• 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 Ten Best Cricketers Of All Time

Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Perm said:
Why?
Click to expand...

R.J.Hadlee...let's start with his weaker suit...

Batting:

"As a batter he times the ball better than anyone in the New Zealand team". "If Paddles hadn't been a bowler, he could've been a hell of a batsman, easily good enough to hold his place in the New Zealand team. He batted very well for Nottinghamshire, averaged 38 in county games and playing a number of fine one-day knocks. He can play two games, particularly against the spinners - he has a better defensive technique against the mediums than the slows - but the main thing about his batting is that lovely swing of the bat and the clean strikes, especially down the ground. He's a superb striker of a cricket ball. All of us clip it well now and then but he smacks it very crisply most of the time. He's great to watch because you never know what'll happen next. Because he really goes for it, he gives it a good nudge or misses it; he's seldom out playing a half and half sort of shot. Sometimes watching him you're thinking "Oh Paddles, why did you flash at that one?" His 99 against England in 1984 was a great innings to watch - it also won the game for us".

Bowling:

* A natural, born to play cricket. Comes from great cricketing pedigree.
* Throughout his career responded to dramatic situations to win historic games and series for NZ on his own, e.g India '76, England '78, Australia '85/86 to name just a few.
* He timed the shortening of his run to perfection to maximise his effectiveness and career length despite opposition.
* He could bowl off-cutters, leg-cutters, in-swingers, out-swingers, yorkers and a viscious short ball as quick as anyone.
* His captains would throw him the ball and he would simply get wickets.
* He got wickets at the start of the innings, got vital breakthroughs and cleaned up the tail.
* Was solely responsible for NZ going from strugglers to world-beaters.
* He played the least number of tests of all the guys who have taken over 400 test wickets.
* Has the most 10 wicket bags and most 5 wicket bags in history for anyone with a ligitimate bowling action.
* Has the 5th best ever ODI economy rate.
* Underrated by overseas people because he comes from an unfashionable cricketing nation
* Has big feet (and you know what they say about big feet)


This pretty much proves it anyway
 
Last edited:
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes, that's quite a good summary of Richard Hadlee. I don't see how stats prove it either, Miller has a higher batting average by almost 10 runs as well as the same bowling average.
 
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Perm said:
Yes, that's quite a good summary of Richard Hadlee. I don't see how stats prove it either, Miller has a higher batting average by almost 10 runs as well as the same bowling average.
Click to expand...
Number of wickets divided by 3
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
Nice thread Francis. I might post some longer thoughts later on, but you've done a fair job at an unenviable task - hats off!
 
F

Francis

State Vice-Captain
I think there's certainly a case for Hadlee > Miller.

WG Grace is very hard to place. Firstly, he's best known for making over 50,000 first class runs and making cricket a game for the people. He definitely doesn't belong at number two if you ask me. Why?

1. Sir Garfield Sobers really was that great. If not for Bradman, I think Sobers would be most people's pick for best cricketer ever. Sobers is pretty much the equivelant of the greatest players in a lot of sports... it's just that he's overshadowed by someone who dominated his sport (Bradman), more than Pele or Maradonna dominated footy. Many who saw Sobers put him head and shoulders above the rest. And the rest aint half bad.

2. Sir Jack Hobbs, at least in discussions I've partaken in, is genrally regarded as England's best ever cricketer. Considering he had amazing dometic success (like close to 200 domestic centuries), and enjoyed much better Test success than Grace, he gets put easily above Grace. Hobbs was genrally regarded the best cricketer ever before Bradman, and rightfully so because it did a lot of his work in horrendous conditions.

3. I suppose based on what I said about Hobbs, he could be as high as three. Because he's clearly ahead of Grace. I personally think Viv Richards imposed himself on attacks more potently than Grace. My biggest reasoning for having Richards ahead of Grace is i. He played in a tougher era. ii. Was the heart of the best cricket side ever. Based on some other criteria, I suppose Grace could be put ahead of Viv, but he's not close for me.

4. Robin Marlar called Warne the modern day WG Grace and I think Warne's legendary status will be best savoured over time. I wont be suprised if 100 years from now, people will still know what the Gatting Ball is. What other cricketer in history can make such a claim? Grace's legacy is his greatest attribute, but I think Warne's will age as good as anybody's.

5. I have no hesitation putting Imran ahead of Grace. Imran meant more to Pakistan than just being a great player. I remember seeing a special on him on TV, where Waquar Younis talks about how he once got slaughtered by a batting attack and yet Imran asked selecters to pick him because he saw potential... Younis wasn't a great player at all at the time, Imran just saw something. Imran doesn't have the legacy of saying he popularised the game like Grace, but he's a collosus of Pakistani cricket and I think will always be remembered as a godfather of sorts. Heavy lies the crown of any Pakistani captain because the Pakistani people expect an Imran. Needless to say he was more accomplished than Grace. Imran gets the easy nod here.

I could keep going but I think I'll stop. Grace could maybe have have commanded a spot at 9 or 10... his legacy in cricket will never be extinguished. But there's certainly been plenty of better cricketers, as I think as time goes by, even a century from now, players like Imran might be talked about in the same light as far as being a legend of his time.
 
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Perm said:
That post does not make sense.
Click to expand...
It should Perm, you're a smart cookie. Divide Hadlee's no. of test wickets by 3 (or a bit less) and you get Miller's.

OK, I should have said closer to 2.5 but I like to exaggerate to make a point :)
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fiery said:
It should Perm, you're a smart cookie. Divide Hadlee's no. of test wickets by 3 (or a bit less) and you get Miller's.

OK, I should have said closer to 2.5 but I like to exaggerate to make a point :)
Click to expand...
Seeing as how my previous post was talking about averages, it did not make sense. Until you edited it that is. Anyway, I can easily counter your point with the fact that Miller has only 200 odd less runs than Hadlee, despite playing 30 less matches.
 
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Perm said:
Seeing as how my previous post was talking about averages, it did not make sense. Until you edited it that is. Anyway, I can easily counter your point with the fact that Miller has only 200 odd less runs than Hadlee, despite playing 30 less matches.
Click to expand...
Hadlee's bowling far outweighs that. What is it about you and Australia and Australian players buddy...sheesh. I never met a more wanna-be-Aussie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top