Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[tooextracool]

Because the Stats you have posted is incorrect.

Warnie against India (In Aus) - 9 wickets at 62.55@ER 2.88 (5 tests @1.8 wickets/test)
Macgill Against India (In Aus) - 14 wickets at 50.78@ER 3.65 (4 test @ 3.5 wickets/test)

Not to forget that Macgil was bowling to a much better Indian batting line up than Warnie did.

well yeah if you put in his debut series! thats just pointless and you know it.

Pure assumption on your part. Sri Lanka with this batting lineup would have struggled anyway.

absolutely jayasuriya,attapattu,sangakkara,jayawardhene,dilshan etc would have struggled anyways. most of those batsmen averaged above 40s and are very good players at home.and check out how many wickets warne got as compared to the rest of the bowlers....clearly he made the difference!
and btw players dont have to bowl well to make a difference, characters like warne can raise the spirits of a team and make them play better. just like jonty rhodes and gough do. just having them around makes quite a bit of difference and makes everyone else play better. the australian players seem to think so too.

 

[a massive zebra]

well yeah if you put in his debut series! thats just pointless and you know it.

Please.....editing figures to make them suit you............disgraceful

didn't know you were a politician!

 

[Sanz]

well yeah if you put in his debut series! thats just pointless and you know it.

And why is it pointless ?? Sunny Gavaskar scored some 700 runs in his debut series and we should remove that from his resume ? We should coune Warnie's averages only from his 10th test match. That Macgill was bowling to this Indian batting first time in his career as opposed to Warnie who had much more experience (in 1999) than Macgil. Even if I remove Warnie's 92 performance, Magill's strike rate was 83 as compared to Warnie's 95. So you see Mcgill was still more potent than Warnie despite bowling to a better line up and having no experience of bowling to these Indian batsmen at all.

Yes Sri Lanka would have struggled anyways checkout the no. of wickets Kasper and Jason took.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

well yeah if you put in his debut series! thats just pointless and you know it.

I don't think you would have discounted his debut series if he had really done well in it If you are playing International cricket, you have to play well whether its a debut series or not and many players have.

Gavaskar Vs Richards....I still maintain Gavaskar was better overall. Yes Richards could have been the more intimidating of the two but Gavaskar got more runs under difficult circumstances and in the end this carries more weight in test matches.

Gavaskar Vs Aust: 1550 runs @ 51.66
Richards Vs Aust: 2266 @ 44.43

Gavaskar vs Eng: 2483 @ 38.20
Richards Vs Eng: 2869 @ 62.36

Richards Vs Ind: 1927 @ 50.21

Gavaskar Vs NZ: 651 @ 43.40
Richards Vs NZ: 387 @ 43

Gavaskar VS Pak: 2089 @ 56.45
Richards Vs Pak: 1091 @ 41.96

Gavaskar Vs SL: 600 @ 66.66

Gavaskar Vs WI: 2749 @ 65.45

Well Gavaskar has done better than Richards against every team except England. The WI possessed the best bowling attack in that era and Gavaskar excelled against them. Not just the amount of runs he scored against them but he also has 13 centuries against the WI. Seems to me Gavaskar wins.

 

[a massive zebra]

I don't think you would have discounted his debut series if he had really done well in it If you are playing International cricket, you have to play well whether its a debut series or not and many players have.

Gavaskar Vs Richards....I still maintain Gavaskar was better overall. Yes Richards could have been the more intimidating of the two but Gavaskar got more runs under difficult circumstances and in the end this carries more weight in test matches.

Gavaskar Vs Aust: 1550 runs @ 51.66
Richards Vs Aust: 2266 @ 44.43

Gavaskar vs Eng: 2483 @ 38.20
Richards Vs Eng: 2869 @ 62.36

Richards Vs Ind: 1927 @ 50.21

Gavaskar Vs NZ: 651 @ 43.40
Richards Vs NZ: 387 @ 43

Gavaskar VS Pak: 2089 @ 56.45
Richards Vs Pak: 1091 @ 41.96

Gavaskar Vs SL: 600 @ 66.66

Gavaskar Vs WI: 2749 @ 65.45

Well Gavaskar has done better than Richards against every team except England. The WI possessed the best bowling attack in that era and Gavaskar excelled against them. Not just the amount of runs he scored against them but he also has 13 centuries against the WI. Seems to me Gavaskar wins.

Legendary post man the like of which has never been seen before.

 

[Swervy]

when it comes down to it,it is all opinion...no amount of arguement will change that.

I might not totally agree with the top 5 list, but i ceratinly wouldnt be able to argue against it either.

As far as I am concerned,Richards has been the best batsman I have ever seen, Warne has been the best (or joint best) spinner i have ever seen.

I think we can all trust the people who have made the list with regards to the likes of Bradman,Hobbs and Sobers.

Of course there are plenty of others who are right up there,Headley,Imran,Botham,Lillee,Tendulkar,Lara,Pollock,Compton,Hutton and tons more...

Averages do not tell even half the story.

 

[Swervy]

I don't think you would have discounted his debut series if he had really done well in it If you are playing International cricket, you have to play well whether its a debut series or not and many players have.

Gavaskar Vs Richards....I still maintain Gavaskar was better overall. Yes Richards could have been the more intimidating of the two but Gavaskar got more runs under difficult circumstances and in the end this carries more weight in test matches.

Gavaskar Vs Aust: 1550 runs @ 51.66
Richards Vs Aust: 2266 @ 44.43

Gavaskar vs Eng: 2483 @ 38.20
Richards Vs Eng: 2869 @ 62.36

Richards Vs Ind: 1927 @ 50.21

Gavaskar Vs NZ: 651 @ 43.40
Richards Vs NZ: 387 @ 43

Gavaskar VS Pak: 2089 @ 56.45
Richards Vs Pak: 1091 @ 41.96

Gavaskar Vs SL: 600 @ 66.66

Gavaskar Vs WI: 2749 @ 65.45

Well Gavaskar has done better than Richards against every team except England. The WI possessed the best bowling attack in that era and Gavaskar excelled against them. Not just the amount of runs he scored against them but he also has 13 centuries against the WI. Seems to me Gavaskar wins.

proof that averages tell only part of the story...ask any of the great bowlers I am sure they would prefer to bowl to Sunny than Richards.

Remember that Gavaskar was a great player of fast bowling (he had to be, he was an opener) but he was from what I can remember never noted for his play vs class spin...Richards was a middle order batsman, he had to play well vs quality spin...just something to think about

 

[Sanz]

Averages do not tell even half the story.

Yeah but it does show a trend when it shows one batsmen(Sunny) consistently outscoring the other(Richards).

 

[ReallyCrazy]

proof that averages tell only part of the story...ask any of the great bowlers I am sure they would prefer to bowl to Sunny than Richards.

well even if what you say is correct, it's only because Richards was the more aggressive of the two.

Ask any bowler today and they'd say they prefer to bowl to Nasser Hussain/Rahul Dravid/Damien Martyn rather than Shahid Afridi (particularly if he's having a good day). Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of comparing Afridi and Viv Richards. I am only trying to make a point.

A batter can keep intimidating a bowler how much ever he wants but in the end, especially if its a test match, intimidation counts for less. The real question is who was more valuable to their respective team and who got more runs when it mattered.

 

[biased indian]

As far as I am concerned,Richards has been the best batsman I have ever seen, Warne has been the best (or joint best) spinner i have ever seen.

and who is the other!!!!

let me guess s.Macgill

 

[Swervy]

Ask any bowler today and they'd say they prefer to bowl to Nasser Hussain/Rahul Dravid/Damien Martyn rather than Shahid Afridi (particularly if he's having a good day).

oooh the comedy classics continue...class acts like McGrath and Gillespie and Pollock etc would eat Afridi alive....a terrible example chosen there..you have lived up to your name there my friend

 

[a massive zebra]

proof that averages tell only part of the story...ask any of the great bowlers I am sure they would prefer to bowl to Sunny than Richards.

Only because of the way they play. The better player is the one who scores the most runs not the one who is most aggressive. On average Viv Richards only faced 74 balls per test innings (less than Nasser Hussain!) while Sunny faced 115, so whether the bowlers prefered to bowl to Sunny or not they certainly had less chance of getting him out. Bowlers will usually rather bowl to the more defensive player, but it doesn't mean he is any worse than the aggressive one.

 

[Sanz]

proof that averages tell only part of the story...ask any of the great bowlers I am sure they would prefer to bowl to Sunny than Richards.

Imran Khan is already on record about sunny :- "His perfect technique makes him the most difficult batsman alive to dismiss"

"I personally would like to say that Sunny Gavaskar is the best. His record speaks for itself." Sir Vivian Richards himself on Sunil Gavaksar.

 

[a massive zebra]

oooh the comedy classics continue...class acts like McGrath and Gillespie and Pollock etc would eat Afridi alive....a terrible example chosen there..you have lived up to your name there my friend

Gilchrist would be a better example. Yet Dravid is a better player.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Ask any bowler today and they'd say they prefer to bowl to Nasser Hussain/Rahul Dravid/Damien Martyn rather than Shahid Afridi (particularly if he's having a good day). Don't get me wrong.

In which case they are woussies - scared if being hit - and poor bowlers. Any good bowler would bowl to Afridi any day. I most certainly would prefer it.

Even though IMO Richards was better than Sunny, I'd also prefer to bowl to him, as he gave you a chance early - after that, however, he was just as hard to get out as Sunny - but scoring a hell of a lot quicker.

 

[Swervy]

and who is the other!!!!

let me guess s.Macgill

no..dont worry we are not all one eyed supporters of the country of our origin...Murali for me is on a par with Warne

 

[Sanz]

Remember that Gavaskar was a great player of fast bowling (he had to be, he was an opener) but he was from what I can remember never noted for his play vs class spin...Richards was a middle order batsman, he had to play well vs quality spin...just something to think about

Thinks about Sunny Gavaskar Classic innings of 96 at Banglore and his avg against Pakistan:- http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...86-87/PAK_IN_IND/PAK_IND_T5_13-17MAR1987.html

 

[ReallyCrazy]

oooh the comedy classics continue...class acts like McGrath and Gillespie and Pollock etc would eat Afridi alive....a terrible example chosen there..you have lived up to your name there my friend

agreed afridi was a bad example but im sure you know what i mean. In a test, it does not matter who was more aggressive. What matters is the runs scored and under what circumstances it was scored. Gavaskar has outperformed Richards consistently. He has scored heavily against the great WI bowlers.

The fact that you tried to take a cheap shot at me shows that you are running out of things to say hehehe but then again i AM really crazy

 

[Tom Halsey]

Kumble's SR is significantly higher than all bar Gibbs & Kumble.

Other bowlers with lower SRs (excluding Stat Muppets):
CJ McDermott (297w)
J Garner (259)
JB Statham (252)
MA Holding (249)
AR Caddick (234)
D Gough (229)
RR Lindwall (228)
MG Hughes (212)
CL Cairns (206)
AME Roberts (202)
JA Snow (202)
HH Streak (202)
JR Thomson (200)
JN Gillespie (199)
JC Laker (193)
WW Hall (192)
AK Davidson (186)
GF Lawson (180)
ARC Fraser (177)
TM Alderman (170)
M Ntini (163)
IR Bishop (161)
DK Morrison (160)
SCG MacGill (152)
Harbhajan Singh (151)
CM Old (143)
B Lee (139)
GR Dilley (138)
DG Cork (131)
Shoaib Akhtar (125)
CEH Croft (125)
RM Hogg (123)
PM Pollock (116)
BA Reid (113)
BR Taylor (111)
PR Reiffell (104)
NAT Adcock (104)
SB Doull (98)
CC Griffith (94)
BP Patterson (93)
MJ Hoggard (92)
KCG Benjamin (92)
PS de Villiers (85)
GOB Allen (81)
H Larwood (78)
FH Tyson (76)
DW Fleming (75)
JK Lever (73)
Danish Kaneria (72)
CR Miller (69)
SJ Harmison (64)
LS Pascoe (64)
DR Tuffey (63)
WKM Benjamin (61)
DW Headley (60)
KD Boyce (60)
ALF de Mel (59)
AJ Bichel (58)
R Gilchrist (57)
Khan Mohammad (54)
FA Rose (53)
CS Martin (52)
GJ Gilmour (51)
AM Blignaut (51)
M Hayward (50)

Q: 50 wickets

Can't for the life of me understand why I did that, but I like statistical completeness

I haven’t checked back, so there may be a reason why you have missed all bowlers above 300 wickets, but hey, you missed Murali, Warne, some greats.

But meh, who's complaining?

 

[Swervy]

Imran Khan is already on record about sunny :- "His perfect technique makes him the most difficult batsman alive to dismiss"

Being the hardest to dismiss doesnt make him better...on my cricket team we have our wicketkeeper, when he bats he can just defend away for over upon over, when he sets his mind to it, he is impossible to get out....and yet someone else on our team is quite easily a better batsman, scores more runs etc, but his easier to get out. We all know on our team who the better batsman is, and yet when needed we would rely on the blocker to save a game....just the same with the Sunny vs Richards thing.

Gavaskar had a job to do, and that was to open the innings...his prime objective was to occupy the crease.Richards objective was to score runs and to score them quickly...both did their own job brilliantly...but maybe Richards role in the WI team allowed him to flaunt his amazing talents more...but thems the breaks...more people will remember Richards and his acheivements than they will remember Gavaskars in a hundred years time