead of McGrath and Lillee. As much as I rate McGrath and Lillee's bowling, Ambrose was nearly the perfect fast bowler for me.

I'd also put him ahead of Gilchrist as there were are both better batsmen and better keepers than Gilly. Obviously, the combination is ground-breaking, but I don't feel he lead the field in either discipline enough to be considered ahead of the all-time greats of either batting or bowling. I certainly don't begrudge Gilly being in there though.

Barnes. Arguable. I prefer Ambrose as I've seen him play and he's one of the best I've seen. Its hard to assess what you've seen behind anecdotal and statistical evidence I guess.

Murali... Well... My personal preference is to Ambrose, but I can certainly understand him being higher in the list.

Re: Gilly - in that case, would you say that either Hadlee or Imran were good enough bowlers to deserve a place ahead of the likes of Ambrose or Murali then?

[bagapath]

superb set of players....

sean, this series has been a thumping success so far...

[Ikki]

I had:

Botham: 13th
Ambrose: 25th
Gilchrist: 12th
Hammond: 11th
Lillee: 4th
Lara: 22nd
Miller: 7th
McGrath: 9th
Barnes: 25th

[thierry henry]

Murali too low

[thierry henry]

So, Sangakkara missed out altogether?

Begs the question, would he make the list if he was still 'keeping?

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Re: Gilly - in that case, would you say that either Hadlee or Imran were good enough bowlers to deserve a place ahead of the likes of Ambrose or Murali then?

Interesting question. I put Ambrose ahead of Hadlee and Imran for the very reason that their main reason for being in the team is to take wickets and I feel Ambrose was the better at it. I'm sure other people see things differently and judge on the all-round ability of the three.

As it happens though, I always used to enjoy watching Ambrose bat. It was... entertaining?

[chasingthedon]

Surprised that less than half of those voting had Beefy in their top 25.

[Matt79]

Most people voting are too young to have seen him in his pomp.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

So, Sangakkara missed out altogether?

Begs the question, would he make the list if he was still 'keeping?

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.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

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]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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

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

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by Matt79

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]

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]

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....