Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by watson

The fact that Armstrong places more emphasis on Strike Rate rather than Average/Economy is consistent with his selection philosophy. Mailey was an exciting risk-taker and a unique/original cricketer, hence he was the greater player

I don't buy this. Doesn't hold with his other selections. What is Boycott doing there ahead of Greenidge, Morris and Mitchell? Barrington ahead of Crowe, Archie Jackson, and Mark Waugh? Ponting behind Border and Waugh? Waqar should be miles ahead by this method. Instead, we get the great Bradman slayer, Alec Bedser, Charlie Turner and Fazal Mahmood.

I think he is just biased towards certain players and pulls out bull****, uh.. sorry, ''specious claims'' in support of his argument. Look at the bucketful of English players on the list. Because, yes, the English have been such an exciting and unique bunch of players since WWII

[Himannv]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

Fred Spofforth ahead of guys like McGrath? There's so many baffling selctions in there.

This is the first thing that struck me as well. Him and Lohmann seem far too high on that list.

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by Himannv

This is the first thing that struck me as well. Him and Lohmann seem far too high on that list.

I guess he is trying to give some sort of a sanction to every generation while picking each XI. I won't say he is doing justice to every generation, or being kind, because the best players hate being picked ahead of their betters in a competitive environment for any reason.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Monk

Unsure if this book by Armstrong was reviewed on CW ever, but this thread stems from a discussion in the random auction draft about Martin Crowe not being included in Armstrong's list of 100 cricketers. Armstrong selects who he considers to be the 100 greatest, and then places them in 9 teams (plus his favourite, Doug Walters). Armstrong also writes an excellent bio on each of the players in the book. Anyway, do you think Crowe should have been in, and what do you think of the rest of the list?

The first XI- WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Imran Khan, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne and Sydney Barnes.



The second XI- Len Hutton, Victor Trumper, Viv Richards, Wally Hammond, Brian Lara, Ian Botham, Alan Knott, Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee, Fred Spofforth, and Muttiah Muralitharan.



The third XI- Sunil Gavaskar, Herbert Sutcliffe, George Headley, Greg Chappell, Frank Worrell, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Jack Blackham, George Lohmann, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn McGrath.



The fourth XI- Archie MacLaren, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Keith Miller, Wilfred Rhodes, Alan Davidson, Jim Laker, Godfrey Evans and Curtly Ambrose.



The fifth XI- Barry Richards, Arthur Shrewsbury, Ricky Ponting, KS Ranjitsinhji, Denis Compton, Frank Woolley, Richie Benaud, Syed Kirmani, Ray Lindwall, Fred Trueman and Alec Bedser.



The sixth XI- Virender Sehwag, Geoff Boycott, Rahul Dravid, Charlie Macartney, Javed Miandad, Mike Procter, Les Ames, Harold Larwood, Joel Garner, Bishan Bedi and Bhagwat Chandrasekhar.



The seventh XI- Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden, Rohan Kanhai, Neil Harvey, Ken Barrington, Monty Noble, Johnny Briggs, Wasim Bari, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Charlie Turner.



The eighth XI- Graham Gooch, Billy Murdoch, Clem Hill, Peter May, Dudley Nourse, Jacques Kallis, Ian Healy, Hugh Trumble, Fazal Mahmood, John Snow and Waqar Younis.



The ninth XI- Stan McCabe, Herbie Taylor, Vijay Hazare, Clive Lloyd, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Andy Flower, Andrew Flintoff, Bill Lockwood, Jeff Thomson, Tom Richardson and Arthur Mailey.

It is one of the better books on this or similar subject. It is impossible for each of us not to have differences of opinions with the author but its a good job nevertheless.

The fact that he rates the players 1-99 (irrespective of discipline) and still manages to get a keeper, two openers and so on each segment of 11 from 1-11 to 89-99 makes it clear that his 1-99 rating for individual players is of doubtful pedigree. He would have been smarter to pick, say, 22 (or more) best openers in history and rank them; pick the 11 (or more) best keepers and rank them, and similarly rank the best all rounders, the best new ball bowlers, best spinners and rank them in each category and then pick the teams from the highest ranked available for selection from each list.

That he does not do so and still calls his individual players' ranking from 1-99 as done honestly and puts players against each other even if they come from completely different disciplines while putting a value their worth as a cricketer is a very suspect exercise.

Other than that I admire the work and have wondered how much I would have differed from it as well. My differences with him do not make me upset because he has chosen cricketers who do not look misfits in a list of the 100 best cricketers of all time. How you or I would personally rank a player against another is not something that shows him up as wrong. It just shows you and I have 'different biases' then him . . .

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by SJS

The fact that he rates the players 1-99 (irrespective of discipline) and still manages to get a keeper, two openers and so on each segment of 11 from 1-11 to 89-99 makes it clear that his 1-99 rating for individual players is of doubtful pedigree. He would have been smarter to pick, say, 22 (or more) best openers in history and rank them; pick the 11 (or more) best keepers and rank them, and similarly rank the best all rounders, the best new ball bowlers, best spinners and rank them in each category and then pick the teams from the highest ranked available for selection from each list.

That he does not do so and still calls his individual players' ranking from 1-99 as done honestly and puts players against each other even if they come from completely different disciplines while putting a value their worth as a cricketer is a very suspect exercise.

Other than that I admire the work and have wondered how much I would have differed from it as well. My differences with him do not make me upset because he has chosen cricketers who do not look misfits in a list of the 100 best cricketers of all time. How you or I would personally rank a player against another is not something that shows him up as wrong. It just shows you and I have 'different biases' then him . . .

The 'different biases' approach is the right way to look at it. But the thing is when I make a list of such a nature, I call it 'My Favorite100 Players', but using words like Greatest 100 Players puts a lot more responsibility on the author, and he should take stock of that. What do you say?

[Monk]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

The 'different biases' approach is the right way to look at it. But the thing is when I make a list of such a nature, I call it 'My Favorite100 Players', but using words like Greatest 100 Players puts a lot more responsibility on the author, and he should take stock of that. What do you say?

I think he took a bit of liberty with his selections, but not a heap. It's more compelling to read as a book if he puts the players in to nine teams, but in the book he actually ranks them from 1-100 as you read their biographies.

Thus, his actual top ten is:

Bradman
Grace
Sobers
Warne
Imran
Hobbs
Marshall
Tendulkar
SF Barnes
Gilchrist

[watson]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

I don't buy this. Doesn't hold with his other selections. What is Boycott doing there ahead of Greenidge, Morris and Mitchell? Barrington ahead of Crowe, Archie Jackson, and Mark Waugh? Ponting behind Border and Waugh? Waqar should be miles ahead by this method. Instead, we get the great Bradman slayer, Alec Bedser, Charlie Turner and Fazal Mahmood.

I think he is just biased towards certain players and pulls out bull****, uh.. sorry, ''specious claims'' in support of his argument. Look at the bucketful of English players on the list. Because, yes, the English have been such an exciting and unique bunch of players since WWII

He continued at first class to 1986, finishing with 48,426 runs at 56.84, the highest aggregate of any batsman whose career started after World War II. Of all batsman to score 20,000 first class runs, only Don Bradman (28,067 at 95.14) has a better average.

Page 204

As pointed out above Boycott is one of cricket's greatest run machines and remains the "best made batsman I have ever come across" (Ian Botham). For these reasons Armstrong sees Boycott as a unique and original batsman who was the foundation of English batting for 2 decades, and a batsman that all Aussie bowlers saw as their greatest Ashes prise.

Boycott's effect on the game of cricket is simply bigger than Greenidge, Morris, and Mitchell.

[Monk]

No problems with Boycott being in there. Would've liked to have seen Greenidge in there though. I'd have Greenidge over Matthew Hayden personally.

[Monk]

btw, pretty sure Armstrong is Australian, and not English?

[watson]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

The 'different biases' approach is the right way to look at it. But the thing is when I make a list of such a nature, I call it 'My Favorite100 Players', but using words like Greatest 100 Players puts a lot more responsibility on the author, and he should take stock of that. What do you say?

The word 'Greatest' provides an escape hatch for the author because it has a different meaning to 'Best'.

In other words, a batsman like Arthur Morris might be a better batsman than Geoff Boycott, but he is not greater. Better implies a superior technique or talent, but greatness encompasses everything.

Boycott IS an 'icon' of cricket. Morris never was.

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by Monk

btw, pretty sure Armstrong is Australian, and not English?

I believe he is, but that doesn't mean he can't be biased towards Englishmen.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

No problems with Boycott being in there. Would've liked to have seen Greenidge in there though. I'd have Greenidge over Matthew Hayden personally.

Greenidge was pitted against Herbie Taylor during the contest for the final openers spot on page 303. And lost for the following reasons.....

The competition for the final opening batsman's spot in this top 100 is very tight. Among others considered were the two men who opened the most of the Windies' great days of the late 1970s and 80s, Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes. However, the fact that both these players averaged less than 45 in Test cricket, even though they never had to face the bevy of fast bowlers who made West Indian cricket so strong from 1976 to 1991, counts against them..........

Pakistan's Hanif Mohammad scored 12 centuries in 55 Tests from 1952 to 1969.......But, like all of Mitchell, Greenidge, Haynes, Morris, Barnes, and Hayward, there is nothing in Hanif's resume to match the success Herbie Taylor enjoyed over the series against a bowler as great as Sydney Barnes at his most dangerous. In one match of that series, so the story goes, Barnes was reduced to hurling the ball to the ground and crying, "It's Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, all the time!"

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

Fred Spofforth ahead of guys like McGrath? There's so many baffling selctions in there.

Originally Posted by Himannv

This is the first thing that struck me as well. Him and Lohmann seem far too high on that list.

Why? Lohmann and Spofforth were considered the best bowlers in the world during their time. One has an average of 18 and the other 10.

Armstrong has an issue with Grimmett, I have read his stuff before and he takes pot shots at the little spinner at every opportunity.

[watson]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Why? Lohmann and Spofforth were considered the best bowlers in the world during their time. One has an average of 18 and the other 10.

Armstrong has an issue with Grimmett, I have read his stuff before and he takes pot shots at the little spinner at every opportunity.

I wonder why?

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by watson

I wonder why?

Wow. Looked at the intro and Mailey's entry, and in those he rambles on about their comparitive strike rates, whilst in the intro he talks about not rating Tallon and Grimmett highly just because Bradman and O'Reilly talked them up. Then in Mailey's entry he references Hobbs saying Mailey was the best.... blatant hypocrisy...

Also, Ponsford is mentioned in passing, something about him throwing away his wicket in a shield match once....