The CW 50 - CricketWeb's view of the top 50 cricketers of all time

[NUFAN]

Haha I would be reluctant to pick Gavin Hamilton at number 1 if the list was the top Gavin Hamilton's of all time.

 

[Pratters]

As we move upwards, it becomes more and more difficult for solo or a couple of votes to rank a player highly. So I think we shouldn't change any thing and let it flow on...

 

[Furball]

As we move upwards, it becomes more and more difficult for solo or a couple of votes to rank a player highly. So I think we shouldn't change any thing and let it flow on...

You think?

 

[Days of Grace]

To be honest, I see no problem with guys like Jardine and Flintoff in the 41-50 range, esp. when you consider their respective impacts on arguably, no, not arguably, the two most famous ashes series of all time.

 

[Flem274*]

Hmm, next time Mathew Sinclair shall be reaching the top 50 then...

 

[bagapath]

So why didn't you vote for either of them then?!

well a pakistani fan is definitely more likely to remember miandad among top 25 cricketers of all time. and a young cricket fan is likely to think hayden's numbers are good enough to rank him along truly great players. I am neither...

 

[JBMAC]

well a pakistani fan is definitely more likely to remember miandad among top 25 cricketers of all time. and a young cricket fan is likely to think hayden's numbers are good enough to rank him along truly great players. I am neither...

Out of curiousity did you include Sohail and Ahmed( think spelling is right)

 

[Jarquis]

Hmm, next time Mathew Sinclair shall be reaching the top 50 then...

I'm waiting to see Bollinger at #14

 

[bagapath]

Out of curiousity did you include Sohail and Ahmed( think spelling is right)

i had only imran in my top 25. my list is purely based on test performances, except in the case of WG.

 

[GIMH]

As I said in the other thread, I think we should have a minimum of 4 or 5 votes per player for a player to be included...

(just my opinion.)

Typical CW, see a result you don't like, then start whining about the method. Could have had a whinge/made a suggestion beforehand. Or you know, if you cared that much, submitted a list yourself.

Massive to you Pratters

 

[slugger]

Im upset ive missed out on this...

 

[Shri]

Someone please tell me the list is in this thread somewhere and I missed it by mistake. Just read 24 ****ing pages!

 

[G.I.Joe]

Someone please tell me the list is in this thread somewhere and I missed it by mistake. Just read 24 ****ing pages!

Haha, click on The Sean's name and then click on the list of threads he's created.

 

[Francis]

Gilchrist would have been a tough one for me to rank. I remember a few patches in his ODI career where he wasn't making big runs.

But before I was going to say he was ranked too high at number four, I remembered hearing once that when Gilchrist made a century in ODI's, Australia never lost a game. I mean he's like Viv Richards in terms of winning you the game.

I liked it when Michael Holding said that Viv Richards wasn't about making big scores (although he made some big ones against Tony Grieg), he was about winning you the game with the way he scored runs.

Gilchrist... how could you lose when he scored a century? You couldn't.

I still think Mark Waugh at his peak was a better ODI batsman, and maybe Ricky Ponting as well. Gilchrist may have been better over his whole career. Dean Jones? He'd challenge Gilchrist. And Michael Bevan was incredible.

I don't know where to rank Gilchrist among my top five best Australian ODI batsmen. But he certainly stands-out the most, and he won you the game every time. That and his batting in the World Cup finals was phenomenal.