Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[tooextracool]

IMO, looking at the records of Richards, Gavaskar and Tendulkar......Tendulkar comes first, Gavaskar second and Richards only third. Still Richards finds his name in the top five. That's a farce. Tendulkar has a much better record than him against EVERY team.

do you take into account the quality of bowling in the 80s or the kind of wickets that viv played on instead of comparing players simply on averages?

 

[a massive zebra]

If that argument was the case then surely Murali would have a larger s/r then warne, but in fact it's better (58.9 compared to 59.7), which shows there both as penetrative as each other, irrespective of who they're bowling with, therefore that argument is wasted. Why do people try and rank them. They're both awesome so chill out and leave it as that.

There's more to it than that. Murali is played more defensively than Warne because he is the only real threat in the side. Opponents attack Warne more because the other bowlers are also good. Therefore if they were equally dangerous Warne would have a better strike rate because the batsmen take more risks against him. Its incredibly difficult to take wickets when the batsman plays you defensively, so the fact that Murali still has a better strike rate despite the batsmens attitude towards his bowling, suggests he is far more dangerous. Also, he bowls so much more than Warne and still has a better strike rate so must have much greater stamina.

Take a look at their economy rates. Murali's is considerably better. That proves my point about him being played more defensively. Either that or he is more accurate. Either way Murali wins hands down.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And by the same token, Warne doesn't get as much chance to nail tails.

You can take the stats either way and conclude either way. I really cannot take another Murali-Warne flame war.

 

[a massive zebra]

And by the same token, Warne doesn't get as much chance to nail tails.

You can take the stats either way and conclude either way. I really cannot take another Murali-Warne flame war.

Yes but he often comes on when the best players are out. Murali almost always has to get them out himself.

 

[tooextracool]

There's more to it than that. Murali is played more defensively than Warne because he is the only real threat in the side. Opponents attack Warne more because the other bowlers are also good. Therefore if they were equally dangerous Warne would have a better strike rate because the batsmen take more risks against him. Its incredibly difficult to take wickets when the batsman plays you defensively, so the fact that Murali still has a better strike rate despite the batsmens attitude towards his bowling, suggests he is far more dangerous. Also, considering he bowls so much more than Warne and still has a better strike rate suggests he has much greater stamina.

Take a look at their economy rates. Murali's is considerably better. That proves my point about him being played more defensively. Either that or he is more accurate. Either way Murali wins hands down.

and warne also doesnt get to play half his matches in SL

 

[Neil Pickup]

We're one post from closure.

 

[marc71178]

Can I be controversial and ask what Bradman did to get in the list?

 

[Sehwag309]

Scallywag or whatever, you seem to be on the hunt for a war. Tendulkar and ball tampering...yeah right. It was a biased match referee who found 6 people in the Indian team guilty of ball tampering. I find that very hard to beleive. Tendulkar was innocent. He has not even got into a verbal spat with an opposition player in his career to date. Same can't be said of the australian players who are such bad role models, especially warne. Who gets into a fight with a kid just coz he caught him smoking? Only the drug cheat. He does not deserve to be in that list at all.
.

Usually happens, since he is so clean..Tendulkar is bound to get some controversy. I agree with you on the role model issue

 

[Sehwag309]

Can I be controversial and ask what Bradman did to get in the list?

Be an Australian

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Although most people would agree with you, I think this is debatable. Richards never had to face the mighty West Indies bowlers yet Gavaskar still finished with a slightly superior career record. Furthermore, Richards record against the best opposition available at his time (Pakistan and New Zealand) is comparatively modest, while Gavaskar's record against the mighty West Indians is commendable. Also because the West Indies were so good Richards was rarely under pressure as a batsmen. Conversely, almost every innings that Gavaskar played was important because the Indians were nowhere near as good as West Indies. Yet Gavaskar's record is still slightly better.

In regards to tests, its debatable who had the better record. In ODI's its Richards by a country mile.

 

[Langeveldt]

Im tempted to say that one of these two men may feature in the cricketers of the 21st century... Whenever that comes out!

- Graeme Smith or..
- Jacques Kallis

 

[Sehwag309]

Im tempted to say that one of these two men may feature in the cricketers of the 21st century... Whenever that comes out!

- Graeme Smith or..
- Jacques Kallis

Probably Kallis

 

[marc71178]

Im tempted to say that one of these two men may feature in the cricketers of the 21st century... Whenever that comes out!

- Graeme Smith or..
- Jacques Kallis

I imagine it'll come out in 2100.

Equally it could be a Norwegian all-rounder or a Russian opening batsmen or, even more unlikely, Rikki Clarke...

 

[Sehwag309]

I imagine it'll come out in 2100.

Equally it could be a Norwegian all-rounder or a Russian opening batsmen or, even more unlikely, Rikki Clarke...

Or Someone from US of A. Someone named Babe Ruthless

 

[Neil Pickup]

I imagine it'll come out in 2100.

Equally it could be a Norwegian all-rounder or a Russian opening batsmen or, even more unlikely, Rikki Clarke...

Or me.

 

[marc71178]

That's just silly Neil.

 

[bennyr]

Can I be controversial and ask what Bradman did to get in the list?

That question is not controversial.

It's stupid.

 

[Sehwag309]

That question is not controversial.

It's stupid.

Exactly, Bradman was a player from the future who time-traveled back and made the game look silly

 

[twctopcat]

With regards to the tendulkar vs richards debate would i be right in thinking that when viv would play at home he would bat on bowler friendly wickets (for Marshall, holding etc) whereas the pitches that tendulkar plays on now are a lot less volatile. The fact that viv played like he did and has the records that he does shows how immense a batsmen he was, not that sachin isn't immense either.

 

[Sehwag309]

With regards to the tendulkar vs richards debate would i be right in thinking that when viv would play at home he would bat on bowler friendly wickets (for Marshall, holding etc) whereas the pitches that tendulkar plays on now are a lot less volatile. The fact that viv played like he did and has the records that he does shows how immense a batsmen he was, not that sachin isn't immense either.

But again he wasn't facing the bowling of Marshall, holding. etc Not that others weren't good either