Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Sehwag309]

I'm a post-98 following, but I do a lot of reading.

Good for u,

 

[tooextracool]

I am post 96 cricket follower, I actually didn'tknow Hobbs..seriously

then surely you havent heard of bradman,richards,botham,sobers,clive lloyd,jim laker etc!!

 

[twctopcat]

then surely you havent heard of bradman,richards,botham,sobers,clive lloyd,jim laker etc!!

Well that is asking a bit much knowing all those players!

 

[Loony BoB]

then surely you havent heard of bradman,richards,botham,sobers,clive lloyd,jim laker etc!!

I know Bradman, Richards, Botham, Sobers. Before joining these forums, I'd never heard of Lloyd, Laker and Hobbs (although Hobbs did sound vaguely familiar when I first heard it). I probably started following cricket in NZ at around '96, too. England cricket doesn't get much coverage at all over in NZ, at least it never reached me. You're generally lucky if a younger cricket-follower in NZ knows anyone pre1980's, NZ or not! I learn from here and from CricInfo, but don't expect me to go through old news. Just threads and columns slowly build the knowledge, for me.

 

[Craig]

Cmon even Lara deserves a place in the top 5

Why not one of Sir Clive Walcott, Sir Everton Weekes, George Headley etc?

 

[Loony BoB]

Oh, missed the topic by distraction: I agree with the majority, Shane Warne is a no go. Brian Lara springs to mind.

Just out of curiosity and patriotism, what position was Richard Hadlee in?

 

[a massive zebra]

Murali comes before Warne I believe

Over their whole careers this is certainly true, but including only the 20th century, Warne outperformed Murali. Murali's peak has been 2000-present.

Here are their 20th century records:
................... M Balls M Runs Wkt Avge BB 5wi 10wm SR Econ
Warne.......... 80 22575 1157 9009 351 25.67 8-71 16 4 64.32 2.39
Muralitharan...48 14883 624 6140 227 27.05 9-65 17 2 65.56 2.48

Warne was more effective than Murali during that time but he was more than matched by a number of bowlers and I certainly would not have picked him as one of the 5 cricketers of the 20th century.There is an obvious bias towards modern players in the selections - Wisden asked great modern players to select their top 5 and many only selected people they had seen (plus Bradman). Bradman and Sobers are certainties but Richards the third best batsman of the 20th century? I think not - Headley and Weekes were as good if not better in the West Indies alone. Warne the best bowlers of the 20th century? Definetly not.

Here are my 5 cricketers of the century: Bradman, Sobers, Hammond, Barnes, Imran. Hammond was as good a batsman as Hobbs (who made the list) and also possibly the best slip fielder ever while not forgetting his useful bowling. Barnes was unplayable during the last few years of his career and became the most consistently devastating test bowler ever. Imran is the best allrounder since Sobers, being one of the all time great bowlers in whose company he is clearly the best batsman.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It's not "Best". It's the Cricketers who have had the Biggest Impact on the Game.

Personally, I'd have had Kerry Packer and/or Basil d'Oliveira in there.

 

[pakster]

"Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Garfield Sobers
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Vivian Richards
Shane Warne"

I havent seen the first four play, so i have to reserve my judgement on them. Although i've heard that richards was one hell of a player and bradmans record speaks for itself!!
Shane warne, however is one man that i have seen bowl. He is good, no doubt. But one of the greatest? What is the criterion? Because if it is wickets taken then warne is behind murali and ambrose (or was it walsh?).
Also, im quite surprised that not a single player from the sub continent has made it!!
No miandad, imran khan, wasim, waqar, kapil dev, sachin, murali!!
I
'd rather have any of those (despite not having seen dev play, nor imran for that matter) in the selection ahead of warne!!

And what about lara for christ sakes!! 400 & 375 is not easy!

Also, on a side note.....have any pak players been made a 'sir' ?


peace

 

[ReallyCrazy]

IMO tendulkar should have been in that list.

Viv Richards, from what I've heard from everyone, was a very great batter. But comparing with tendulkar's record, he is below him against every team.

 

[tooextracool]

i really dont think i want to waste my time dealing with some of the rubbish posts above.it seems that everyone wants a player from their country to feature on that wisden list(which for those who dont know was made a long time ago!)

 

[Loony BoB]

If it's all about impact as Neil says it is, then I agree with the list. Possibly put Cronje ahead of Hobbs, though. Purely because I've never heard of Hobbs and therefore the impact, in my personal view, isn't as obvious. And all impacts should be obvious. But then again, I'm a young guy and I may well be talking out of my ****.

 

[Sehwag309]

then surely you havent heard of bradman,richards,botham,sobers,clive lloyd,jim laker etc!!

It's no that, tell me seriously, how many times have you heard his name (Hobbs) , atleast in the sub-continent come up in newspaper or any match-commentary. The above are very famous and I obviosuly have heard of them

 

[Neil Pickup]

197 Centuries says enough for me.

 

[Sehwag309]

Now I know him

 

[Sehwag309]

Also, on a side note.....have any pak players been made a 'sir' ?


peace

'Sir'faraz nawaz

 

[marc71178]

Murali comes before Warne I believe

Except his record at the end of 1999 wasn't that good, and he didn't really bring spin bowling back to the World stage.

 

[marc71178]

Possibly put Cronje ahead of Hobbs, though.

Didn't Cronje's effect on the game happen in the 21st century?

 

[Sehwag309]

How about Steve Waugh for his leadership and batting

 

[a massive zebra]

How about Steve Waugh for his leadership and batting

He wasn't captain in the 20th century and his batting has been bettered.