Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Anil]

As I said before - significance, no, credibility, yes. And the Century, unlike the Year awards, were with a global, not national, brief.

It's not as if the Cricketers Of The Century were selected solely by inside sources anyway. I'd disagree with Warne as one of the Cricketers Of The 20th Century, very much so, but it was a hugely eclectic business of choosing them.

as long as the selection is crappy, doesn't really matter if it's a national, global or universal brief...and the lack of sigificance comes from a serious lack of credibility outside of the british isles...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

as long as the selection is crappy, doesn't really matter if it's a national, global or universal brief...and the lack of sigificance comes from a serious lack of credibility outside of the british isles...

So which five cricketers would you have chosen then?

 

[silentstriker]

For me, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Lillee and Barnes.

 

[andruid]

Cmon even Lara deserves a place in the top 5

Tikolo

 

[SJS]

For me, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Lillee and Barnes.

I would be tempted to replace Lillee (maybe with a spinner) but I think this is almost as good a list as any.

 

[Slifer]

I would have gone with: Sobers, Bradman, Imran, Hobbs, and IVAR?

Most of the above i picked as much for their on field performance as their influence on the game.

 

[PhoenixFire]

For me, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Lillee and Barnes.

No McGrath!?!?!?!?!?

Are you going crazy, Shah?

 

[Richard]

For me, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Lillee and Barnes.

Perhaps, if the idea was jigged slightly, to "cricket persons", scratch Lillee and replace with Richie Benaud (whose excellence as a player is matched by his high excellence as a commentator).

Obviously, though, with the thing vastly geared toward on-field performance as the current titling suggests, Benaud could not really be given a look-in. If any second spinner were to be selected, Clarrie Grimmett would perhaps be the best man, as his deeds as a mentor and guide to young spinners are criminally underestimated. And he was unarguably one of the greatest spinners of the 20th-century.

 

[silentstriker]

No McGrath!?!?!?!?!?

Are you going crazy, Shah?

The question is not who the best players of the century are - it is who have the best attributes of both being excellent players and redefining or advancing the game in some way.

 

[Richard]

And "impact on the public" was certainly considered too - brilliant as McGrath was, he was about the most anonymous brilliance ever.

 

[SJS]

Most people dont seem to realise that the 100 'selectors' who voted for those Cricketers of the Century were asked to name three, JUST THREE, top cricketers of the 20th century. It should not be surprising, therefore, to find so many of us having one or the other of our favourite cricketers left out.

In fact, this was one of the criticism's of the selection process. Since the aim was to home in on the top five cricketers of the century, they should have at least asked the panelists to name five cricketers each. That would perhaps have seen the voting patterns closer and clearer.

Finally statistics were NOT the major criteria of selection and any argument to criticise the selections based on stats alone would be futile.

 

[Engle]

Warne definitely belongs in the top 5. While Qadir resurrected the ' ailing art ', Warne made it look cool, chic and colorful. Quite the opposite of the metronomic McGrath

 

[Ikki]

Warne definitely belongs in the top 5. While Qadir resurrected the ' ailing art ', Warne made it look cool, chic and colorful. Quite the opposite of the metronomic McGrath

But Warne did more than that. He used techniques and strategies that were little used, if in existence prior to him. Even Murali has gone to ask Warne about bowling spin - such is his mastery. I would say there hasn't been a greater Cricketing brain in terms of squeezing out a wicket. Benaud, in his greatest XI DVD, also talks about how Warne bowls much differently and if he were to begin spinning again would copy a lot of what Warne does. His side-spin, over-spin, beating batsmen in flight, the excruciating accuracy and control of spin...

I think his amazing feats in the 96/99 ODI WCs play a part in his legacy. A bowler/cricketer of the absolute highest class. There may have been great players around him, but when Australia were in dire straits, it was Warne that they looked to. And with his skill he defied logic as he met that expectation so many times. That should be the measure of the man. In 2000 he was worthy and his legacy has grown even more since then.

 

[Richard]

Most people dont seem to realise that the 100 'selectors' who voted for those Cricketers of the Century were asked to name three, JUST THREE, top cricketers of the 20th century. It should not be surprising, therefore, to find so many of us having one or the other of our favourite cricketers left out.

In fact, this was one of the criticism's of the selection process. Since the aim was to home in on the top five cricketers of the century, they should have at least asked the panelists to name five cricketers each. That would perhaps have seen the voting patterns closer and clearer.

Personally, I think they should've gone for 10. Really, many felt there were just 2, rather than 3, choices to make. Bradman and Sobers were obviously a given (I'm truly astonished that there were 9 people who did not vote for Sobers - that's nearly 1\10th of the panel) and more than enough said the same applied to Hobbs.

Warne and Richards - there are any number of names who were equally or more deserving than these two. It is interesting, though, to note in Warne's case that this was a player selected as a cricketer of the century when the turn of the century came not far off the midpoint of his career.

Finally statistics were NOT the major criteria of selection and any argument to criticise the selections based on stats alone would be futile.

It'd be futile, though, to suggest they had no part to play.

 

[SJS]

Personally, I think they should've gone for 10. Really, many felt there were just 2, rather than 3, choices to make. Bradman and Sobers were obviously a given (I'm truly astonished that there were 9 people who did not vote for Sobers - that's nearly 1\10th of the panel) and more than enough said the same applied to Hobbs.

Warne and Richards - there are any number of names who were equally or more deserving than these two. It is interesting, though, to note in Warne's case that this was a player selected as a cricketer of the century when the turn of the century came not far off the midpoint of his career.

It'd be futile, though, to suggest they had no part to play.

Of course they had a part. But many of the selections show that people voted for non statistical reasons too.

 

[The Sean]

(I'm truly astonished that there were 9 people who did not vote for Sobers - that's nearly 1\10th of the panel)

There were 10 weren't there? Pretty sure Sobers got 90 votes.

Agree with your astonishment though - the question that always jumped out at me whenever I looked at that poll was "who were the ten cricketing experts who didn't vote for Sobers?"

Reading more about the selection process however, it does make a little more sense - despite me still disagreeing with his exclusion. Obviously there was a lot of consideration given to "impact on the game" in the 20th century, and I suppose those ten voters considered there to be at least five men who had contributed more to the development of cricket in the 20th century. A voter wanting to include the most important or influential West Indian cricketer - rather than the best - could, for instance, formulate a compelling argument that both Headley and Worrell be ranked ahead of Sobers. I daresay that none of the ten judges who excluded Sir Garfield consider there to have been five better cricketers in the 20th century, but rather that there were five whose legacy to the game was greater.

 

[Richard]

There's a fascinating piece - I'm pretty sure it's by Gideon Haigh, IIRR titled "Sobers The Reluctant Hero" or something like that. Where he suggests that for all Worrell's unquestionable influence on the way the game in West Indies moved forwards (probably more significant than any other individual), Sobers was the first true "man of the West Indies" captain the team ever had.

As for Headley, I'd rank him ahead of Sobers (and all other West Indians, as you know) as a batsman, though I presume he was inevitably a great champion to the people too, as heroes usually are. But I just can't see how anyone would place anything, really, ahead of Sobers' astonishing flexibility on the field. He may not have changed the game like some (really, as I argued with Gilchrist, it's impossible for someone so far ahead of the field to do so) but I just don't see how you can argue with performance in his case.

 

[Pratters]

As I said before - significance, no, credibility, yes. And the Century, unlike the Year awards, were with a global, not national, brief.

It's not as if the Cricketers Of The Century were selected solely by inside sources anyway. I'd disagree with Warne as one of the Cricketers Of The 20th Century, very much so, but it was a hugely eclectic business of choosing them.

I just took out my millenium edition of Wisden to confirm what I knew... the panel had much larger number of English and Ausitralians.

The panel comprised of:

English: 28
Aussies: 20
South Africans: 11
West Indians: 11
Indians: 10
Kiwis: 8
Pakistanis: 8
Lankans: 3
Zimbabweans: 1

So almost 50% of the panel (48% to be exact) was either English or Australian. I don't give the Wisden cricketers of the century list that much importance as I don't most other lists except a good entertainment browse through but this panel was always likely to select Warne as Warne had tormented England, has been a huge icon in both England and Australia. I would have chosen a panel giving other countries more representation as it is likely to be skewed with so many people from 2 countries. The common argument is that as England and Australia were big role players for a large part of the century, they deserve that many more representatives but I don't agree. In the end, you are choosing esteemed men from cricket as panelists and you should not give less representation to a country's experts just because that country was less influential. If that was the criteria any way, then Australia should not for any reason have 8 people less than England in the panel.

 

[Richard]

The reason for the weighting of such numbers was that this is approximately equivalent to the relative amount of time spent in Test cricket by such countries in said century. I'd personally have simply gone for esteem, without giving any weight at all to nationality. Who knows, maybe that was what Engel attempted to do.

Might it result in a bias towards certain players? Certainly. But it certainly wasn't an exercise designed to centre on cricket in England.

 

[Pratters]

Might it result in a bias towards certain players? Certainly. But it certainly wasn't an exercise designed to centre on cricket in England.

Yeah, it wasn't an exercise focussed towards England. My point is this however... If 48% of the people who were selected were from India and Pakistan say, it would very much be likely that Imran Khan or Tendulkar was one of the 5 cricketers ahead of Warne. It was crap the way they did it. Engel giving weights to nationalities the way he did means that the exercise, while it may be well intentioned, was not effective in removing allegations of bias reflecting in the end results which crop up. He should have ensured a way to guard against it by not choosing 48% people from England and Australia.