Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Deja moo]

Well you must be on a different planet then

Ever since he bowled that famous first ball to Mike Gatting in 1993, England have been mentally scared ever since by Warne

So england are scared.

How did that revive spin in England ?

 

[PY]

How many kids of my generation and younger saw Qadir in action?

Most of them won't even have heard of him, while everyone knows who Warne is.

Well, what he is. A over-weight genius with a mouth bigger than his girth.

And he's alright at bowling too.

 

[Deja moo]

How many kids of my generation and younger saw Qadir in action?

Most of them won't even have heard of him, while everyone knows who Warne is.

I agree with you in that not many have seen Qadir in action.

That still doesnt explain the lack of spinners in England ( you excluded of course ! )

 

[PY]

Neil isn't a spinner. He's the local waiter for Caistor Cricket Club.

He loves serving pies.

 

[Deja moo]

Neil isn't a spinner. He's the local waiter for Caistor Cricket Club.

He loves serving pies.

 

[Neil Pickup]

So england are scared.

How did that revive spin in England ?

Just generally captured the imagination of younger kids and motivated them to bowl leg spin.

Leg spin is more popular amongst kids now than it's been in ages - give it 10 years and we'll have a decent crop of spinners.

 

[tooextracool]

I think that LAra most certainly deserved to be there. His 375 in 1994 as well as his 213 and 153* v Australia in 1999 were 3 of the best innings ever witnessed. Add the first class record of 501* within 6 weeks of the 375 and one really has to wonder. I would put him there in place of IVA Richards.

he had an awful period between the period 96-00 which might not be reflected in the averages but was evident for those who watched him play. viv richards played some amazing knocks against many better attacks.

I think Warne is there mainly because of balance, not filling the top 5 places with batsmen.

dont be so naive....shane warne was amongst the top 2 spinners in that century...is lara amongst the top 2 batsmen in that century?i think not.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

So england are scared.

How did that revive spin in England ?

Just like Neil said, it got kids interested again in bowling leg spin.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

he had an awful period between the period 96-00 which might not be reflected in the averages

Well I looked up Lara's record between 1996-2000 and its quite interesting.

Lara's Test Batting Record (1996-2000)
43 Matches, 3022 runs@ 40.29

Lara's ODI Batting Record (1996-2000)
81 Matches, 2823 runs@ 40.32

Now his ODI average is not bad in this period, but his Test average isn't too flashy (by his standards).

If Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Century were solely picked on performances, Lara wouldn't make that list.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

i see a lot of people here saying that Lara should have made that list. However, I am pretty sure half of you people wouldn't have wanted that if Lara had not got that 400* TWENTY days ago. Comparing Lara and Tendulkar over their whole careers, I think Sachin wins hands down. Lara was never consistent till two years ago. Tendulkar was unchallenged for the numero uno position for most of his career. Now he is going through a bad patch and thats all.

Swervy, you compared Richards and Tendulkar and since Richards seemed "complete" to you as a batter, he should make the list. Well Sunil Gavaskar faced all the good bowlers you mentioned from that era PLUS he also faced the WI bowlers and did the best against them. Still, he has a better career record. So shouldn't he make the list?

Tendulkar is no doubt better than Gavaskar and therefore he should be better than Richards.

 

[Sehwag309]

Regarding the " ball of the century "....Abdul Qadir had already bowled the delivery that pitched outside leg and clipped off stump. Only it didnt recieve much attention . But when Warne bowls it in an Ashes match, it becomes an inspiration.

Now even tendulkar has bowled it

 

[tooextracool]

Tendulkar is no doubt better than Gavaskar and therefore he should be better than Richards.

why is tendulkar better than gavaskar let alone richards?did tendulkar score runs against marshall,holding,garner and croft?has tendulkar managed to win games for his country?has tendulkar managed to play well on pitches that arent flat?
as far as the richards vs gavaskar goes, its debatable although richards had the influence of demoralizing the opposition. it was something else when viv richards hammered someone bowling at 90mph over the sightscreen and completely shattered his confidence as compared to gavaskar plodding away to get his runs. ask any fast bowler in that era who they would not want to bowl to and they would have said viv richards.....thats how much he intimidated fast bowlers.

 

[a massive zebra]

i see a lot of people here saying that Lara should have made that list. However, I am pretty sure half of you people wouldn't have wanted that if Lara had not got that 400* TWENTY days ago. Comparing Lara and Tendulkar over their whole careers, I think Sachin wins hands down. Lara was never consistent till two years ago. Tendulkar was unchallenged for the numero uno position for most of his career. Now he is going through a bad patch and thats all.

Swervy, you compared Richards and Tendulkar and since Richards seemed "complete" to you as a batter, he should make the list. Well Sunil Gavaskar faced all the good bowlers you mentioned from that era PLUS he also faced the WI bowlers and did the best against them. Still, he has a better career record. So shouldn't he make the list?

Tendulkar is no doubt better than Gavaskar and therefore he should be better than Richards.

I would say that Tendulkar has been more consistent than Richards but Richards at his best was better than Tendulkar at his best. Both world-class players but neither would even come close to being selected as one of my 5 cricketers of the 20th century.

 

[Swervy]

Swervy, you compared Richards and Tendulkar and since Richards seemed "complete" to you as a batter, he should make the list. Well Sunil Gavaskar faced all the good bowlers you mentioned from that era PLUS he also faced the WI bowlers and did the best against them. Still, he has a better career record. So shouldn't he make the list?

Tendulkar is no doubt better than Gavaskar and therefore he should be better than Richards.

dont get too wrapped up in stats and averages.

No in my opinion,Richards was a better batsman than Gavaskar,and so in my opinion shouldnt be ranked higher than Richards.

The effect that Richards had on cricket, in WI and around the world was amazing...dont think gavaskar had the same effect.

I will guarantee you that more people around the world would have heard of Richards twenty years ago than have heard of Tendulkar now...that was to do with not only how many runs he scored, but also how he scored them and his overall presence. I think this Wisden 5 cricketers of the century list isnt just based on averages etc..its on the effect the players had on the game....

and that is a reason why Warne was in there...the effect that warne has had on cricket is phenominal (sp?)..ok Qadir may have bowled a ball that turned from outside leg to clip off stump, but how many people saw it...how many people were effected by it...not many i would take a guess at....oh and Qadir wasnt as good a bowler as warne was/is.Warne is a game winner,Qadir could win games but more often than not pakistan were involved in drawn games in the 80's

 

[Swervy]

I would say that Tendulkar has been more consistent than Richards but Richards at his best was better than Tendulkar at his best. Both world-class players but neither would even come close to being selected as one of my 5 cricketers of the 20th century.

so what is your top 5 (i apologise if you have already posted it)

 

[marc71178]

Tendulkar was unchallenged for the numero uno position for most of his career.

I don't agree here - Lara and Tendulkar have been inseperable in my eyes for a long long time now.

 

[a massive zebra]

so what is your top 5 (i apologise if you have already posted it)

Here are my 5 cricketers of the century: Bradman, Sobers, Hammond, Barnes, Imran. Bradman and Sobers pick themselves. Hammond was as good a batsman as Hobbs (who made the list) and also possibly the best slip fielder ever while not forgetting his useful bowling. Barnes was unplayable during the last few years of his career and became the most consistently devastating test bowler ever. Imran is the best allrounder since Sobers, being one of the all time great bowlers in whose company he is clearly the best batsman.

Unlike most selections my 5 represent every decade of the century so do not display any bias towards any era. Barnes (00s and 10s), Bradman and Hammond (20s, 30s and 40s), Sobers (50s, 60s and 70s) and Imran (70s, 80s and 90s).

 

[Sanz]

How many kids of my generation and younger saw Qadir in action?

Most of them won't even have heard of him, while everyone knows who Warne is.

So just because Warnie bowled one great ball and our generation was fortunate enough to witness it, he should be guaranteed a place in Top 5 cricketers of the Century ?? Or the reason that he has inspired a bunch of kids in England to take up spin bowling is enough for him ro be considered as top 5 cricketers of Century ?

In that case, one should also know that no. of Kids inspired by Tendulkar is much more than those inspired by Warnie.

As for your logic about not many of us have watched Qadir bowl...Well How many of us have actually watched Bradman, Sobers, Hammond, Hobbs play ??

 

[Tom Halsey]

Regarding the " ball of the century "....Abdul Qadir had already bowled the delivery that pitched outside leg and clipped off stump. Only it didnt recieve much attention . But when Warne bowls it in an Ashes match, it becomes an inspiration.

So, lets have a look at things. Qadir averaged 32odd, despite bowling largely in Pakistan, and apart from odd spells was largely average. Of course, occasionally he was a match winner, but nowhere near Warne’s match winning skills. Another point: spin will never die out in Asia, but in countries where it most certainly will, i.e. England, etc. he inspired tons of kids to pick up a ball and flip leggies to each other in the outfield. Me for one.

 

[Sanz]

Qadir may have bowled a ball that turned from outside leg to clip off stump, but how many people saw it...how many people were effected by it...not many i would take a guess at....oh and Qadir wasnt as good a bowler as warne was/is.Warne is a game winner,Qadir could win games but more often than not pakistan were involved in drawn games in the 80's

Well I agree that Warnie is a much better bowler than Qadir and a better match winner, but There have been many players who have been better match winners than Warnie. So just because Warnie is the only decent Leg spinner in last 15 years shouldn't guarntee him a place in the history books.

Your logic of Qadir playing in drawn Games doesn't make any sense because in 70s-80s most of the tests used to end of as draw.