-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The CW50 - No.7
- Thread starter The Sean
- Start date
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And I didn't have Grace in my top 25. C'est la vie.
Richards outside mine but the rest were in there (Tendulkar at number 10), only Barnes and Miller of my top 10 are outside the final list. Had Wilfred Rhodes at 11 though and he missed out on the 50 all together.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, once you are in and around the top 10 there are no really bad choices from a huge group of players. It comes down to each peoples outlook.
Interestingly Re: the question I asked about A > B > C > A
I have Botham in the top 10. The reasons being his amazing, comic book hero style performances, the way he played the game and the fact at a point that he may have been the greatest allround cricketer to have ever walked the planet.
Judging against the field I have him in the top 10. I dont have Richards in the top 10. Comparatively against the field I had him just outside.
However, head-to-head. Richards vs Botham, if I had to choose, Id take Richards as the greater. A direct contrast is a different thought process (at least in my head)
Last edited:
Yeah I agree, there are certain aspects of a player that make them great but when contrasting them direct with someone else you might have to take other things into account.
To use another exampele, Wilfred Rhodes who I had at number 11. He was in my list becaue he played test cricket for 30 years, went from a number 11 to an opener and took over 4000 first class wickets which is all just rather silly. Could I say he was greater than say Jim laker when making a direct comparison? probably not.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I don't quite understand this - isn't direct contrast what you're doing?
Let's say you take players A, B, C, D, E.
First you compare A and B, if A is greater, you have the ranking A, B. Then you compare A to C, and decide A is better. Then compare B to C, and decide C is better, so you have A, C, B. And you keep doing it until you're out of players. I don't understand how you can say 'against the field' Botham is better yet head to head Richards is. When you say 'against the field', are you not going through individual players and asking 'Is Botham better or worse than this guy?' and placing him accordingly?
Obviously, I'm not attacking your rankings, but just trying to understand the methodology because it seems a bit alien to me.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Nah, the biased Aussies will put that fat step and fetch it drug user in the top five, and that overrated flat track bully as #1.The amount of biased Indian posters on here will ensure a top 3 for Tendulkar, imo.
subshakerz
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Shouldn't be much of a debate, IMO. Imran as a fast bowler let alone a captain/all-rounder inspired Pakistan cricket more than Tendulkar as a batsman did for Indian cricket.
Imran should be a lock in the top five, pity. I really don't see what more one can do as a cricketer except be a better fielder. Imran probably had more influence for his team than any other cricketer bar Bradman.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
No. It is impossible to have a linear ranking like that. And far too overly simplistic to even attempt. How is it possible to have a comparison between, lets say, Gilchrist, Verity and Botham? It cant be realistically done. How is it possibly to compare Marshall and Hobbs directly as cricketer?
As such I tried to judge each player on their impact on cricket, their achievements, legacy and what their position in the game.
I attempted to judge against 'the field' of Test cricket history and their contemporaries rather than against specific individuals. Just looking at my top 10, it was not intentional but I think only 2 of them were born in the same decade. I think I have unintentionally (though it makes sense to me looking back) spread my top 10 across those that dominated the game during their time and reached peaks that few others could attain. There is not really a cluster of players from a particular era.
Was Botham, for a time, the best allround cricketer to ever play the game? IMO, it is possible.
Was Richards the best batsman to play the game? Absolutely not.
Was Richards even the greatest West Indian batsman? It is possible, but not by my list.
That is an overly simplified overview. But with that, I cant put Richards ahead of Botham. In the same way I have Gilchrist in my top 10 also.
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
yeah. and two places above sunil gavaskar FFS
Athlai
Not Terrible
The way the top ten fell in my list:
1. Don Bradman
2. WG Grace
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Garfield Sobers
6. Richard Hadlee
7. Viv Richards
9. Jack Hobbs
10. Imran Khan
13. Shane Warne
20. Malcolm Marshall
Marshall shamelessly put well below Hadlee to try get the Kiwi to be the top pacer.
1. Don Bradman
2. WG Grace
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Garfield Sobers
6. Richard Hadlee
7. Viv Richards
9. Jack Hobbs
10. Imran Khan
13. Shane Warne
20. Malcolm Marshall
Marshall shamelessly put well below Hadlee to try get the Kiwi to be the top pacer.