CMJ's top 100

[wfdu_ben91]

You only need so much batting, Marshall was possibly the only quick ever who could genuinely do it all and be devastating on all surfaces. That said Don would comfortably be no.2 on my list.

Yeah, but there are a few bowlers who are arguably more valuable and better then Marshall. Glenn McGrath acchieved everything that Marshall did and never struggled in any conditions, and he bowled in a batsman-friendly whilst Marshall didn't. Yet, Shane Warne, who played alongside McGrath is considered the greater cricketer. It's little things such as this, which disables any arguement of any cricketer being better then Bradman, because no-one else reached or came close to the same stature as Bradman did. Jacques Kallis is arguably better then Garry Sobers (you wouldn't consider Kallis to be the best cricketer of alltime), Muralitharan is arguably better then Warne, a number of openers are arguably better then Jack Hobbs, etc, just to name a few more examples.

No one comes close to Bradman, as he is twice as good as the next best batsman of alltime and probably twice as good as the next best player of alltime. To average almost 100 over such a long period of time, without any deteriation is merely unbelievable. No other player has come close to something as spectacular. Get someone to average close to 10 with the ball for 20 years or average over 50 (with the bat) and under 20 (with the ball), like Bradman averaged 100 for and then you can't stake an arguement for someone being better then Bradman. Bradman is not only easily the best cricketer of alltime, but probably the best player out of any form of sport.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Guessing his top 10 will feature Bradman, Sobers, Murali, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Warne, Grace, Richards, not sure about the other 2 spots.

Murali is at 13 on CMJ's list.

 

[Noble One]

No complaints from me regarding his 11-100 selections.

In the end CMJ is attempting to fit 150+ more than worthy cricketers into 100 places. For sure he may have the order wrong at times. But is it truly an insult for Bedser to be 5 places higher than Wasim? Or for Muralitharan to just miss out on a top 10 spot? Just shows that we have been blessed with a wonderful amount of fantastic cricketers over the years.

In the end it is just one cricket writers opinion. What better way to create debate than to include Walsh and leave out Roberts. Or only place a limited amount of specialist wicket keepers. Creates a discussion point and an issue where there is no correct answer.

 

[oitoitoi]

forgot about roberts, definitely should be there. not having marshall in your top 10 is just criminal to me, but i see where you're coming from.

 

[a massive zebra]

This list shows a strong bias towards contemporary players and a lack of appreciation for cricket history. Sanath Jayasuriya, Mahela Jayawardene, Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen at the expense of golden age greats like George Hirst, Stanley Jackson, Tom Richardson, Monty Noble, Aubrey Faulkner, Barton King and Clem Hill? No George Giffen – the Australian WG?

No appreciation for the legends of early cricket such as Fuller Pilch, Billy Beldham, Alfred Mynn, George Freeman and Fred Lillywhite.

No appreciation for the greatest wicket keepers of all time such as Jack Blackham, Don Tallon, Godfrey Evans or Bob Taylor.

Courtney Walsh ahead of Joel Garner or Andy Roberts? No Mike Proctor or Alan Davidson?

Not a very comprehensive list IMO.

 

[Richard]

Yet, Shane Warne, who played alongside McGrath is considered the greater cricketer.

Warne is considered a better cricketer than McGrath because skill at one discipline (ie, bowling) isn't all there is to cricket. Warne is IMO indisputably a better cricketer than McGrath even though there's no question McGrath was the better bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

I pretty much never understood how any reasoned cricket observation could place Warne/Murali and Sachin/Lara more than 5 places away from each other in a ranking list...



But then again opinions are opinions and his is definitely much more informed than mine is ever gonna be...

 

[Migara]

Murali is at 13 on CMJ's list.

I was responding to the post that Gilvhrist > Murali

 

[pasag]

Gilchist over Murali in all time top ten? You must be joking.

Lol at the militant fanboyism.

Who cares?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Gilchrist was overrated both as a batsman and a keeper.

 

[Maximus0723]

I feel u Sri Lankan dude.

Murali should be little ahead but he is right in there and doesn't make much difference if he is few places back.



and, Warne is getting pretty overrated.

 

[GIMH]

Warne is considered a better cricketer than McGrath because skill at one discipline (ie, bowling) isn't all there is to cricket. Warne is IMO indisputably a better cricketer than McGrath even though there's no question McGrath was the better bowler.

Well there is a question about it, I've seen it hotly debated over time

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, but there are a few bowlers who are arguably more valuable and better then Marshall. Glenn McGrath acchieved everything that Marshall did and never struggled in any conditions, and he bowled in a batsman-friendly whilst Marshall didn't. Yet, Shane Warne, who played alongside McGrath is considered the greater cricketer. It's little things such as this, which disables any arguement of any cricketer being better then Bradman, because no-one else reached or came close to the same stature as Bradman did. Jacques Kallis is arguably better then Garry Sobers (you wouldn't consider Kallis to be the best cricketer of alltime), Muralitharan is arguably better then Warne, a number of openers are arguably better then Jack Hobbs, etc, just to name a few more examples.

No one comes close to Bradman, as he is twice as good as the next best batsman of alltime and probably twice as good as the next best player of alltime. To average almost 100 over such a long period of time, without any deteriation is merely unbelievable. No other player has come close to something as spectacular. Get someone to average close to 10 with the ball for 20 years or average over 50 (with the bat) and under 20 (with the ball), like Bradman averaged 100 for and then you can't stake an arguement for someone being better then Bradman. Bradman is not only easily the best cricketer of alltime, but probably the best player out of any form of sport.

Marshall didnt struggle ne where either FYI. Put Marshall in the same bowling lineup as Mcgrath and Vice versa and im sure they'd achieve similar feats. conclusion neither better than the other aka a toss up.

 

[Goughy]

I think Marshall would be the first on my list, above even the Don, undoubtedly the best quick ever.

Bizzare. Even if Marshall is the undisputed #1 (argueable) the drop from 1 to 2 is nothing compared to Bradman and the number 2 batsman.

 

[Dissector]

Fast bowlers are probably more important to winning test matches than any other type of player so it's pretty absurd that CMJ's list isn't going to have a single fast bowler in his top ten. He doesn't seem to rate all-rounders much either. How can Imran be below McGrath or even Marshall. He was almost as good as a bowler and a far better batsman. And for that matter Pollock at 97 is ridiculous. As a cricketer I would pick him over most of the other 90 players. Garner, Kumble and Faulkner are among the notable omissions.

 

[bagapath]

here is his top 10

Don Bradman's star would shine in any era - Times Online

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Marshall didnt struggle ne where either FYI. Put Marshall in the same bowling lineup as Mcgrath and Vice versa and im sure they'd achieve similar feats. conclusion neither better than the other aka a toss up.

Maybe that was because Marshall didn't bowl to batsmen who were as good as the batsman that McGrath bowled to. Marshall bowled to Gavaskar & Chappell at the latter ends of their career and he never had to bowl to Sir Viv. The best batsmen he bowled to was Javed Miandad & Allan Border, who both are quite frankly no Sachin Tendulkar & Brian Lara. McGrath dominated the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis, etc, when they were all in their prime. At the end of the day, Marshall isn't the undisputed best paceman of alltime and therefore can't be considered close to Bradman.

 

[bagapath]

here is his first XI i've created from the list

1. Jack Hobbs
2. WG Grace
3. Don Bradman
4. Wally Hammond
5. Viv Richards
6. Gary Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist+
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Shane Warne
10. Sid Barnes
11. Glenn McGrath

compare this with the all-time XI CW selected after a nine month process three years ago:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Don Bradman*
4. Wally Hammond
5. Viv Richards
6. Gary Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist+
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Shane Warne
10. Muttiah Muralitharin
11. Glenn McGrath

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe that was because Marshall didn't bowl to batsmen who were as good as the batsman that McGrath bowled to. Marshall bowled to Gavaskar & Chappell at the latter ends of their career and he never had to bowl to Sir Viv. The best batsmen he bowled to was Javed Miandad & Allan Border, who both are quite frankly no Sachin Tendulkar & Brian Lara. McGrath dominated the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis, etc, when they were all in their prime. At the end of the day, Marshall isn't the undisputed best paceman of alltime and therefore can't be considered close to Bradman.

mate, you are doing the Chappells, esp. Greg a HUGE disservice by that statement..


Greg Chappell, was for me arguably at the same level as Richards as a batsman... At least, that is what my folks who have seen the great men in their pomp, say..

 

[fredfertang]

Maybe that was because Marshall didn't bowl to batsmen who were as good as the batsman that McGrath bowled to. Marshall bowled to Gavaskar & Chappell at the latter ends of their career and he never had to bowl to Sir Viv. The best batsmen he bowled to was Javed Miandad & Allan Border, who both are quite frankly no Sachin Tendulkar & Brian Lara. McGrath dominated the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis, etc, when they were all in their prime. At the end of the day, Marshall isn't the undisputed best paceman of alltime and therefore can't be considered close to Bradman.

Marshall and Richards faced up to each other many times in County Cricket