The Cricketer's Cricketers.

[Ikki]

IIRC Lara also said Wasim was the best bowler he faced. It really depends when/where these players are asked these questions because many can be politicians about it.

 

[The Sean]

While back in Australia I had the pleasure of reconnecting with all of my old cricket books, and in particular Tom Graveney's Top 10 Cricket Book. Graveney was a fine England Batsman of the ‘50s and ‘60s and saw all the greats of the ‘70s close at hand. In 1982 he published his Top 10s for dozens of different categories, and it was interesting to see how he rated players, particularly those he played with or against, or those he saw in depth. Without boring everyone stupid with too many lists, here are a couple:

Top 10 Greatest Batsmen - post World War II

1. Vivian Richards
2. Peter May
3. Garry Sobers
4. Len Hutton
5. Denis Compton
6. Clyde Walcott
7. Barry Richards
8. Neil Harvey
9. Everton Weekes
10. Greg Chappell

Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers – post World War II

1. Ray Lindwall
2. Wes Hall
3. Dennis Lillee
4. Brian Statham
5. Fred Trueman
6. Michael Holding
7. Keith Miller
8. Frank Tyson
9. Andy Roberts
10. Alan Davidson

As I say, these selections were made in 1982, so it would be interesting to see how he would have changed them in the (near) three decades since. I’d love him to release an updated edition but I don’t imagine he ever will now.

 

[honestbharani]

IIRC Lara also said Wasim was the best bowler he faced. It really depends when/where these players are asked these questions because many can be politicians about it.

Replace "many can be" with "many are" and you will be right on the money..


Esp. when talking to the Indian media, many cricketers from other countries are so obviously playing to the gallery that it is not even funny anymore..

 

[Cevno]

I am pretty sure the first quote was to the INdian press and the next one was in his top 50 cricketers rating...


Not uncommon if you are in India...


I have actually heard "arguments" that Lara's 365 should not be considered the highest ever test score and should be replaced by something Sachin has hit, simply because Lara was not scoring as many hundreds as Sachin and because he was "not good enough"... I tell you, it is fun pretending that you dont care about this game and that you don't know anything and listen to some of these "gurus".. Sad part is most of them are well educated and actually work alongside me for a MNC..

To be honest it is not uncommon anywhere in the world.
But doubt it is the case in this . And btw, i think this was given in his list to a english tabloid.

See not everything bad in the world is Indian.

 

[Cevno]

Replace "many can be" with "many are" and you will be right on the money..


Esp. when talking to the Indian media, many cricketers from other countries are so obviously playing to the gallery that it is not even funny anymore..

Really?
And why would they go out of their way to only be politically correct ahead of the Indian media any more than say the paksitani,australian or english media btw?

The players can be and are in some cases ,but it is not something India specific.

 

[honestbharani]

well, if you wanna earn some money doing something cricket related, the place to do it in is India so it would make sense to say things that would please that audience.


But you are right. Some of them may feel seriously that way and some maybe blokes who will say what the audience want in any part of the world.


And I was referring to the stupidity of some of the stuff these "Sachin fans" come up with... To be honest, my respect for Sachin has shot up to some amazing levels seeing him keep his head amongst all this adulation and over the top praise and the whole deification of him.. To me, THAT is what makes him special.. THAT is what makes him stand out. To be able to respect the game and his fellow players inspite of all this almost maniacal fanaticism of so many people is, for me, his biggest achievement. And THAT is the reason I would fall at his feet and seek his blessings. Not for 17000 runs and 13000 runs or whatever Sunny says... You seek blessings of better human beings and these are the reasons why I feel Sachin is a wonderful and amazing human being. As a cricketer, he is one of the many greats I have seen and heard of. As a person, he is easily the best I have come to know, at least in and through the public domain.

 

[vic_orthdox]

While back in Australia I had the pleasure of reconnecting with all of my old cricket books, and in particular Tom Graveney's Top 10 Cricket Book. Graveney was a fine England Batsman of the ‘50s and ‘60s and saw all the greats of the ‘70s close at hand. In 1982 he published his Top 10s for dozens of different categories, and it was interesting to see how he rated players, particularly those he played with or against, or those he saw in depth. Without boring everyone stupid with too many lists, here are a couple:

Top 10 Greatest Batsmen - post World War II

1. Vivian Richards
2. Peter May
3. Garry Sobers
4. Len Hutton
5. Denis Compton
6. Clyde Walcott
7. Barry Richards
8. Neil Harvey
9. Everton Weekes
10. Greg Chappell

Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers – post World War II

1. Ray Lindwall
2. Wes Hall
3. Dennis Lillee
4. Brian Statham
5. Fred Trueman
6. Michael Holding
7. Keith Miller
8. Frank Tyson
9. Andy Roberts
10. Alan Davidson

As I say, these selections were made in 1982, so it would be interesting to see how he would have changed them in the (near) three decades since. I’d love him to release an updated edition but I don’t imagine he ever will now.

Interesting to see Statham named ahead of Trueman in that list.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Interesting to see Statham named ahead of Trueman in that list.

I thought so too. I can imagine Gentleman George being more Gravers kind of chap than Fiery Fred tho.

 

[Teja.]

He was classical, stylish and all that but Peter May ahead of Sir Len, Sir Garry and Greg Chappel is pushing it IMO.

 

[The Sean]

Interesting to see Statham named ahead of Trueman in that list.

I thought so too. I can imagine Gentleman George being more Gravers kind of chap than Fiery Fred tho.

Yeah, Graveney acknowledges that selection would surprise a lot of people - his reasoning was that he considered Statham to be the bloke who applied the pressure and forced the mistakes that the likes of Trueman and Tyson then cashed in on, and that he was very much the unsung hero.

 

[The Sean]

He was classical, stylish and all that but Peter May ahead of Sir Len, Sir Garry and Greg Chappel is pushing it IMO.

Ha ha yeah, we've had a few discussions in the past about Peter May and how he is viewed by those who watched him (Graveney is far from the only observer who considers him to England's finest post-war batsman) despite his numbers being those of a very good Test player but nothing more. His reputation - possibly similar to someone like Arthur Morris a few years earlier - seems to be based as much on the quality and class of his batting as on pesky stuff like the number of runs he scored, though it's true that he was viewed as a player who tended to make runs when they were needed most.

CMJ once wrote of an innings that May played in a tour match for MCC against an Australian XI in the 1950s where he "scored his second century of the match between lunch and tea, with batting that perhaps a half dozen players in history could have equalled." I'm not and never have been someone who gets too hung up on stats when judging or comparing players, but even I can't see how - for all his style and class - May can be rated above someone like Barrington (who Graveney doesn't even select in an England Post-War XI later in the book, preferring Colin Cowdrey over him as well!). A lot of other factors come into it, of course, but the difference in their numbers is SO big that it's hard for me to reconcile.

 

[zaremba]

Ha ha yeah, we've had a few discussions in the past about Peter May and how he is viewed by those who watched him (Graveney is far from the only observer who considers him to England's finest post-war batsman) despite his numbers being those of a very good Test player but nothing more. His reputation - possibly similar to someone like Arthur Morris a few years earlier - seems to be based as much on the quality and class of his batting as on pesky stuff like the number of runs he scored, though it's true that he was viewed as a player who tended to make runs when they were needed most.

CMJ once wrote of an innings that May played in a tour match for MCC against an Australian XI in the 1950s where he "scored his second century of the match between lunch and tea, with batting that perhaps a half dozen players in history could have equalled." I'm not and never have been someone who gets too hung up on stats when judging or comparing players, but even I can't see how - for all his style and class - May can be rated above someone like Barrington (who Graveney doesn't even select in an England Post-War XI later in the book, preferring Colin Cowdrey over him as well!). A lot of other factors come into it, of course, but the difference in their numbers is SO big that it's hard for me to reconcile.

If Graveney has a "style over averages" mindset, is it possible that this could be a subconscious self-vindication? Rather along the lines of Commentator Beefy ("I love players who empty the bars / go for a drink with the Aussies after play / don't bother too much with practice") or Boycott (passim)?

 

[The Sean]

If Graveney has a "style over averages" mindset, is it possible that this could be a subconscious self-vindication? Rather along the lines of Commentator Beefy ("I love players who empty the bars / go for a drink with the Aussies after play / don't bother too much with practice") or Boycott (passim)?

Yeah, it could certainly be that - which would go some way to explaining his choice of Cowdrey over Barrington as well. It could also be - as has been put forward previously on these pages - that performances in FC and County cricket counted for a lot more back then too, and May's record in such matches was exceptional. As I say though, Graveney is far from the only observer who rates May so highly, which means IMO that it isn't something that can be easily dismissed.

 

[Teja.]

Ha ha yeah, we've had a few discussions in the past about Peter May and how he is viewed by those who watched him (Graveney is far from the only observer who considers him to England's finest post-war batsman) despite his numbers being those of a very good Test player but nothing more. His reputation - possibly similar to someone like Arthur Morris a few years earlier - seems to be based as much on the quality and class of his batting as on pesky stuff like the number of runs he scored, though it's true that he was viewed as a player who tended to make runs when they were needed most.

CMJ once wrote of an innings that May played in a tour match for MCC against an Australian XI in the 1950s where he "scored his second century of the match between lunch and tea, with batting that perhaps a half dozen players in history could have equalled." I'm not and never have been someone who gets too hung up on stats when judging or comparing players, but even I can't see how - for all his style and class - May can be rated above someone like Barrington (who Graveney doesn't even select in an England Post-War XI later in the book, preferring Colin Cowdrey over him as well!). A lot of other factors come into it, of course, but the difference in their numbers is SO big that it's hard for me to reconcile.

I reckon' there was a lot of importance for style and grace back in the 1950s and people preferred players who batted the way 'one is supposed to bat'. From my limited reading, I've extrapolated that players started to be driven by statistics mainly from the time Garry Sobers set the run record, and Dennis Lillee set the wickets record, i.e. a sudden urge for statistical achievement in the 70s/80s. Makes you wonder how an Azhar or a Mark Waugh would have gone in the 50s.

 

[Teja.]

Arthur Morris

Best Batsman:-Donald Bradman ( Doh')

Best Bowler:-Tiger O'Reilly.

I saw only two great players in my time: Bradman was the best batsman and O'Reilly was the best bowler.

The 'only' is interesting to say the least, shows how much the word 'great' is thrown around lately.

 

[Black_Warrior]

That's a hell of a wrap for Macko there, given that Thommo and Lillee were brothers in arms and so many of Lillee's other contemporaries (Richards, Imran, Hadlee, Greig, Marsh etc.) have no hesitation in placing DKL at the top of their lists. Though Thommo is hardly alone in rating Marshall as the best he played with or against - off the top of my head I remember Border, Boon, Gooch, Akram, Gower and Shaun Pollock saying similar things. From what I have read, those two seem to be - in the eyes of most of the men they played with and against anyway - a class above even among the galaxy of great fast men from that era.

Not true about Imran..Imran Khan has always maintained Malcolm Marshal was the greatest of the lot..

 

[Black_Warrior]

To be honest, my respect for Sachin has shot up to some amazing levels seeing him keep his head amongst all this adulation and over the top praise and the whole deification of him.. To me, THAT is what makes him special.. THAT is what makes him stand out. To be able to respect the game and his fellow players inspite of all this almost maniacal fanaticism of so many people is, for me, his biggest achievement. And THAT is the reason I would fall at his feet and seek his blessings. Not for 17000 runs and 13000 runs or whatever Sunny says... You seek blessings of better human beings and these are the reasons why I feel Sachin is a wonderful and amazing human being. As a cricketer, he is one of the many greats I have seen and heard of. As a person, he is easily the best I have come to know, at least in and through the public domain.

Couldnt have said it better myself.. Thats the reason I have so much respect for Sachin Tendulkar the man... Yes his cricketing acheivements are great but there is little too pick between him and Lara when it comes to cricketing factors.. But its his personality..which I have had the good fortune of experiencing that sets him apart. What an individual..what aura...I can't help but admire and respect him.. May God grant him more success, more greatness, more respect, more admiration..

 

[The Sean]

Not true about Imran..Imran Khan has always maintained Malcolm Marshal was the greatest of the lot..

Ah fair enough mate, I always thought Imran was in the Lillee camp. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Black_Warrior]

^ Imran has great respect for Lillee..He has always mentioned how Lillee helped him with his action and acted as a mentor.. But in terms of talent and skill..he felt Marshall was a few notches higher than everyone.

 

[Zinzan]

Didn't Wasim rate Martin Crowe as the best batsman he as played?

Yup, pretty sure both he & Waqar said that of Crowe