Well the Warne/Murali debate has been done to death - suffice to say my pick is Warne. Hammond beats Viv in my view, although it's very close, as is George Headley. I'm happy enough to accept Tendulkar for Waugh, but like the rest of us I have a bit of a bias towards certain styles of play, and Waugh just appeals to me. I'll take fighting spirit against strong opposition over grace and style, and Waugh's performance in the West Indies is simply the greatest individual batting display I have ever seen, perhaps just ahead of Lara's efforts on a few occasions against Australia and of course Laxman's great innings. And given my bias towards such players, Waugh just beats out Tendulkar for me, but it's a fair case either way.C_C said:But i definately dont see Warne ahead of Murali, Hammond and Tugga ahead of Viv and Sachin....would drop Chappell too since Braddles is two-in-one batsman and i prefer having 5 genuine bowling options in a test if i can.... would substitute Marshall for Barnes and i guess my extra-bowling option would be Imran Khan......
its not even close IMO. Viv played a quarter more matches than Hammond i think with an average 5-6 pts below and faced infinitely superior bowling.Hammond beats Viv in my view, although it's very close
meh. i think Waugh has a bit more fire in his belly than Tendy but most days tendy upends waugh.I'll take fighting spirit against strong opposition over grace and style, and Waugh's performance in the West Indies is simply the greatest individual batting display I have ever seen, perhaps just ahead of Lara's efforts on a few occasions against Australia and of course Laxman's great innings.
you are entitled to your pick but then again, i hope you wont throw in an argument if someone deciedes to pick Waqar over McGrath as a test bowler or Inzamam over Ponting as a test batsman.Well the Warne/Murali debate has been done to death - suffice to say my pick is Warne.
again, i find that absurd. A player who played when the game was totally different, lacking professionalism and consisted of a mix of pro and amatuer players cannot be held at a higher esteem over someone who is at worst amongst the top 5 pacers since WWII and at best arguably the best pacer since WWIIMarshall was a great, but Barnes beats him for me
Andy FlowerGilchrist is the only keeper I would really consider a batsman in his own right.
fair enough i supposeI prefer a 6-4 split most of the time though
goochie: played in a professional era with a FAR superior bowling cast faced and an EXCELLENT average(for an opener) against bowling lineups like that of the WI and PAK.and I can't see how Gooch comes close to Hobbs
hehehe...Hobbs, reputedly the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets, possibly the greatest opener of all time, being dissed..crazy talk that CCC_C said:goochie: played in a professional era with a FAR superior bowling cast faced and an EXCELLENT average(for an opener) against bowling lineups like that of the WI and PAK.
Pretty good against pace, adept against spin.
Hobbs: massed records (his test record isnt all that great mind you- sutcliffe's is better) in an era with highly inconsistent bowling quality, unprofessionalism and far less tested in different conditions.
I actually rate Boycs ahead of Hobbs as well... and ahead of Goochie...but i would prefer a slightly more aggressive batsman than Boycs at the crease....
It's worth remembering that Hammond faced some pretty good bowling himself. I am willing to accept however that he had his average inflated somewhat by making mammoth scores against substandard teams from India, New Zealand etc during the period of expansion in test cricket. Still, his performances against some great Australian teams and his vital role in the great English teams of the 30s stand him in good stead, as well as the fact that, like Viv, his average looks worse than it should because of a run of outs very late in his career. Before the final couple of series, it was almost 62. Regardless, Viv is undoubtedly an all-time great and an equally valid choice for that spot in my view.C_C said:its not even close IMO. Viv played a quarter more matches than Hammond i think with an average 5-6 pts below and faced infinitely superior bowling.
Viv IMO is in the top 5 batsmen ever category and i think Wisden agrees with me on this one too.
Again, perfectly valid choice and I'm happy to admit that my bias towards certain sorts of players has an impact here.C_C said:meh. i think Waugh has a bit more fire in his belly than Tendy but most days tendy upends waugh.
I am not saying I'm not willing to defend my pick, and I am happy to do so and have done so in the past - in conversations with YOU, among others. Hence, I don't want to spam this perfectly decent thread with another murali v warne argument. If you want to have the debate again with me, I'll do it next time the issue itself comes up.C_C said:you are entitled to your pick but then again, i hope you wont throw in an argument if someone deciedes to pick Waqar over McGrath as a test bowler or Inzamam over Ponting as a test batsman.
I wouldn't quite put him in my top 5 since WW2 actually. I'd have McGrath, Hadlee, Davidson, Imran and probably Lillee and Holding ahead of him. Ambrose makes a fair case as well. Anyway, Barnes dominated bowling in his era like few ever have, before or since. He was involved in so many advancements of the game in his time that I cannot see how he can not be considered one of the greatest players of all time. The simple fact that Trumper or Grace might struggle a bit in certain elements of the game during the era of professionalism doesn't mean that they don't deserve recognition as the greats that they were, and Barnes is the same. Certainly including Barnes over Marshall is nowhere near the travesty of including Gooch over Hobbs...C_C said:again, i find that absurd. A player who played when the game was totally different, lacking professionalism and consisted of a mix of pro and amatuer players cannot be held at a higher esteem over someone who is at worst amongst the top 5 pacers since WWII and at best arguably the best pacer since WWII
Fair call, but he's rarely a candidate for all-time XIs so I didn't think about him. Sangakkara certainly stands on his own as a batsman as well, although not of the same quality as the other two in my view. Les Ames could make a fair case as well.C_C said:Andy Flower
Andy Flower
Andy Flower
key word: reputedly. I've also heard in may circles that the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets was George Headley.hehehe...Hobbs, reputedly the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets, possibly the greatest opener of all time, being dissed..crazy talk that CC
your choice..but it seems a shame that you dismiss almost 100 years of the game at international standardC_C said:key word: reputedly. I've also heard in may circles that the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets was George Headley.
You will find that i have no time for reputations. Cold hard facts alone.
History can be my witness that reputation can be often misleading. Facts cannot be. I am not easily influenced by the aura of an individual but much easily influenced by cold hard facts.
I have said it often enough and i still say it: the only pre 50s/60s batsman i would readily consider in my lineup is bradman. And the only bowlers i would consider are Lindwall, Miller and possibly O'Reiley.
Yes, he was a top quality batsman, but he's not in the same league as Hobbs. Gavaskar, Hutton and perhaps Sutcliffe are the only openers one could reasonably pick ahead of him.C_C said:goochie: played in a professional era with a FAR superior bowling cast faced and an EXCELLENT average(for an opener) against bowling lineups like that of the WI and PAK.
Pretty good against pace, adept against spin.
What about Hutton? Hobbs? Headley? Hammond? Sutcliffe? McCabe? Harvey? And for the bowlers, what about Larwood, Voce, Grimmett and Barnes?C_C said:I have said it often enough and i still say it: the only pre 50s/60s batsman i would readily consider in my lineup is bradman. And the only bowlers i would consider are Lindwall, Miller and possibly O'Reiley.
OZ bowling was no great shakes either before the advent of Miller-O'Reliey and Lindwall..usually one great/good bowler surrounded by some alsorans....Still, his performances against some great Australian teams and his vital role in the great English teams of the 30s stand him in good stead,
hahI wouldn't quite put him in my top 5 since WW2 actually. I'd have McGrath, Hadlee, Davidson, Imran and probably Lillee and Holding ahead of him. Ambrose makes a fair case as well.
Lohmann, Spofforth, etc. all spring to mind, not to mention Grimmett...... Barnes dominated in an era when he was a hardnosed professional amongst few in cricket.Anyway, Barnes dominated bowling in his era like few ever have, before or since.
Can you give me one good reason why Trumper is considered greater than Ranjitsinhji or FS Jackson apart from 'on reputation' ?he simple fact that Trumper or Grace might struggle a bit in certain elements of the game during the era of professionalism doesn't mean that they don't deserve recognition as the greats that they were
thats what 'reputation' does to you. Mass opinion and logical thinking are two totally different avenues.Fair call, but he's rarely a candidate for all-time XIs so I didn't think about him