-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Bagapath's Greatest XI
- Thread starter bagapath
- Start date
bagapath
International Captain
Time to get a little personal here.
I have always hesitated before naming my most favorite actor of all time to anybody. Because once I name him, this choice of mine has always looked strange to people who know that I am also a die hard fan of the most versatile Indian thespian Kamal Haasan. My favorite actor is a huge star in his own right. But he was never a box office champ. And compared to the chameleonic qualities of many other acting legends, his range was a bit limited. That way he is the antithesis of the kind of actor I go openly gaga about all the time.
It is not that I am totally blinkered and I hold on to a lesser legend without appreciating the talents of superior actors. I loved Pacino's intensity in his early films before he lost it in the 80s, and Robert De Niro's versatility until he started to embarrass himself in silly comedies in the last few years. And of course, I loved Jack Nicholson whenever he was in good form. I didn't reach out for my wallet to buy tickets for every Dustin Hoffman movie. But I always respected his immense talent. Everyone's favorites like Harrison Ford and Di Caprio are my favorites too. All these guys are worth comparing with that God among actors Marlon Brando.
But all things considered, you put a gun to my head, and ask me to name one actor as my favorite I will always name Gene Hackman.
For starters he was a man's man. No silly melodrama worked with him. In his performances, he went for the truth; and nothing but the truth. He said what he had to say, like the character would say it in the given situation. When he smiled, or sneered, he got to you; he got deep into you. With him on screen, other actors more or less became set props. He could enlarge his presence at will and fill up the screen. In good films, he usually delivered the best performance on show. In bad projects, he was always the saving grace. When he too failed, as in the Superman films, you know nobody could save those films anyway. If Hackman himself couldn't, who else could?
Yes. He was a celebrated actor. Oscars. BAFTAs. Golden Globes. Million Dollar contracts. Yet, he never played the star game for the sake of showing off his stardom. He was an actor first. And last. His job was to make the film work. By perfecting his role, he lifted the standards of everyone else towards that end goal.
But every time you mention him as your favorite actor, you hear murmurs and see heads shaking. It is okay to call him a great performer, a legend even. But naming him above a Pacino or De Niro is considered silly simply because Hackman lacked the range.
My most favorite cricketer, and the last of my selections, is also a lot like him. He was truthful to his task, absolutely incorruptible, and a champion achiever who scaled mountains without drawing too much attention to self. But again, he lacked range, and he was also too raw for the connoisseurs who like to put him down with faint praise calling him "gutsy" and "focused" deliberately underplaying his achievements. He is in everyone's top 25, like Gene Hackman, but he is nobody's number 1. No wonder I am hesitating big time and taking deep breaths before naming him.
I have always hesitated before naming my most favorite actor of all time to anybody. Because once I name him, this choice of mine has always looked strange to people who know that I am also a die hard fan of the most versatile Indian thespian Kamal Haasan. My favorite actor is a huge star in his own right. But he was never a box office champ. And compared to the chameleonic qualities of many other acting legends, his range was a bit limited. That way he is the antithesis of the kind of actor I go openly gaga about all the time.
It is not that I am totally blinkered and I hold on to a lesser legend without appreciating the talents of superior actors. I loved Pacino's intensity in his early films before he lost it in the 80s, and Robert De Niro's versatility until he started to embarrass himself in silly comedies in the last few years. And of course, I loved Jack Nicholson whenever he was in good form. I didn't reach out for my wallet to buy tickets for every Dustin Hoffman movie. But I always respected his immense talent. Everyone's favorites like Harrison Ford and Di Caprio are my favorites too. All these guys are worth comparing with that God among actors Marlon Brando.
But all things considered, you put a gun to my head, and ask me to name one actor as my favorite I will always name Gene Hackman.
For starters he was a man's man. No silly melodrama worked with him. In his performances, he went for the truth; and nothing but the truth. He said what he had to say, like the character would say it in the given situation. When he smiled, or sneered, he got to you; he got deep into you. With him on screen, other actors more or less became set props. He could enlarge his presence at will and fill up the screen. In good films, he usually delivered the best performance on show. In bad projects, he was always the saving grace. When he too failed, as in the Superman films, you know nobody could save those films anyway. If Hackman himself couldn't, who else could?
Yes. He was a celebrated actor. Oscars. BAFTAs. Golden Globes. Million Dollar contracts. Yet, he never played the star game for the sake of showing off his stardom. He was an actor first. And last. His job was to make the film work. By perfecting his role, he lifted the standards of everyone else towards that end goal.
But every time you mention him as your favorite actor, you hear murmurs and see heads shaking. It is okay to call him a great performer, a legend even. But naming him above a Pacino or De Niro is considered silly simply because Hackman lacked the range.
My most favorite cricketer, and the last of my selections, is also a lot like him. He was truthful to his task, absolutely incorruptible, and a champion achiever who scaled mountains without drawing too much attention to self. But again, he lacked range, and he was also too raw for the connoisseurs who like to put him down with faint praise calling him "gutsy" and "focused" deliberately underplaying his achievements. He is in everyone's top 25, like Gene Hackman, but he is nobody's number 1. No wonder I am hesitating big time and taking deep breaths before naming him.
Last edited:
The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
Well can't be talking about AB as he is clearly Bourgey's favourite
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Didn't know Baggy was such a fan of Steve Waugh.
The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
makes me think it's Steve Waugh
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Either Waugh or Border. There's no one else who'd fit that description more aptly
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
lol at the edits coming after I mention Waugh.
smash84
The Tiger King
you're late as ever bish
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nice to see you discover the edit button boi.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tony Dodemaide.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Impeccable taste in batsmen.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hmmm... His side, but nobody balances this side as much as Kallis does. Fifth bowler's required, and Border and Waugh aren't good enough for that for an all time team. But then maybe Beefy is what we will get!
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
Time to get a little personal here.
I have always hesitated before naming my most favorite cricketer of all time to anybody. Because once I name him, this choice of mine has always looked strange to people who know that I am a die hard fan of aggressive batsmen like Gilchrist. My favorite cricketer is a huge star in his own right. But he was never a connoisseur's delight. And compared to the 360 degree stroke production of some batting geniuses, his range was a bit limited. That way he is the antithesis of the kind of batsman I go openly gaga about all the time.
It is not that I am totally blinkered and I hold on to a lesser legend without appreciating the talents of superior batsmen. I loved Gavaskar's intensity and Lara's artistry throughout their careers, except when Lara lost the plot for a few self-centered years in between. And of course, I love Sehwag whenever he is in good form. I am not a Tendulkar fanboy. But I respect his immense talent. Everyone's favorites like Richards and Ponting are my favorites too. All these guys are worth comparing with that God among modern batsmen, Gary Sobers.
But all things considered, you put a gun to my head, and ask me to name one batsman as my favorite I will always name Allan Border.
For starters he was a man's man. No silly melodrama worked with him. At the crease, his job was to score runs; and nothing but score runs. He did what he had to do, as the team demanded in the given situation. Only when he square cut, or pulled, he expressed; he expressed his desire to dominate and win. Those were his bread and butter strokes and his stomach muscle tightening whack over the point region is the most violent shot in his book. With him at the wicket, the opposition knew they had a fight to win; this man stood between them and victory. For Australia, he could enlarge his presence at will and seemingly fill up the entire ground. He hated to lose. But if his team was sliding towards an inevitable defeat, he was always their last hope to salvage a draw. When he too failed, you knew nobody could've saved those matches anyway. If Border could not, who else could?
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 4s 6s Ct
156 265 44 11174 205 50.56 27 63 1161 28 156
Yes. He was a celebrated cricketer. Enjoyed uninterrupted captaincy. World cup win. Ashes. Most runs. Most matches. Most catches. Yet, he never played the game for personal glory. He was a team man first. And last. His job was to take Australia to victory. By keeping his batting frills free, he guided everyone else to work only towards that end goal.
But every time you mention him as your favorite cricketer, you hear murmurs and see heads shaking. It is okay to call him a great batsman, a legend even. But naming him above a Richards or Lara is considered silly simply because Border lacked their range of stroke production.
My most favorite cricketer, and the last of my selections, was truthful to his task, absolutely incorruptible, and a champion achiever who scaled mountains without drawing too much attention to self. He probably lacked the style of a Tendulkar, and he was too grumpy for the old fashioned who liked to put him down with faint praise calling him "gutsy" and "focused" deliberately underplaying his immense talent. Despite his rock solid personality and impeccable record, if you are in doubt of his actual value to test cricket, just watch the videos of his twin knocks in Windies and his third innings masterpiece in Melbourne against India. Then watch that 196 at Lords. And play that video of him putting McDermott in place using colorful language. Now tell me why I can't love him as my number 1 cricketer and as the captain of my dream team.
Sunil Gavaskar
Gordon Greenidge
Sir Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Allan Border (C)
Adam Gilchrist (WK)
Sir Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Joel Garner
I have always hesitated before naming my most favorite cricketer of all time to anybody. Because once I name him, this choice of mine has always looked strange to people who know that I am a die hard fan of aggressive batsmen like Gilchrist. My favorite cricketer is a huge star in his own right. But he was never a connoisseur's delight. And compared to the 360 degree stroke production of some batting geniuses, his range was a bit limited. That way he is the antithesis of the kind of batsman I go openly gaga about all the time.
It is not that I am totally blinkered and I hold on to a lesser legend without appreciating the talents of superior batsmen. I loved Gavaskar's intensity and Lara's artistry throughout their careers, except when Lara lost the plot for a few self-centered years in between. And of course, I love Sehwag whenever he is in good form. I am not a Tendulkar fanboy. But I respect his immense talent. Everyone's favorites like Richards and Ponting are my favorites too. All these guys are worth comparing with that God among modern batsmen, Gary Sobers.
But all things considered, you put a gun to my head, and ask me to name one batsman as my favorite I will always name Allan Border.
For starters he was a man's man. No silly melodrama worked with him. At the crease, his job was to score runs; and nothing but score runs. He did what he had to do, as the team demanded in the given situation. Only when he square cut, or pulled, he expressed; he expressed his desire to dominate and win. Those were his bread and butter strokes and his stomach muscle tightening whack over the point region is the most violent shot in his book. With him at the wicket, the opposition knew they had a fight to win; this man stood between them and victory. For Australia, he could enlarge his presence at will and seemingly fill up the entire ground. He hated to lose. But if his team was sliding towards an inevitable defeat, he was always their last hope to salvage a draw. When he too failed, you knew nobody could've saved those matches anyway. If Border could not, who else could?
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 4s 6s Ct
156 265 44 11174 205 50.56 27 63 1161 28 156
Yes. He was a celebrated cricketer. Enjoyed uninterrupted captaincy. World cup win. Ashes. Most runs. Most matches. Most catches. Yet, he never played the game for personal glory. He was a team man first. And last. His job was to take Australia to victory. By keeping his batting frills free, he guided everyone else to work only towards that end goal.
But every time you mention him as your favorite cricketer, you hear murmurs and see heads shaking. It is okay to call him a great batsman, a legend even. But naming him above a Richards or Lara is considered silly simply because Border lacked their range of stroke production.
My most favorite cricketer, and the last of my selections, was truthful to his task, absolutely incorruptible, and a champion achiever who scaled mountains without drawing too much attention to self. He probably lacked the style of a Tendulkar, and he was too grumpy for the old fashioned who liked to put him down with faint praise calling him "gutsy" and "focused" deliberately underplaying his immense talent. Despite his rock solid personality and impeccable record, if you are in doubt of his actual value to test cricket, just watch the videos of his twin knocks in Windies and his third innings masterpiece in Melbourne against India. Then watch that 196 at Lords. And play that video of him putting McDermott in place using colorful language. Now tell me why I can't love him as my number 1 cricketer and as the captain of my dream team.
Sunil Gavaskar
Gordon Greenidge
Sir Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Allan Border (C)
Adam Gilchrist (WK)
Sir Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Joel Garner
Last edited: