ESPN's Legends of Cricket

[honestbharani]

Yes it did, for a brief period of time when Tendulkar had peaked and Lara was in meltdown mode. Lara at one stage (close to when the list was made) had a test average which had fallen below 50. Compare this to when Sachin was pushing 58-59.

At the time the list was made (that is a crucial point really) its not that inconceivable to think Lara was that far behind Sachin, seeing as all the signs pointed to Sachin getting better and better (sort of how people see Ponting now) whereas people doubted Lara could come back to where he had fallen from.

Well, I do agree with you to an extent, but I am not 100% sure that facts like Sachin is an Indian and that he has a contract with ESPN-Star didn't weigh in on that rating.


Plus Lara's REAL lean patch was around 97-98 and as you said, it did coincide with Sachin's golden run, but anyone who had watched the 99 series Vs Australia would have known that Lara and Sachin weren't that much away from each other. And I am sure the ratings were done after 1999. I could be wrong. Would love some correction on this.


But most of all, it only shows the folly of rating people who are still playing. Pratyush was always saying that we shouldn't compare and rank players who are still playing, esp. the blue chip ones. I think this list is a perfect example why.

 

[Umar12345]

I brought it up because the list isn't outdated. The only people who's ranking would change are Sachin (maybe), Lara, McGrath and Murali would be in there. Other than that it's a list which illustrates how the games greats rank their peers.

-Firstly, the massive gap between Sachin and Lara is easy to explain. Lara had an average over 60 at one point, this dipped below 50 in the 90s. Lara was often criticised for not being motivated and that hurt him. However, reportedly, if Lara had one of two votes go his way, he'd be top 25.

-Sachin, however, was untouchable in the 80s. Just brilliant... and really I have no criticisms of him from the 90s. He got centuries faster than Gavaskar... and remember he's slowed down these last few years and still beat it faster than Gavaskar. Martin Crowe ranks him the best batsman after Bradman... debateable but he's a contender. Really, for me, Sachin was the cricketer of the 90s.

So yes it does make sense if you ask me. I personally don't see any bias in the picking... mainly because you have guys from different eras from different countires with difference opinions.

I love Lara, at his best, he's my favorite batsman to watch and he's the second best batsman for making insanely huge scores in cricket history (Bradman). But to say there should only be five rankings between them I don't agree with. It's not that they're not close... it's just that there are so many close rankings that could go either way.

For batsman better than Lara, I'd go with Bradman, V. Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Pollock, Gavaskar. For all-rounders better than Lara there's Sobers (of course), Imran Khan is a mile ahead of Lara if you look at Imran at his peak. Botham, Hadlee and Miller were better for me as all-rounders than Lara is with the ball. For bowlers I'd have Warne, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and Murali as better...

Of course with time I'd have him over guys like Chappell... but the point is that it's close... very close. And for me, to say only five positions sepparate them when there've been so many great cricketers... well I don't agree with it. That point of the list is that guys are so close that it incites dicussion... that's why I posted it.

In the list, there are some classic players, but where is Waqar younis?
Waqar has the lowest strike rate for bowlers with more than 200 wickets. He is the third leading wicket taker in ODI history. He was a master of reverse swing. And yet the list shows that players like McGrath are in but Waqar isnt.
Also where is Jacque Kallis? And why is Allan Donald ranked in the 40s?
Where is Inzamam and Greenidge in the list?

 

[Francis]

Yeash it's been a while since I made this thread...

In the list, there are some classic players, but where is Waqar younis?
Waqar has the lowest strike rate for bowlers with more than 200 wickets. He is the third leading wicket taker in ODI history. He was a master of reverse swing. And yet the list shows that players like McGrath are in but Waqar isnt.

Personally I think he should have been in the list, but it's a matter of opinion. The selectors might have omitted him because:

1. His injuries prevented him from being one of the best bowlers of the 90s (I think Ambrose, Wasim and Donald were well better than him in the 90s)
2. Didn't shoulder as big a bowling load as others... if I recall he averages four wickets a match, while players like Wasim got more wickets per match. He might have a worse strike-rate, but he did more bowling too.
3. He could be expensive on days where things weren't going right for him.

But like I said, I think he should have been in there, but the judges didn't. Apparently Brian Lara could have made the top 25 had one or two votes gone his way. Reportedly it was very close. I have no reason not to believe Waquar wasn't on the fringe of getting in.

Also where is Jacque Kallis?

ESPN Legend's of Cricket was a series created in 2001, Kallis was a very good player back then but wasn't the established excellent player he is now. Personally if I were to make a top 50 best cricketers ever, even today, I don't think Kallis would sneak in to it.

And why is Allan Donald ranked in the 40s?

I don't know weather you're saying he should be higher on the list, or not on the list at all. Donald deserves to be on the list easily. He's South Africa's best bowler ever. He also has the highest percentage of top order batsmen dismissed in cricket history. Not forgetting he was a very complete fast bowler who shouldered a heavy load in the bowling. He had pace, swing, seam, a great bouncer etc. Donald was one of my childhood favourites...

Where is Inzamam and Greenidge in the list?

Inzamam has the same problem Kallis does. Inzi's always been a fine cricketer, but it was his 2000 year that saw him emerge as world class. If the list were done today, he might make it. I'm sure Greenidge was a strong contender and only just missed out. That being said, he'd be tough to be ranked one of the West Indies ten best players ever, let alone one of the 50 best players ever. For West Indian batsmen alone you have Sobers, Richards, Lara, Headley, the three W's... not forgetting their bowlers from their famous 80s quartet (Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner), and Walsh and Ambrose. You can argue Greenidge might be better than a few in that list, personally I don't think he is.

 

[Francis]

If you type 'Brian Lara' into wikipedia you get a nice graph showing you Lara's high and low points of his career. From 1996 to just before that 1999 series against Australia, Lara averaged around 30. I vividly remember the harsh cricisms aimed at Lara in those days. People thought he was lazy and unmotivated, and blunted his extravegant gifts by not caring. It was perhaps unfair criticism, but ANY batsman who averages 30 for a couple of years is in a severe poor spell.

Sachin had no dip in form in the 90s, he only got better and better. I still thought he was the best batsman in the world in 2001.

I think if the list were done today, both men would be extremely close to one another. But it was done in 2001/02.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brian_Lara_Graph.png

 

[Burgey]

In the list, there are some classic players, but where is Waqar younis?
Waqar has the lowest strike rate for bowlers with more than 200 wickets. He is the third leading wicket taker in ODI history. He was a master of reverse swing. And yet the list shows that players like McGrath are in but Waqar isnt.
Also where is Jacque Kallis? And why is Allan Donald ranked in the 40s?
Where is Inzamam and Greenidge in the list?

One reason may be because he did nothing against the best side in the world at the time he played. His record in Australia is abject, frankly for a player with his rep. And I can understand why some people don't rate him that highly if they haven't seen him play elsewhere.

Ditto Inzy, who's probably the most unintentionally entetaining cricketer I've ever seen in over 30 years of watching the game.

 

[Jono]

If you type 'Brian Lara' into wikipedia you get a nice graph showing you Lara's high and low points of his career. From 1996 to just before that 1999 series against Australia, Lara averaged around 30. I vividly remember the harsh cricisms aimed at Lara in those days. People thought he was lazy and unmotivated, and blunted his extravegant gifts by not caring. It was perhaps unfair criticism, but ANY batsman who averages 30 for a couple of years is in a severe poor spell.

Sachin had no dip in form in the 90s, he only got better and better. I still thought he was the best batsman in the world in 2001.

I think if the list were done today, both men would be extremely close to one another. But it was done in 2001/02.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brian_Lara_Graph.png

Yeah exactly, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make months ago (lol @ the bumping of this thread, fairly random).

The list was made late 2000/early 2001. A long time ago now, over 6 years of cricket have passed since then. You have to put the selections in context at the time, and IMO Sachin had clearly, at that time, had a better career than Lara.

 

[pasag]

I was looking for the box set of this but everywhere I've looked it's been like around 130 bucks.

 

[Jono]

That's like looking at the sun from all over Melbourne Gelman and saying everywhere you look at it, its yellow.

That's the price of it unfortunately, even years after it was made.


Oh and don't reply saying "the sun's not yellow, its chicken"

 

[pasag]

 

[Perm]

Some really good thoughts in this thread, particularly on the last page here. I've seen a few of these episodes but would really like to see some more of them.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah exactly, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make months ago (lol @ the bumping of this thread, fairly random).

The list was made late 2000/early 2001. A long time ago now, over 6 years of cricket have passed since then. You have to put the selections in context at the time, and IMO Sachin had clearly, at that time, had a better career than Lara.

forget abt Lara, I agree that perhaps there was a big gap between them at that time. On what basis would u rank a guy who was not even 30 as #7 in the world all time when you know that he still has a lot of cricket left to go in his career? I mean, I wonder where Ricky Ponting and Matt Hayden will rank if we do this today.......


I still refuse to believe that these guys were unbiased. I am sorry, but u listen to some of the commentary stuff on ESPN-Star from these judges themselves and it is obvious that it is biased. Also the fact that this was done, essentially, to cater to an Indian audience. And by Indian audience of the 90s, I mean the "we only care where one ranks Sachin, don't give a damn about others" crowd. I am sure there are thousands of real cricket fans like the ones here at CW but this crowd was in millions. I have a few of them in my friends cycle even today.

 

[Jono]

forget abt Lara, I agree that perhaps there was a big gap between them at that time. On what basis would u rank a guy who was not even 30 as #7 in the world all time when you know that he still has a lot of cricket left to go in his career? I mean, I wonder where Ricky Ponting and Matt Hayden will rank if we do this today.......


I still refuse to believe that these guys were unbiased. I am sorry, but u listen to some of the commentary stuff on ESPN-Star from these judges themselves and it is obvious that it is biased. Also the fact that this was done, essentially, to cater to an Indian audience. And by Indian audience of the 90s, I mean the "we only care where one ranks Sachin, don't give a damn about others" crowd. I am sure there are thousands of real cricket fans like the ones here at CW but this crowd was in millions. I have a few of them in my friends cycle even today.

I can't argue that point, I don't think I ever argued that Sachin deserved to be that high or that someone else didn't. I have no doubt that, based on the times of their careers, Warne and Tendulkar were probably ranked too highly (4 and 7 respectively IIRC). ESPN just put the 5 cricketer's of the century as the top 5 on the list, as it was convenient for them, and then went from there.

All I'm saying is that at that time, Lara's career looked to be in the dumps, and it'd be a brave panel to put him in the top 25 cricketer's ever at that stage of his career.

 

[Umar12345]

Waqar did well against all countries. If you go on youtube.com and type in 'Waqar Younis - The need for speed' you can see what a great bowler he was. Look at the swing he could create and look at the way Lara plays him.

Here is a list of who i think are the greatest fast bowlers in history;

Akram
Waqar/ Lilee/ Allan Donald
Haedlee/ McGrath
Marshall/ Garner/ Fred Trueman

I would rank Waqar above McGrath because he had to share his wickets with Akram, Imran, Shoaib. But still he has the lowest strike rate in test cricket over a long career and averages 2.14 wickets per innings in test and 1.58 wickets in a match in ODI.
Who knows how many more wickets had he taken if Pakistan had a good fielding side.
Players like McGrath average 2.27 wickets per innings in test and 1.524 wickets in a ODI match. But Austarlia have a magnificent fielding side, they take stunning cathes and limit 2s to 1s whereas Pakistani fielders make 1s turn to 2 runs and they drop the most easiest of cathes. That is 1 reason why McGrath has a lower average then Waqar.
McGrath was not a master of reverse swing like Waqar and many desicions went against Waqar.

Here are the best batsman in cricket history;

Bradman
Sobers
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
George Haedly
Viv. Richards
Ricky Ponting
Len Hutton
Wally Hammonds
Mohammed Yousaf (although i think he will get better and better in the future)

 

[Xuhaib]

Waqar did well against all countries. If you go on youtube.com and type in 'Waqar Younis - The need for speed' you can see what a great bowler he was. Look at the swing he could create and look at the way Lara plays him.

Here is a list of who i think are the greatest fast bowlers in history;

Akram
Waqar/ Lilee/ Allan Donald
Haedlee/ McGrath
Marshall/ Garner/ Fred Trueman

I would rank Waqar above McGrath because he had to share his wickets with Akram, Imran, Shoaib. But still he has the lowest strike rate in test cricket over a long career and averages 2.14 wickets per innings in test and 1.58 wickets in a match in ODI.
Who knows how many more wickets had he taken if Pakistan had a good fielding side.
Players like McGrath average 2.27 wickets per innings in test and 1.524 wickets in a ODI match. But Austarlia have a magnificent fielding side, they take stunning cathes and limit 2s to 1s whereas Pakistani fielders make 1s turn to 2 runs and they drop the most easiest of cathes. That is 1 reason why McGrath has a lower average then Waqar.
McGrath was not a master of reverse swing like Waqar and many desicions went against Waqar.

Here are the best batsman in cricket history;

Bradman
Sobers
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
George Haedly
Viv. Richards
Ricky Ponting
Len Hutton
Wally Hammonds
Mohammed Yousaf (although i think he will get better and better in the future)

Good joke bro.

 

[Xuhaib]

Yeah exactly, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make months ago (lol @ the bumping of this thread, fairly random).

The list was made late 2000/early 2001. A long time ago now, over 6 years of cricket have passed since then. You have to put the selections in context at the time, and IMO Sachin had clearly, at that time, had a better career than Lara.

I remember watching the episode on BLC and the narrator in the end mentions that Lara is an absolute genious on his day but he often seems disintrested and demotivated but if he improves this aspect of his game there is no doubt he can be ranked higher by the time he retires.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Waqar did well against all countries. If you go on youtube.com and type in 'Waqar Younis - The need for speed' you can see what a great bowler he was. Look at the swing he could create and look at the way Lara plays him.

Here is a list of who i think are the greatest fast bowlers in history;

Akram
Waqar/ Lilee/ Allan Donald
Haedlee/ McGrath
Marshall/ Garner/ Fred Trueman

I would rank Waqar above McGrath because he had to share his wickets with Akram, Imran, Shoaib. But still he has the lowest strike rate in test cricket over a long career and averages 2.14 wickets per innings in test and 1.58 wickets in a match in ODI.
Who knows how many more wickets had he taken if Pakistan had a good fielding side.
Players like McGrath average 2.27 wickets per innings in test and 1.524 wickets in a ODI match. But Austarlia have a magnificent fielding side, they take stunning cathes and limit 2s to 1s whereas Pakistani fielders make 1s turn to 2 runs and they drop the most easiest of cathes. That is 1 reason why McGrath has a lower average then Waqar.
McGrath was not a master of reverse swing like Waqar and many desicions went against Waqar.

Here are the best batsman in cricket history;

Bradman
Sobers
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
George Haedly
Viv. Richards
Ricky Ponting
Len Hutton
Wally Hammonds
Mohammed Yousaf (although i think he will get better and better in the future)

Don't let your heritage blind you to the truth.

 

[gunner]

Waqar did well against all countries. If you go on youtube.com and type in 'Waqar Younis - The need for speed' you can see what a great bowler he was. Look at the swing he could create and look at the way Lara plays him.

Here is a list of who i think are the greatest fast bowlers in history;

Akram
Waqar/ Lilee/ Allan Donald
Haedlee/ McGrath
Marshall/ Garner/ Fred Trueman

I would rank Waqar above McGrath because he had to share his wickets with Akram, Imran, Shoaib. But still he has the lowest strike rate in test cricket over a long career and averages 2.14 wickets per innings in test and 1.58 wickets in a match in ODI.
Who knows how many more wickets had he taken if Pakistan had a good fielding side.
Players like McGrath average 2.27 wickets per innings in test and 1.524 wickets in a ODI match. But Austarlia have a magnificent fielding side, they take stunning cathes and limit 2s to 1s whereas Pakistani fielders make 1s turn to 2 runs and they drop the most easiest of cathes. That is 1 reason why McGrath has a lower average then Waqar.
McGrath was not a master of reverse swing like Waqar and many desicions went against Waqar.

Here are the best batsman in cricket history;

Bradman
Sobers
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
George Haedly
Viv. Richards
Ricky Ponting
Len Hutton
Wally Hammonds
Mohammed Yousaf (although i think he will get better and better in the future)

now thats what you call a response to shoddy umpiring
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hOnZTWNoGKo

 

[JASON]

Isn't it about 10 years since ESPN did this ? Are they planning to update this anywhere in the near future ?

I am surprised that BBC which has greater footage and access to archives of cricket (video/cinema footages) and greater access to Cricketing Experts has not done its own Series on this Subject...

Given they have a greater Cricket following viewer audience , they would have greater interest if they indeed did a series on this subject , IMO.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Isn't it about 10 years since ESPN did this ? Are they planning to update this anywhere in the near future ?

I am surprised that BBC which has greater footage and access to archives of cricket (video/cinema footages) and greater access to Cricketing Experts has not done its own Series on this Subject...

Given they have a greater Cricket following viewer audience , they would have greater interest if they indeed did a series on this subject , IMO.

BBC? Cricket? You're nuts.

 

[JASON]

BBC? Cricket? You're nuts.

Sorry, I had forgotten that TMS is long gone ...and Cricket has moved to Sky and C4 in the UK ....