Page 3 of 34 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 496

Thread: Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

  1. #31
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by watson; 09-02-2013 at 01:25 AM.
    Tendulkar - M.Waugh - Ponting - Richards - Dhoni - Bevan - Kapil Dev - Hadlee - Akram - Garner - Muralitharan

  2. #32
    International Coach morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Dishing out broken ****ing floggings
    Posts
    11,060
    I have the updated edition. Good read.
    5-0

    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012

    Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

  3. #33
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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
    You know it makes sense.

  4. #34
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.


  5. #35
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,623
    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.

  6. #36
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Miller in the fourth XI. Don't rate it
    Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick

  7. #37
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    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?

  8. #38
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,261
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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

  9. #39
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    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?
    Last edited by watson; 09-02-2013 at 05:54 AM.

  10. #40
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,522
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    This English top three are cornflakes. They're not the most exciting thing out but they're pretty effective. Then the middle order are the sugar. Would be too much on their own but added to the cornflakes they add some much needed interest

    When KP returns he will be the banana..

  11. #41
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,811
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    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.

  12. #42
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,811
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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.
    Last edited by watson; 09-02-2013 at 06:09 AM.

  13. #43
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,004
    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.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  14. #44
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,004
    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.

  15. #45
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,811
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.

Page 3 of 34 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 08:32 AM
  2. Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot
    By smalishah84 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 09:14 AM
  3. The CW50 - No.30-21
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 03:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •