Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[watson]

Originally Posted by Coronis

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....

Armstrong makes the very good point that we tend to get carried away, then exaggerate the opinion of men like Don Bradman just because of their reputation. Bradman played with and against Grimmett, but never Mailey. So of course he is going to speak more highly of Grimmett. We need to be aware of that.

In other words there is no such thing as an objective opinion no matter the status of the person voicing the opinion. An opinion comes with 'baggage' and therefore is, by definition, purely subjective. We need not value Bradman's words over those made by Jack Hobbs even though our natural inclination is to do so.

[morgieb]

I have the updated edition. Good read.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Coronis

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....

I don't like his tendency to be black and white in his judgements, at least he is not a fence sitter I suppose.

Originally Posted by watson

Armstrong makes the very good point that we tend to get carried away, then exaggerate the opinion of men like Don Bradman just because of their reputation. Bradman played with and against Grimmett, but never Mailey. So of course he is going to speak more highly of Grimmett. We need to be aware of that.

In other words there is no such thing as an objective opinion no matter the status of the person voicing the opinion. An opinion comes with 'baggage' and therefore is, by definition, purely subjective. We need not value Bradman's words over those made by Jack Hobbs even though our natural inclination is to do so.

Bradman did play against Mailey on at least one occassion but when the latter had retired and he smashed him all over the park but yes he was retired.

Also Mailey and O'Reilly did not like each other. Tiger said Mailey tried to change his grip and told him to drop a catch in the slips. Mailey was still questioning O'Reilly's ability long after he was considered one of the best bowlers in the world.

Personally I have issues with the importance of S/R when applied to the 1920s for matches in Aust. since they were played to a finish there was no need to worry about time remaining in which to dismiss the opposition

[hendrix]

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

this

Originally Posted by watson

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.

Ok, so why leave out Hanif Mohammad? Probably one of the most iconic players and had an immense effect on the game.

Hanif was the first star of Pakistan cricket, the "Little Master" who played the longest innings in Test history - his 970-minute 337 against West Indies in Bridgetown in 1957-58 - then followed it a year later with the highest first-class innings to that point, 499 run out. With such feats, broadcast on radio, he turned cricket in Pakistan from the preserve of the Lahore educated elite into the mass sport it is today. Although famous for his immaculate defence and never hitting the ball in the air, Hanif could also attack, and was probably the originator of the reverse-sweep.

[flibbertyjibber]

I'd love to watch Sehwag and Boycott running between the wickets. Be a ridiculous contrast in styles. Sehwag would be on 100 and Boycs would just about be in double figures.

[Jager]

Miller in the fourth XI. Don't rate it

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by Jager

Miller in the fourth XI. Don't rate it

I have the 06 edition, but, last para in the intro.....

I mean, Neil, do you really think that Lillee was a better bowler than Marshall? That Hadlee was better than Imran? That Miller was a better all-rounder than Botham and Kapil Dev?

Got no problem with Marshall > Lillee. Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran in my opinion. But the last statement.. blasphemy.... of the worst kind. Dev better than Miller?????? Botham at his prime, possibly.. But Dev?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

That's an interesting point

[watson]

Originally Posted by Coronis

I have the 06 edition, but, last para in the intro.....



Got no problem with Marshall > Lillee. Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran in my opinion. But the last statement.. blasphemy.... of the worst kind. Dev better than Miller?????? Botham at his prime, possibly.. But Dev?

Dev better than Miller? Probably not.

But was Dev greater than Miller? Probably yes, for the simple reason that for several years Dev was Indian cricket. If Dev fired then India won, if he didn't then they lost or drew.

In other words, he was the Indian equivalent of Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Murali, or (mid-80s) Allan Border.

Incidently, I wonder how Miller would have gone if he didn't have Lindwall, Johnston, Morris or Hassett to prop him up, and therefore couldn't play his usual care-free style? Who knows, Miller may have buckled under pressure if he played in a mediocre side and had to shoulder responsibility for a change?

[Cabinet96]

Kallis in hte 8th XI and Shaun Pollock not being considered good enough for the 9th XI. Meanwhile Rahul Dravid in the 6th XI, and Andrew Flintoff in the 9th XI. If he was a CW poster, he'd be on my ignore list.

[watson]

Originally Posted by hendrix

this




Ok, so why leave out Hanif Mohammad? Probably one of the most iconic players and had an immense effect on the game.

Hanif Mohammad missed out for exactly the same reasons that Gordon Greenidge missed out.

[watson]

Originally Posted by archie mac

I don't like his tendency to be black and white in his judgements, at least he is not a fence sitter I suppose.



Bradman did play against Mailey on at least one occassion but when the latter had retired and he smashed him all over the park but yes he was retired.

Also Mailey and O'Reilly did not like each other. Tiger said Mailey tried to change his grip and told him to drop a catch in the slips. Mailey was still questioning O'Reilly's ability long after he was considered one of the best bowlers in the world.

Personally I have issues with the importance of S/R when applied to the 1920s for matches in Aust. since they were played to a finish there was no need to worry about time remaining in which to dismiss the opposition

I would like to read Mailey's criticism of O'Reilly to see where he was coming from. I would hazard a guess and reckon it would be along the lines of O'Reilly not being a 'real' leg-break googly bowler. That is - way too fast, no flight, no top-spin, no dip, and no deception. And all with a ridiculous grip on the ball.

Also, Mailey had a wonderful sense of humour, understood irony, and rarely took himself seriously. 'Tiger' O'Reilly took himself overly seriously, so no wonder they didn't get along. Just another case of a fanatical person not being able to understand a whimsical person.

[kyear2]

With regard to the Grimmett question, he had an amazing test record overal, but againts the best side of his era, he averaged 32 with a strike rate of 86 vs England. So that could possibly be the reason he is not so highly rated, but can't explain not including him at all.

[kyear2]

With Regard to Taylor vs Greenidge. Taylor faced only Barnes, and while Greenidge didn't face His own bowling, he did have to play Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Thompson, Snow, Botham, Dev, Wasim ect and his average only dipped because he like Viv played on too long past their primes. Greenidge was one of Benauds top 6 openers which to me is more befitting to my boyhood idol.

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

With regard to the Grimmett question, he had an amazing test record overal, but againts the best side of his era, he averaged 32 with a strike rate of 86 vs England. So that could possibly be the reason he is not so highly rated, but can't explain not including him at all.

Which of these spinners are you going to leave out in order to make room in the 100?

Warne
Barnes
Murali
Lohmann
O'Reilly
Rhodes
Laker
Benaud
Bedi
Chandra
Briggs
Trumble
Mailey

I think that maybe the problem is with the title. Rather than 'The 100 Greatest Cricketers' it needs to be 'The 176 Greatest Cricketers' in order to keep everyone happy.