Great Good Average

[Engle]

Greatness does extend ' beyond the boundary '.
So, if 2 players are close statistically, then the greater player would be the one who has exceeded in the intangibles, such as ' character, influence, legacy and charisma ' to which I would add ' contribution to the game '.

One way to limit greatness is to use the Top Ten Tier thinking, i.e. Top Ten Batsman/Fast Bowler/All-Rounder....etc. This way whenever a new player cracks the Top Ten, another has to make way

 

[mr_mister]

fast bowling tier list from what ive gathered from this forum


1st tier: Barnes, Lindwall, Trueman, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee, Akram, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn

2nd tier: Larwood, Davidson, Imran, Roberts, Garner, Holding, Waqar, Donald

 

[mr_mister]

batting tier list from what i've gathered from this forum

1st tier: Bradman

2nd tier: Grace, Hobbs, Trumper, Hammond, Headley, Hutton, Sobers, Pollock, Barry Richards, Gavaskar, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Sangakkara

3rd tier: Ranji, Hill, Mead, Hendren, Sutcliffe, Ponsford, Merchant, McCabe, Hazare, Compton, Harvey, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, May, Barrington, Greenidge, Miandad, Border, Steve Waugh, Kallis, Andy Flower, Dravid, Younis Khan, Steve Smith


*longer list so its likely i made some mistakes

 

[Daemon]

Dunno about Greenidge and Pietersen in the 3rd tier. Would have Younis and Miandad in there.

 

[mr_mister]

dunno how i blanked on Miandad and Younis. Too many ATG batsman recently he got lost in the shuffle


I took out Petersen, but I truly think Greenidge should be there. he's in the top 10 for best openers ever

 

[cnerd123]

Should be done on %s and not absolute numbers tbh

The more years cricket lives on, the more cricketers there will be, and naturally the more ATGs/Greats/Good/Average players there will be,

Should reserve the term ATG for, like, the top 1% of all cricketers to have ever played. This list will keep growing as more cricket is played and more ATGs are uncovered, but will remain standard in quality.

 

[smash84]

fast bowling tier list from what ive gathered from this forum


1st tier: Barnes, Lindwall, Trueman, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee, Akram, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn

2nd tier: Larwood, Davidson, Imran, Roberts, Garner, Holding, Waqar, Donald

There is no way Imran is a 2nd tier fast bowler

 

[Slifer]

Top tier pacemen: Ambrose, Marshall, Lillee, McGrath, Imran, Akram, Donald, Steyn, Trueman, Hadlee

Spinners: Warne, Murali, O'Reilly, Laker, Barnes

Batsmen: Ponting, Chappell, Lara, Viv, Sobers, Headley, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Pollock

 

[mr_mister]

No Grimmett in the spinners? He seems like the perfect leg spinner from everything I've read

But yeah I didn't even wanna touch the spinners. It's a hard one to make a second tier for

 

[Slifer]

No Grimmett in the spinners? He seems like the perfect leg spinner from everything I've read

But yeah I didn't even wanna touch the spinners. It's a hard one to make a second tier for

Spinners 2ND tier would be people like: underwood, lock, tayfield, Benaud etc. You are right Grimmett should be in the top tier.

 

[mr_mister]

but how many of the indian spin quartet do you include? and how many of the 50s west indians? there's a lot of contenders

 

[Slifer]

Had Lance Gibbs retired while he was still decent, he'd for sure be in the 2ND tier of spinners. Don't know much about the Indian quartet admittedly, so perhaps someone else can offer their input. Tbh spinners in general aren't my cup of tea ie I don't know much about the very good and great ones outside of the obvious legends.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Great sucks. It is just so variable. Anderson is a great player. Ponting was a great player. Bradman was a great player.

How do others distinguish between players? Obviously, there is all-time-great, but even that is variable. Just how many All time Greats can there be. I'd imagine there are near 100 of these guys running around now. Is there another word for great that should be used when describing Bradman, Marshal, Hadlee Viv, etc, and a lesser form of great that can be used for Anderson, Mitch, Bell, Cook, etc. With limited vocabulary I'd call these guys good, but that seems like almost an insult rather than a plaudit.

I think a grading of words is needed where the following applies.

Level 1 word - There are only 40 to 50 of these guys. Over time certain players stop being regarded as level 1 to make room for others rather than everyone joining the club as we seem to have done with the 2000's batsmen.
Level 2 word - This is what we really mean by guys like all those batsmen of the 2000s and a plethora of bowlers who you would never have in your all time 11 but were f'in awesome nevertheless.
Level 3 word - this is for Anderson and co. Guys who were very very very f'in good - Good enough to play until they retired or reached osteoporosis rather than being told to move on for someone else.
Level 4 word - these players are better than those who just made it. Lyon is one of these. These guys hand around for a full career too, but other factors helped them get there.

Ideas?

I don't subscribe to the view that you can only have a set number of great players. This game is over 200 years old FFS. Of course the number of great players are going to keep increasing with each era.

Other than that, this is a good idea. 'Great' is an overused term in sport and we need more words or ways of assessing players.

For me, I do make a significant distinction between ATG and Great players in that for me, ATG is a status that you only earn near the end of your career, because you need to be 'great' for the majority of your career in order to earn that status.



Batsmen

Level 1: Bradman, Viv

Level 2: Tendulkar, Lara

Level 3: Kallis, YK

Level 4: Clarke, KP

Of course there are a lot more players but these players are just to mark the boundaries.

 

[Red]

Stats are useful to a point, but it's very hard to rank players successfully.

To consider the stats of two of my favourite players, M.Waugh and Gower, could lead you to believe they weren't really great players, but in actual fact they were. We could mount the same case for someone like Frank Woolley, who in no way is out of place in an England all time XI yet whose average is decidedly average.

Are these three players all time greats? Well, in my opinion they are, because of the verve they bought to the game.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Well then we go back to how you define ATG. I am pretty sure despite our differences, based on the criteria used by most people on CW, Mark Waugh is not an ATG test player.

I also think that at times as sports fans, we tend to blur the line between favourite and admiration.

I admire Tendulkar as a great player, never was my favourite.

I think the verve to the game falls in the personal favourite category. I think Shoaib brought more verve to the game than any fast bowler that I saw, and he is my favourite, but nowhere near to being an ATG bowler.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah, Mark Waugh was missing something that top tier batsman didn't and they managed to score more runs. I don't know what it was, concentration perhaps, but in cricket stats are important

 

[subshakerz]

Was thinking about this recently. Here is my distinction:

All-time great: Among the greatest of any era. Anyone who makes a shortlist or is a serious contender for an all-time XI. That doesnt mean there are only XI choices, but it has to be someone that can conceivably fit in an all-time XI. Examples: Bradman, Sobers, Tendulkar, Imran, Hadlee, etc. In this category, record and peer rating is terrific.

Great: Among the greatest produced by a particular country. Has a sustained level of world class performance over years to justify this title. But not someone you would put next to the best of the best. Examples: Anderson, Walsh, Inzi, Waqar, Dravid, De Silva, etc. Statistics may be terrific but peer rating is not quite as high as an all-timer.

World Class: A high-quality player who at any point of the time is among the best in the world with impressive stats, but for some reason didnt sustain that level of performance for a long enough period to justify being a Great for their country. Examples: Saqlain, Ian Bishop, etc.

Good: A frontline batsman or bowler for his team with class performances that are impressive but short of the best. Somewhat like Nathan Lyon would fit here perhaps.

Average: A decent player who can justify his place in the team but only one of the pack.

 

[Adders]

Reckon that is just about spot on.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Was thinking about this recently. Here is my distinction:

All-time great: Among the greatest of any era. Anyone who makes a shortlist or is a serious contender for an all-time XI. That doesnt mean there are only XI choices, but it has to be someone that can conceivably fit in an all-time XI. Examples: Bradman, Sobers, Tendulkar, Imran, Hadlee, etc. In this category, record and peer rating is terrific.

Great: Among the greatest produced by a particular country. Has a sustained level of world class performance over years to justify this title. But not someone you would put next to the best of the best. Examples: Anderson, Walsh, Inzi, Waqar, Dravid, De Silva, etc. Statistics may not be flawless but peer ranking is high.

World Class: A high-quality player who at any point of the time is among the best in the world with impressive stats, but for some reason didnt sustain that level of performance for a long enough period to justify being a Great for their country. Examples: Saqlain, Ian Bishop, etc.

Good: A frontline batsman or bowler for his team with class performances that are impressive but short of the best. Somewhat like Nathan Lyon would fit here perhaps.

Average: A decent player who can justify his place in the team but only one of the pack.

Spot on - I think someone like Courtney Walsh is an excellent example of "great but not All Time Great"

 

[Red]

Well then we go back to how you define ATG. I am pretty sure despite our differences, based on the criteria used by most people on CW, Mark Waugh is not an ATG test player.

I also think that at times as sports fans, we tend to blur the line between favourite and admiration.

I admire Tendulkar as a great player, never was my favourite.

I think the verve to the game falls in the personal favourite category. I think Shoaib brought more verve to the game than any fast bowler that I saw, and he is my favourite, but nowhere near to being an ATG bowler.

yeah, Mark Waugh was missing something that top tier batsman didn't and they managed to score more runs. I don't know what it was, concentration perhaps, but in cricket stats are important

Part of the thing with Mark Waugh is he never converted starts into big scores. His average could have been significantly higher, but he never bothered to go big because he played in teams that he didn't need to.

Similar to Keith Miller is some ways I guess.