Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Neil Pickup]

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?

Line at the top "Other Bowlers".

I'd already covered those with >300 wickets all having superior SRs (bar Gibbs & Kumble)

 

[a massive zebra]

isnt the fact that hes on the wisden 5 evidence enough?

Thats opinions not evidence, most people will always vote for the more aggressive dominering (sp) player, not necessarily the better one. An aggressive player will leave more of an impression on people, the player that scores the most runs is the better player.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Thats opinions not evidence, most people will always vote for the more aggressive dominering player, not necessarily the better one.

Which was what the Wisden 5 was about, was it not?

Nowhere does it say "five best"!

 

[Sanz]

for me even the stats show that he was a better player than gavaskar

You must be referring to some other stats than. Please share your stats with us.

 

[a massive zebra]

Which was what the Wisden 5 was about, was it not?

Nowhere does it say "five best"!

Yes it was about opinions which will be biased in favour of the modern player because people favour players they have seen. But it should be 5 best. Otherwise its not actually the 5 cricketers of the century is it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes it was about opinions which will be biased in favour of the modern player because people favour players they have seen. But it should be 5 best. Otherwise its not actually the 5 cricketers of the century is it.

I would disagree there.

The five cricketers of the century to me implies the five biggest influences on World Crcket, rather than the five best players.

 

[Swervy]

Well they would be wrong if there is not any evidence to back it up, which there isn't.

you obviously didnt see Richards play then

no evidence? how about this:

Scores from Richards 12th to his 22nd test: 30,101,50,98,142,130,20,177,23,64,232,63,4,135,66,38,291,32,92 and that againts the likes of Lillee,Thomson,Gilmour,Bedi,Chandrasekhar,Prasanna,Venkat,Snow,Old,Grieg,underwood,Hendrick,Willis,Sarfraz and Imran khan.

Scores from his 29th to his 43rd test:
140,96,76,74,64,48,145,65,26,31,75,72,67,18,120*12,29,0,182*,114 against Lillee,Thomo,Hogg,Willis, John lever,Botham,Hendrick,Dilley,Old,Imran,Qadir,sarfraz etc

If Richards hadnt have been lost to packer for a couple of years right in his prime, who knows what records he would have acheived

 

[aussie_beater]

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.

Gavaskar was a technically perfect batsman and like I said the best opener I have seen, but he was not the type of player who could win matches by his sheer brilliance all too often. He could stall it most of the time and not let the opposition win it either, and that's one of the reason why India lost less number of matches in the 1970s and 80s compared to the 90s. Look, anyone who has seen both Gavaskar and Richards in their prime, won't rate Gavaskar to be the better batsman among the two. Now what would have happened if Richards had to face the WI quicks is anybody's guess, but as much is made of Gavaskar's success against WI, I don't rate him to be the best batsman of fast bowling in the Indian team of those years. For me that position goes to Mohinder Amarnath who gets a lot less credit except Imran Khan rating him above Gavaskar as a batsman in his autobiography. If you have seen him play in the 80s, you would know what I am talking about.

 

[Swervy]

Here is a quote from your post :-

"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"

You are right you dont need to backup, because you can't, this time you dont even have the stats to rely on.

well he wasnt noted for his play of spin, he was noted for his play of fast bowling.

Its funny how no-one has really commented on my look at Sunny's scores vs WI's

 

[a massive zebra]

you obviously didnt see Richards play then

no evidence? how about this:

Scores from Richards 12th to his 22nd test: 30,101,50,98,142,130,20,177,23,64,232,63,4,135,66,38,291,32,92 and that againts the likes of Lillee,Thomson,Gilmour,Bedi,Chandrasekhar,Prasanna,Venkat,Snow,Old,Grieg,underwood,Hendrick,Willis,Sarfraz and Imran khan.

Scores from his 29th to his 43rd test:
140,96,76,74,64,48,145,65,26,31,75,72,67,18,120*12,29,0,182*,114 against Lillee,Thomo,Hogg,Willis, John lever,Botham,Hendrick,Dilley,Old,Imran,Qadir,sarfraz etc

If Richards hadnt have been lost to packer for a couple of years right in his prime, who knows what records he would have acheived

Plenty of people have isolated runs of great form, Javed Miandad, Brian Lara and even Jimmy Adams to name a few. But its your performance throughout your career that counts. His overall career performance was good but it did not stand out as many peole make out.

 

[Sanz]

I would disagree there.

The five cricketers of the century to me implies the five biggest influences on World Crcket, rather than the five best players.

Oh please. A total of 100 people voted for this and out of that only 27 voted for Warnie and 25 voted for Richards.Please dont tell me that these 27 or 25 people represnt the entire cricketing world.

And the vote wasfor 5 greatest players of the century not five biggest influences.

 

[aussie_beater]

If Richards hadnt have been lost to packer for a couple of years right in his prime, who knows what records he would have acheived

That's so true. And he played the very best in those Packer years. I think Lilllee in his autobiography mentioned that Barry Richards and Viv Richards took batting to an "unearthly plane" in the world series.

 

[a massive zebra]

I would disagree there.

The five cricketers of the century to me implies the five biggest influences on World Crcket, rather than the five best players.

Well Kerry Packer and Lord Harris should be in there then.

 

[Swervy]

Gavaskar was a technically perfect batsman and like I said the best opener I have seen, but he was not the type of player who could win matches by his sheer brilliance all too often. He could stall it most of the time and not let the opposition win it either, and that's one of the reason why India lost less number of matches in the 1970s and 80s compared to the 90s. Look, anyone who has seen both Gavaskar and Richards in their prime, won't rate Gavaskar to be the better batsman among the two. Now what would have happened if Richards had to face the WI quicks is anybody's guess, but as much is made of Gavaskar's success against WI, I don't rate him to be the best batsman of fast bowling in the Indian team of those years. For me that position goes to Mohinder Amarnath who gets a lot less credit except Imran Khan rating him above Gavaskar as a batsman in his autobiography. If you have seen him play in the 80s, you would know what I am talking about.

first off,,,no-one is technically perfect.

and then i will say that Gavaskar didnt do outstanding vs quality WI bowling attackes...as per my post from about an hour ago, which some people have convebiently ignored.

Yes Amarnath was a gutsy player of fast bowling, and he had a great spell in the early 80's with the bat

 

[Neil Pickup]

Oh please. A total of 100 people voted for this and out of that only 27 voted for Warnie and 25 voted for Richards.Please dont tell me that these 27 or 25 people represnt the entire cricketing world.

And the vote wasfor 5 greatest players of the century not five biggest influences.

The vote was for the "Five Cricketers of the Century" - nothing else.. it's up to the votes to decide what they read into it.

And I have no idea where you get that comment from my post!!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well Kerry Packer and Lord Harris should be in there then.

Flick back to my first comment on the subject!

 

[Swervy]

Oh please. A total of 100 people voted for this and out of that only 27 voted for Warnie and 25 voted for Richards.Please dont tell me that these 27 or 25 people represnt the entire cricketing world.

And the vote wasfor 5 greatest players of the century not five biggest influences.

no its not representing the entire cricketing world, it representing Wisden.

 

[Swervy]

The vote was for the "Five Cricketers of the Century" - nothing else.. it's up to the votes to decide what they read into it.

And I have no idea where you get that comment from my post!!

Neil..dont worry i have fallen foul to the wiley ways of Sanz' word twisting as well

 

[a massive zebra]

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.

 

[aussie_beater]

first off,,,no-one is technically perfect.

I meant as close to perfection as I have seen.

and then i will say that Gavaskar didnt do outstanding vs quality WI bowling attackes...as per my post from about an hour ago, which some people have convebiently ignored.

Yes Amarnath was a gutsy player of fast bowling, and he had a great spell in the early 80's with the bat

I think Gavaskar did not preform equally well as his previous performances, when the WI attack peaked...and Amarnath did very well against those very attacks. I still can't forget the 1982-83 series against WI and a Imran inspired Pakistan in 1983 in which Amarnath was the one batsman who just didn't seem fazed from the barrage that those guys were coming up with. This is something that has been totally forgotten in most analysis of Indian batting of those days probably because selectors kept dropping him for whatever reasons and Gavaskar got most of the accolades.