• 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.

Cricinfo's Greatest Intl Cricketers this Century

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
We first compiled a longlist of 70-plus cricketers, based on the players' statistics and by assessing the weight of their achievements. This was then narrowed down to 30 names after a rigorous process involving vetting by the site's senior editorial staff. The list of 30 was sent out to the jury, each of whom was asked to pick their top 25, which would yield us the greatest batter, the greatest bowler, and greatest all-round cricketer.
This seems like a very poor way to do things? The whole list is 25 players and the pool of players the jury can pick from is only 30 ? It makes absolutely no sense. The jury can't be limited to this extent... surely there'll be plenty of cases where the jury wanted to vote for players that weren't even part of the shortlist cricinfo created.
 

Thala_0710

Cricketer Of The Year
This seems like a very poor way to do things? The whole list is 25 players and the pool of players the jury can pick from is only 30 players? It makes absolutely no sense. The jury can't be limited to this extent... surely there'll be plenty of cases where the jury wanted to vote for players that weren't even part of the shortlist cricinfo created.
Exactly, like why not just give the whole 70 players list you shortlisted to the panelists? If you're going to produce a top 30 statistically might as well just publish that then... Or if you want it jury based let the jury work out from the initial 70
 

Thala_0710

Cricketer Of The Year
Also they've not specified whether they're counting those guys who debuted before 2000... I'm assuming they are but if Stuart Broad is in 24th place then who knows
 

Thala_0710

Cricketer Of The Year
If you're including pre 2000 debut cricketers too then Tendulkar Mcgrath Murali and probably Kallis have shouts too.... But then again a lot of their work was done in the 90s too, especially for Tendulkar
 

DrWolverine

Cricketer Of The Year
Murali should probably top the list.
ODIs : 357 wickets. 11 5Fer
Tests : 573 wickets. 50 5Fer and 20 10WPM.
 

peterhrt

State Vice-Captain
Also they've not specified whether they're counting those guys who debuted before 2000... I'm assuming they are but if Stuart Broad is in 24th place then who knows
"This came on the heels of an equally elaborate exercise to pick the greatest cricketers in the women's game this century."

"Note: only achievements posted after January 1, 2000 are taken into consideration, even if the athlete's career ran either side of the millennium"
 

Silver Silva

International Captain
If weightage is given to all formats they played, Virat Kohli or Jasprit Bumrah maybe number one.
Kohli would make sense to be no.1

Because he has held no.1 ranking in every format.

He once averaged 50 in every format

He has Captained team India to No.1 ranking , he has won every ICC white ball tournament .
He has the biggest fan appeal .
Ticks all the boxes.
 

Randomfan

International 12th Man
There are not too many players with demonstrated high standards in all formats. That's an expected outcome.

Happily playing 3 runs an over for as long as you want vs forced to score 12 runs an over requires two vastly different skill sets. Very few will have them.
 

DrWolverine

Cricketer Of The Year
ABD was someone who was great in both test cricket, one day cricket but not T20I(extraordinary in IPl though)
 

Top