Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Tom Halsey]

Yes it was about opinions which will be biased in favour of the modern player because people favour players they have seen. But it should be 5 best. Otherwise its not actually the 5 cricketers of the century is it.

So that’s why Bradman, Hobbs, and Sobers are there is it?

 

[Tom Halsey]

I’d have d’Oliveira. I wouldn’t have Packer, as he wasn’t a cricketer. But since he was the one that funded the idea, and Lillee thought of it, I’d have Lillee there.

 

[Swervy]

I meant as close to perfection as I have seen.



I think Gavaskar did not preform equally well as his previous performances, when the WI attack peaked...and Amarnath did very well against those very attacks. I still can't forget the 1982-83 series against WI and a Imran inspired Pakistan in 1983 in which Amarnath was the one batsman who just didn't seem fazed from the barrage that those guys were coming up with. This is something that has been totally forgotten in most analysis of Indian batting of those days probably because selectors kept dropping him for whatever reasons and Gavaskar got most of the accolades.

agree with you 100%

 

[a massive zebra]

So that’s why Bradman, Hobbs, and Sobers are there is it?

No its why Richards and Warne are there. Anyone who did not vote for Bradman or Sobers has very limited knowledge of cricket history. They are the 2 best players without doubt.

Richards has been more than equalled by plenty (Hammond / Tendulkar / Headley / Weekes / G Pollock / Hutton / Gavaskar) , as has Warne (Barnes / Marshall / Hadlee / Laker / Lillee), but they got the vote above players of yesteryear because more people have seen them and some selectors based their selections on who looked best not who actually was best. Hobbs got the vote through weight of runs.

 

[Sanz]

Its funny how no-one has really commented on my look at Sunny's scores vs WI's

First of all dont call it 'My Look' because this analysis is not yours, it was done by S. Rajesh(an Indian, which again proves another point ) on cricinfo, http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...NEWS/2003/NOV/558967_COL-STATS_07NOV2003.html

Whatever those stats are they were still very good bowlers and Richards never got to play against them. Let me do a similar analysis on Richards Batting. His best performance against Australia came when Lillee and Thommo were at the end of their careers, He could never dominate them. He wasn't able to dominate Hadlee in anyway anywhere in the world, Same was true about his performance against Pakistan, he didn't really dominate Pakistan when Imran and Qadir were at their peak. I still remember WI getting out for 53 in Pakistan. His only domination came against weak bowling attacks of India & England.

 

[Swervy]

First of all dont call it 'My Look' because this analysis is not yours, it was done by S. Rajesh(an Indian, which again proves another point ) on cricinfo, http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...NEWS/2003/NOV/558967_COL-STATS_07NOV2003.html

Whatever those stats are they were still very good bowlers and Richards never got to play against them. Let me do a similar analysis on Richards Batting. His best performance against Australia came when Lillee and Thommo were at the end of their careers, He could never dominate them. He wasn't able to dominate Hadlee in anyway anywhere in the world, Same was true about his performance against Pakistan, he didn't really dominate Pakistan when Imran and Qadir were at their peak. I still remember WI getting out for 53 in Pakistan. His only domination came against weak bowling attacks of India & England.

well if i had known someone else had done that, i wouldnt have wasted half an hour looking those figues up and writing about them

 

[Neil Pickup]

well if i had known someone else had done that, i wouldnt have wasted half an hour looking those figues up and writing about them

*Points and smirks*

 

[Sanz]

Neil..dont worry i have fallen foul to the wiley ways of Sanz' word twisting as well

Atleast I am not posting someone else's work and claiming to be 'My Look'

 

[a massive zebra]

Atleast I am not posting someone else's work and claiming to be 'My Look'

Or adjusting figures to suit your point

 

[Swervy]

First of all dont call it 'My Look' because this analysis is not yours, it was done by S. Rajesh(an Indian, which again proves another point ) on cricinfo, http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...NEWS/2003/NOV/558967_COL-STATS_07NOV2003.html

Whatever those stats are they were still very good bowlers and Richards never got to play against them. Let me do a similar analysis on Richards Batting. His best performance against Australia came when Lillee and Thommo were at the end of their careers, He could never dominate them. He wasn't able to dominate Hadlee in anyway anywhere in the world, Same was true about his performance against Pakistan, he didn't really dominate Pakistan when Imran and Qadir were at their peak. I still remember WI getting out for 53 in Pakistan. His only domination came against weak bowling attacks of India & England.

Tripe part three by sanz

Richards played very well vs Lillee at his peak (probably 1979/80) what the hell are you on about.You do talk some rubbish!!!!!!!

I dont know many people who could 'dominate' Hadlee, for me the either best or second best fast bowler of the last 25 years.

Yeah I can remeber when Australia got Pakistan out for 60odd in the early 80's...doesnt mean Miandad, or Zaheer abbas were bad batsmaen though.

Sanz, you did notice that bit about what Holding had to say about Gavaskar didnt you..being a fair weather batsman and all that.

 

[Swervy]

Atleast I am not posting someone else's work and claiming to be 'My Look'

as I say I wish I had seen that article earlier....why didnt you tell me about it before, I held off making my tea coz of that bit of research

 

[Swervy]

Or adjusting figures to suit your point

yeah well at least i have a clue about what i am talking about

 

[a massive zebra]

yeah well at least i have a clue about what i am talking about

That was aimed @ tec not you and I know perfectly well what im talking about thank you. Just because someone has a different perspective on things to you doesn't make them stupid.

 

[Swervy]

That was aimed @ tec not you and I know perfectly well what im talking about thank you. Just because someone has a different perspective on things to you doesn't make them stupid.

as I say at least I know what I am talking about...i meant it in a way that wasnt meant to be having a go at you...sorry if thats what it looked like

 

[Sanz]

Tripe part three by sanz

Richards played very well vs Lillee at his peak (probably 1979/80) what the hell are you on about.You do talk some rubbish!!!!!!!

I dont know many people who could 'dominate' Hadlee, for me the either best or second best fast bowler of the last 25 years.

Yeah I can remeber when Australia got Pakistan out for 60odd in the early 80's...doesnt mean Miandad, or Zaheer abbas were bad batsmaen though.

Sanz, you did notice that bit about what Holding had to say about Gavaskar didnt you..being a fair weather batsman and all that.

Well Holding can say whatever he wants, Now that he doesn't have to bowl to the great batsman Gavaskar. He is only 2o years late. .

Playing well and dominating are two different things. I remember someone saying that Only bowler Richards couldn't dominate was Lillee. Well Let me add to the list, Richards wasn't able to dominate Imran, Hadlee, Thommo, Qadir either. He certainly was a great batsmen to play them well, but not good enough to dominate them.

 

[Sanz]

as I say I wish I had seen that article earlier....why didnt you tell me about it before, I held off making my tea coz of that bit of research

Anyone who has read your 'Look' and S Rajesh's analysis will know that your look is actually a rip off from there and I had read this article sometime back and the moment I saw your post I thought of this piece and did 'Google' to find the link.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Anyone who has read your 'Look' and S Rajesh's analysis will know that your look is actually a rip off from there.

They're similar, granted, of course they are - analyses of the same data from the same viewpoint - but you can't prove plagiarism.

The gap of 36 mins between that post and his previous lends weight to his side of the story.

 

[a massive zebra]

as I say at least I know what I am talking about...i meant it in a way that wasnt meant to be having a go at you...sorry if thats what it looked like

No problem.

 

[a massive zebra]

It is really amazing how sparklingly brilliant and popular this thread has turned out to be. Well done Ford!

 

[Swervy]

Anyone who has read your 'Look' and S Rajesh's analysis will know that your look is actually a rip off from there and I had read this article sometime back and the moment I saw your post I thought of this piece and did 'Google' to find the link.

unfortunately, i had never read that article (although when I do remeber to I do read that coulmn,coz its always interesting), so I wouldnt have known about it to rip it off...as I say, i wish I had have done, coz I seemed to be typing it and flicking back to stats guru for ages,and I wished I hadnt started it half way through , coz I was hungry.

Anyway, not that i really care, I already knew that two of the series he played vs WI were vs poor bowling attacks, the one that surprised me was the fairly average attack of the mid 70's that the WI had vs India.

As Neil says, i was using the same data,and trying to prove the same point so it would look similar...but dont try and discredit what i am saying just because you think i am a rip off merchant, the point I was trying to make still remains the same.