The CW50 - No.10

[bagapath]

There is nothing that they did that he couldn't do. Unfortunately, for him, he didn't play enough in the sub-continent for that to not be a question.

true. but the others did play a lot in the sub continent and achieved more success over there than many other good/great pacers. so that should count in their favor. also, they all averaged better than lillee and had better SR too. logically there is nothing that would force anyone to rank the other three below dennis.

of course, i loved his style and would give anything to have him and marshall take the new ball for my dream XI for that awesome action alone.

back on topic... richard hadlee is one of the greatest cricketers of all time. but no 10 looks about 3,4 places too high in my eyes

 

[Flem274*]

It's why I rate Lillee so highly, because he's Australian. Best ever.

 

[Ikki]

true. but the others did play a lot in the sub continent and achieved more success over there than many other good/great pacers. so that should count in their favor. also, they all averaged better than lillee and had better SR too. logically there is nothing that would force anyone to rank the other three below dennis.

Still, Hadlee never had competition and Marshall rarely had to do it alone. I count the lack of Lillee's success in the subcontinent merely one of opportunity not success. And if you remove Sri Lanka from Hadlee's figures - because they were really a minnow during his time - then his figures are no better than Lillee's. Lillee's exploits are almost universally heralded, from even the men in question themselves.

Claiming it is not logical to rate him so high is about as logical as saying because Ponting has a higher average and SR than Tendulkar there is no logical reason to force anyone to rank Sachin higher.

The irony, this coming from a NZer. If I wanted to name a bowler the best ever and have few on here question it; I could name McGrath. And yet I rate Lillee ahead of McGrath.

The thing with Australian cricketers are...we have more than 1 great

 

[Flem274*]

I didn't submit a list Ikki ftr, therefore you have no idea who I rate where.

 

[chasingthedon]

Woodcock and CMJ's top 10

Didn't see this already posted - for interest here are the top 10s from John Woodcock's and CMJ's books (Woodcock's list is all-time, CMJ's Test cricketers only - numbers in parentheses show where the other writer ranked each player):-

Woodcock
1. Grace (2)
2. Bradman (1)
3. Sobers (3)
4. Mynn (NR)
5. Hobbs (5)
6, Barnes (7)
7. Hammond (8)
8. Viv Richards (6)
9. Botham (18)
10. Compton (21)

CMJ:-
1. Bradman (2)
2. Grace (1)
3. Sobers (3)
4. Warne (13)
5. Hobbs (5)
6. Viv Richards (8)
7. Barnes (6)
8. Hammond (7)
9. Tendulkar (25)
10. Gilchrist (NR)

Seems the only thing we can say for sure from this is that Hobbs is the fifth best ever! The top three are the same, one and two reversed of course, and they have seven common players in their top tens. As for Hadlee, Woodcock has him at 29 and CMJ at 25.

Woodcock's list was produced in 1997 and CMJ's book came out this year. Woodcock has no current players (at that time) in his top ten, although Warne was listed at 13 in 1997, so would probably have made his top ten if he repeated the exercise now. Tendulkar is the only other current player to make Wodcock's top 25 and would surely be rated higher now. Gilly of course wasn't around then.

CMJ's list has Marshall, McGrath and Murali at at 11, 12 and 13. However, he has KP at 60, three places higher than Steve Waugh.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Didn't see this already posted - for interest here are the top 10s from John Woodcock's and CMJ's books (Woodcock's list is all-time, CMJ's Test cricketers only - numbers in parentheses show where the other writer ranked each player):-

Woodcock
1. Grace (2)
2. Bradman (1)
3. Sobers (3)
4. Mynn (NR)
5. Hobbs (5)
6, Barnes (7)
7. Hammond (8)
8. Viv Richards (6)
9. Botham (18)
10. Compton (21)

CMJ:-
1. Bradman (2)
2. Grace (1)
3. Sobers (3)
4. Warne (13)
5. Hobbs (5)
6. Viv Richards (8)
7. Barnes (6)
8. Hammond (7)
9. Tendulkar (25)
10. Gilchrist (NR)

Seems the only thing we can say for sure from this is that Hobbs is the fifth best ever! The top three are the same, one and two reversed of course, and they have seven common players in their top tens. As for Hadlee, Woodcock has him at 29 and CMJ at 25.

Woodcock's list was produced in 1997 and CMJ's book came out this year. Woodcock has no current players (at that time) in his top ten, although Warne was listed at 13 in 1997, so would probably have made his top ten if he repeated the exercise now. Tendulkar is the only other current player to make Wodcock's top 25 and would surely be rated higher now. Gilly of course wasn't around then.

CMJ's list has Marshall, McGrath and Murali at at 11, 12 and 13. However, he has KP at 60, three places higher than Steve Waugh.

Steve Waugh at 63?

 

[chasingthedon]

Steve Waugh at 63?

Quite.

 

[The Sean]

Didn't see this already posted - for interest here are the top 10s from John Woodcock's and CMJ's books (Woodcock's list is all-time, CMJ's Test cricketers only - numbers in parentheses show where the other writer ranked each player):-

Woodcock
1. Grace (2)
2. Bradman (1)
3. Sobers (3)
4. Mynn (NR)
5. Hobbs (5)
6, Barnes (7)
7. Hammond (8)
8. Viv Richards (6)
9. Botham (18)
10. Compton (21)

CMJ:-
1. Bradman (2)
2. Grace (1)
3. Sobers (3)
4. Warne (13)
5. Hobbs (5)
6. Viv Richards (8)
7. Barnes (6)
8. Hammond (7)
9. Tendulkar (25)
10. Gilchrist (NR)

Seems the only thing we can say for sure from this is that Hobbs is the fifth best ever! The top three are the same, one and two reversed of course, and they have seven common players in their top tens. As for Hadlee, Woodcock has him at 29 and CMJ at 25.

Woodcock's list was produced in 1997 and CMJ's book came out this year. Woodcock has no current players (at that time) in his top ten, although Warne was listed at 13 in 1997, so would probably have made his top ten if he repeated the exercise now. Tendulkar is the only other current player to make Wodcock's top 25 and would surely be rated higher now. Gilly of course wasn't around then.

CMJ's list has Marshall, McGrath and Murali at at 11, 12 and 13. However, he has KP at 60, three places higher than Steve Waugh.

As much as I respect Woodcock, his list was a joke to be fair. He did it for The Times and the list clearly pandered to the English audience - 9 of his top 12 were English FFS.

 

[Jarquis]

I wonder if my list made a difference to where Hadlee finished

 

[Days of Grace]

How can CMJ's list be for Test cricketers only yet sitll have W.G. Grace at no.2?

 

[morgieb]

As much as I respect Woodcock, his list was a joke to be fair. He did it for The Times and the list clearly pandered to the English audience - 9 of his top 12 were English FFS.

Who were 11 & 12, OOC?

 

[morgieb]

How can CMJ's list be for Test cricketers only yet sitll have W.G. Grace at no.2?

Grace sure as hell played tests. Was Mynn that didn't I think.

 

[The Sean]

Who were 11 & 12, OOC?

Hutton Woolley IIRC. Actually, I thought Hutton was 10 and Compton 11 rather than the other way around, but either way they occupied those two positions.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How can CMJ's list be for Test cricketers only yet still have W.G. Grace at no.2?

Why not? WG Grace was a Test Cricketer.

 

[silentstriker]

Benaud, to my knowledge, never made a top ten.

But his XI was: Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Khan, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Barnes, Lillee.


His short list consisted of the following players, which we can assume roughly corresponds to his top 25 (out of the following 33) all time:

Trumper, Greenidge, Hutton, Morris, Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Hammond, Headley, Graeme Pollock, Lara, Worrell, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar, Miller, Sobers, Khan, Botham, Hadlee, Dev, Marsh, Healy, Gilchrist, O'Reilly, Qadir, Warne, Lindwall, Trueman, McGrath, Larwood, Lillee, Barnes

This was done toward the end of the 90s. I'm sure a couple names might have changed.

 

[Days of Grace]

He played 20-something tests with an average of 30 and about 4 centuries.

So you are telling me that is good enough to be the no.2 test player of all time?

 

[Goughy]

He played 20-something tests with an average of 30 and about 4 centuries.

So you are telling me that is good enough to be the no.2 test player of all time?

Completely depends how you read it. What does 'Test players' mean? The Test career of players? or (as I read it) the career of those that have played Tests?

By virtue of playing Test cricket it makes Grace eligible for the list and that bring in all his career achievements rather than just those it Tests.

 

[andyc]

Completely depends how you read it. Do does Test players mean, the Test career players? or (as I read it) the career of those that have played Tests?

By virtue of playing Test cricket it makes Grace eligible for the list and that bring in all his career achievements rather than just those it Tests.

How do you rate Ramprakash then?

 

[Burgey]

Big fan of Hadlee, I had him ranked very high on my list.

Was the thinking man's pace-bowler. I have some great VCR footage of Hadlee bowling three out-swingers to Dean Jones, each one swinging further than the last, and then on the fourth delivering a ball shaping to swing away, but hitting the seam and decking into Jones off-stump. Brilliant moment, you could never simply watch a highlights reel of all the wickets Hadlee took, it is more important to watch the deliveries leading up to every wicket.

AWTA.

Would be a decent approach when looking back on McGrath in a decade or more's time too.

 

[Pothas]

How do you rate Ramprakash then?

To be fair I would rate him above a number of batsmen that did rather better than him at test level, yes his test record is the most important thing in judging his career but anyone who scores 100 centuries has to be celebrated.