Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[The Sean]

28 Australians in that panel of 'selectors' and 27 votes for Warne ...hmmm...wonder who didn't vote for him

There were only 20 Australian selectors on the panel mate - so at least 7 non-Aussies voted for Warne!

And TBH, I'd be very surprised if all 20 Australians put both Bradman and Warne in their selections.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Hobbs and Sobers > Richards.

Surely that is incontestable?

I would pick Richards over both of them as a specialist batsman on anyday of the week.

 

[Ash_A55]

...And who is Jack Hobbs

There is John Hobbs

Utter Blasphomy!

 

[BhupinderSingh]

My Top 15 Cricketers Ever:

1. Don Bradman
2. Imran Khan
3. Viv Richards
4. Richard Hadlee
5. Garry Sobers
6. W.G.Grace
7. Jack Hobbs
8. Malcom Marshall
9. Wasim Akram
10. Len Hutton
11. Sunil Gavaskar
12. Brian Lara
13. Sidney Barnes
14. Glenn McGrath
15. Sachin Tendulkar

 

[PhoenixFire]

I would pick Richards over both of them as a specialist batsman on anyday of the week.

Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, in that order for mine.

 

[Richard]

I would pick Richards over both of them as a specialist batsman on anyday of the week.

Well, TBH I reckon you'd be picking an inferior team than you could be then. But it's your choice.

 

[SJS]

Sobers' batting is appreciated way too much. Compare eras and you'll notice Richards played in a more difficult era. Sobers took great advantage of poor Pakistani and Indian bowling. Even if we do consider his bowling, I'd still take Richards.

Did you see Sobers bat ?

 

[aussie]

IMO, Imran Khan is the one who most deserves to be in the top 5 after Bradman and Sobers. An all-time great bowler, specialist batsmen, and one of cricket's finest skippers. He almost singlehandidly transformed an underwhelming and fractitious group of cricketers into a world-beating force, his influence on his own country is incomparable.

After that it gets difficult. Perhaps Viv, the most outstanding batsman when bowling was at its finest? Perhaps Malcolm Marshall, the most complete fast bowler of all time? Or Jack Hobbs, who set the ultimate batting standards on horrible wickets? Even Richard Hadlee has a good stake.

I agree about the standards in batting that he set 197 centuries amazing stuff, but from all that i've heard or read never got the idea that the wickets in Hobb's time where generally horrible (if you take out the fact the pitches would tend to be affected time & again by the weather given they where uncovered). Always had the idea the pitches post war were pretty flat & average.

 

[aussie]

Did you see Sobers bat ?

ha, even though i didn't see neither bat live, that was definately a strong statement to make. The idea that i've grasped though is that Sobers was better overall but Richards was just intimidating, a kind of advanced form of Sehwag or Pietersen according to my pops..

 

[Richard]

I agree about the standards in batting that he set 197 centuries amazing stuff, but from all that i've heard or read never got the idea that the wickets in Hobb's time where generally horrible (if you take out the fact the pitches would tend to be affected time & again by the weather given they where uncovered). Always had the idea the pitches post war were pretty flat & average.

In Australia in the 1920s and 1930s the standard pitch was very flat, and in England in the 1930s the same thing.

But the second there was rain - not particularly uncommon over here, of course - it could turn the flattest pitch into a minefield. It didn't always do so, but there were more than enough cases where it did, and Hobbs' play on such wickets was truly legendary. He survived (and prospered) where few, often no-one, else did. Also, even non-rain-affected wickets in the 1920s over here were often treacherous.

Also, let's not forget Hobbs played plenty pre-war too.

 

[SJS]

ha, even though i didn't see neither bat live, that was definately a strong statement to make. The idea that i've grasped though is that Sobers was better overall but Richards was just intimidating, a kind of advanced form of Sehwag or Pietersen according to my pops..

Thats absolutely correct.

I have seen both which really means I am fortunate to have seen almost all the batsmen since the early sixties to the modern day Laras and Tendulkars.

As pure batsman, Sobers was the best of the lot.

 

[Richard]

Sobers > Tendulkar, you think?

That's always one of the comparisons that's fascinated me most.

 

[SJS]

Sobers > Tendulkar, you think?

That's always one of the comparisons that's fascinated me most.

In one word - yes.

 

[steve132]

Thats absolutely correct.

I have seen both which really means I am fortunate to have seen almost all the batsmen since the early sixties to the modern day Laras and Tendulkars.

As pure batsman, Sobers was the best of the lot.

I agree. He was greater than Viv, who is the most exciting batsman that I ever saw and all things considered was probably second only to Sobers.

Strangely enough, Sobers did not appear to like batting very much. He much preferred to bowl - just as Keith Miller preferred to bat rather than bowl. What I most admired about his batting is the way that he could score runs whenever he really wanted to - irrespective of the state of the match, the quality of the bowling or the condition of the pitch. I once saw him score a chanceless century when he had not touched a bat for the preceding six months. Somehow he managed to survive and by the end of the innings he was batting like the Sobers I expected.

 

[SJS]

Strangely enough, Sobers did not appear to like batting very much. He much preferred to bowl

Thats interesting. I never thought it was like that or heard/read so but you may well be correct about his loving to bowl more.

Sometimes it may also be because batting came too easily to him and he got bored soon even though it didn't seem to make getting his wicket much easier if you ask the bowlers.

Bowling was a bigger challenge. Even in batting when the challenge was really big, he was at his best. It may also explain his the joy he seemed to find at trying out different types of bowling styles. Very interesting thought.

I have always been amazed at his having no problem batting so low down the order when he could have batted at number three almost through most of his career. I have also wondered that if he took batting a bit more seriously how many runs he would have scored. Maybe a 400 in tests would have come much earlier

 

[Anil]

So which five cricketers would you have chosen then?

well first of all, bradman and sobers are really the only automatic choices...i would still have richards in there because for me he is one of the greatest test batsmen ever in addition to being the greatest ever one day batsman....hobbs, i am not that sure about but he is certainly good enough to be considered, i would have barnes in there definitely...he is the closest to bradman in terms of being freakishly good at his discipline...it would be a toss between imran and hobbs for my fifth spot i guess...

 

[Richard]

I always thought it was criminal the small number of votes Barnes received - and one of those he did get was from Ian Chappell, typically based more on his freedom-fighting qualities than his phenomenal bowling.

Good to see Imran would be considered by people other than BhupinderSingh too.

 

[Burgey]

Thats absolutely correct.

I have seen both which really means I am fortunate to have seen almost all the batsmen since the early sixties to the modern day Laras and Tendulkars.

As pure batsman, Sobers was the best of the lot.

SJS, I was wondeing whether you saw much of Greg Chappell and where you would put him as a batsman?

Certainly no where near as brutal as Richards, more a classical style than that. I didn't see Sobers so I cannot comment, other than going by footage, records and what people say of him.

Edit: Ian Chappell share your view on Sobers - he regards him as the best batsman he ever saw.

Chappell's record, though, is very, very good. And he was a delight to watch.

 

[Ikki]

Did you see Sobers bat ?

I've seen Sobers bat, did I see it live...no. I've seen Richards bat and live. But what does this have to do with the point I made?

And Barnes simply was not that freakish. Look at his rival Saunders. Had Saunders played as much as Barnes against South Africa he would have had a similar record if not better.

 

[The Sean]

I always thought it was criminal the small number of votes Barnes received - and one of those he did get was from Ian Chappell, typically based more on his freedom-fighting qualities than his phenomenal bowling.

Good to see Imran would be considered by people other than BhupinderSingh too.

In addition to being at a disadvantage due to playing so long ago that very few remain who saw him play, Barney probably suffers more than most in that he'd be in so many voters' top 10 or 15, but as they were only allowed to select five - and two of those in almost all cases went to Bradman and Sobers - then narrowing the rest of the cricketers of the 20th century into an additional three votes invariably meant excluding a host of deserving names.

And I'd have Imran in my five, for what it's worth.