Top 25 cricketers of Shane Warne's Career - as decided by CW

[SJS]

Just for information here is John Woodcocks list of 100 Greatest Cricketers from his book of a similar name.

For the uninitiated Woodcock is one of the leading and highly regarded writers of the game.

1. W.G. Grace
2. D.G. Bradman
3. G. S. Sobers
4. A. Mynn
5. J. B. Hobbs
6. S.F. Barnes
7. W. Hammond
8. I. V. A. Richards
9. I.T. Botham
10. D. Compton
11. L. Hutton
12. F. Woolley
13. S. Warne
14. V. Trumper
15. B.A. Richards
16. Imran Khan
17. K. Miller
18. R. Benaud
19. D.K. Lillee
20. A. Bedser
21. G.A. Headley
22. R.R. Lindwall
23. S.M. Gavaskar
24. E.R. Dexter
25. S.R. Tendulkar
26. W.J. O’Reilly
27. E. de C Weekes
28. B.C. Lara
29. R.J. Hadlee
30. R.G. Pollock
31. A. Shrewsbury
32. F.R. Spofforth
33. P.B.H. May
34. W. Rhodes
35. K.S. Ranjitsinhji
36. F.W. Worrell
37. A.R. Border
38. C.L. Walcott
39. W. Beldham
40. G. Lohmann
41. G.H. Hirst
42. H. Sutcliffe
43. M.J. Proctor
44. G.S Chappell
45. F.S. Trueman
46. H.J. Tayfield
47. T. Richrdson
48. M.C. Cowdrey
49. Kapil Dev
50. B.S. Bedi
51. R.H. Harvey
52. R.B. Kanhai
53. G.A. Gooch
54. C.B. Fry
55. A.P.E. Knott
56. A.K. Davidson
57. K.F. Barrington
58. Javed Miandad
59. I Chappell
60. Wasim Akram
61. J. Small
62. G. Boycott
63. A.G. Steele
64. T.G. Evans
65. M.A. Holding
66. L. Constantine
67. C.H. Lloyd
68. C.V. Grimmett
69. M.D. Marshall
70. J.C. Laker
71. Waqar Younis
72. D. Gower
73. C.T.B. Turner
74. A.C. McLaren
75. G.L. Jessop
76. A. Shaw
77. J.B. Statham
78. V.A.P.Van Der Bijl
79. C.G.McCartney
80. R.B. Simpson
81. C.E.L. Ambrose
82. Fazal Mahmood
83. W.H. Ponsford
84. Hanif Mohammad
85. F.S. Jackson
86. R.G.D. Willis
87. W.W. Armstrong
88. D.L. Underwood
89. S.T. Ramadhin
90. L. Gibbs
91. W.W. Hall
92. M. H. Mankad
93. H. Larwood
94. J.M. Gregory
95. S.R. Waugh
96. H.W.Taylor
97. A.A. Donald
98. S.J. McCabe
99. P.A. De Silva
100. J.R.Reid

 

[adharcric]

1. McGrath
2. Muralitharan
3. Tendulkar
4. Ambrose
5. Lara
6. Warne
7. Akram
8. Ponting
9. Donald
10. Waugh
11. Kallis
12. Younis
13. Dravid
14. Gilchrist
15. Pollock

 

[adharcric]

Just for information here is John Woodcocks list of 100 Greatest Cricketers from his book of a similar name.

For the uninitiated Woodcock is one of the leading and highly regarded writers of the game.

1. W.G. Grace
2. D.G. Bradman
3. G. S. Sobers
4. A. Mynn
5. J. B. Hobbs
6. S.F. Barnes
7. W. Hammond
8. I. V. A. Richards
9. I.T. Botham
10. D. Compton
11. L. Hutton
12. F. Woolley
13. S. Warne
14. V. Trumper
15. B.A. Richards
16. Imran Khan
17. K. Miller
18. R. Benaud
19. D.K. Lillee
20. A. Bedser
21. G.A. Headley
22. R.R. Lindwall
23. S.M. Gavaskar
24. E.R. Dexter
25. S.R. Tendulkar
26. W.J. O’Reilly
27. E. de C Weekes
28. B.C. Lara
29. R.J. Hadlee
30. R.G. Pollock
31. A. Shrewsbury
32. F.R. Spofforth
33. P.B.H. May
34. W. Rhodes
35. K.S. Ranjitsinhji
36. F.W. Worrell
37. A.R. Border
38. C.L. Walcott
39. W. Beldham
40. G. Lohmann
41. G.H. Hirst
42. H. Sutcliffe
43. M.J. Proctor
44. G.S Chappell
45. F.S. Trueman
46. H.J. Tayfield
47. T. Richrdson
48. M.C. Cowdrey
49. Kapil Dev
50. B.S. Bedi
51. R.H. Harvey
52. R.B. Kanhai
53. G.A. Gooch
54. C.B. Fry
55. A.P.E. Knott
56. A.K. Davidson
57. K.F. Barrington
58. Javed Miandad
59. I Chappell
60. Wasim Akram
61. J. Small
62. G. Boycott
63. A.G. Steele
64. T.G. Evans
65. M.A. Holding
66. L. Constantine
67. C.H. Lloyd
68. C.V. Grimmett
69. M.D. Marshall
70. J.C. Laker
71. Waqar Younis
72. D. Gower
73. C.T.B. Turner
74. A.C. McLaren
75. G.L. Jessop
76. A. Shaw
77. J.B. Statham
78. V.A.P.Van Der Bijl
79. C.G.McCartney
80. R.B. Simpson
81. C.E.L. Ambrose
82. Fazal Mahmood
83. W.H. Ponsford
84. Hanif Mohammad
85. F.S. Jackson
86. R.G.D. Willis
87. W.W. Armstrong
88. D.L. Underwood
89. S.T. Ramadhin
90. L. Gibbs
91. W.W. Hall
92. M. H. Mankad
93. H. Larwood
94. J.M. Gregory
95. S.R. Waugh
96. H.W.Taylor
97. A.A. Donald
98. S.J. McCabe
99. P.A. De Silva
100. J.R.Reid

No offense. That list is an absolute joke.

 

[Johnners]

Is that your:

a) Joke list
b) "Personal favourites" list
c) Actual serious list of who you consider are the 15 best cricketers of the past decade and a half?

Because it's hard to tell.

I'm thinking A)

*suspense*

Yep, A) lock it in Eddie

 

[SJS]

No offense. That list is an absolute joke.

No reason for me to take offense. Its not my list

But why do you think its a joke? You have to read the book and understand the criteria used before beingable to comment one way or the other dont you think?

 

[SJS]

Alright man, for the sake of this thing then:

1) Warne
2) McGrath
3) Lara
4) Sachin
5) Murali
6) Ponting
7) Gilchrist
8) Hayden
9) Ambrose
10) Daryll Cullinan

11 to 15 ????

 

[The Sean]

Agree with adharcric, as highly regarded as Woodcock is I thought his list was a joke and he actually went down in my estimation after such a shameless display of bias. NINE of his top 12 cricketers of all time were English. I know he was writing for an English paper (The Times, and he did the list in 1997) but even still it smacked of pretention and "we might not be any good now but look how over history all our cricketers have been the best" attitude.

As biased as some members on here might be, I can't think of anyone on these boards who would include nine players from their own country in their top 12 cricketers of all time.

Except silentstriker, who'd no doubt pick Bradman, Sobers, McGrath and nine Indian seamers.

 

[Chubby Rain]

No offense. That list is an absolute joke.

Agreed.

 

[SJS]

Agree with adharcric, as highly regarded as Woodcock is I thought his list was a joke and he actually went down in my estimation after such a shameless display of bias. NINE of his top 12 cricketers of all time were English. I know he was writing for an English paper (The Times, and he did the list in 1997) but even still it smacked of pretention and "we might not be any good now but look how over history all our cricketers have been the best" attitude.

As biased as some members on here might be, I can't think of anyone on these boards who would include nine players from their own country in their top 12 cricketers of all time.

Except silentstriker, who'd no doubt pick Bradman, Sobers, McGrath and nine Indian seamers.

Yes in so faras there appears to be a bias in favour of English cricketers, I would tend to concur.

I thought when you said it was a joke, you were refering to the presence of some pf the names in the list. Its almost impossible to get any two lists to b the same. However everyone of the cricketers on his list is a worthy candidate although he has taken some players from the pre test match era also.

 

[The Sean]

Yes in so faras there appears to be a bias in favour of English cricketers, I would tend to concur.

I thought when you said it was a joke, you were refering to the presence of some pf the names in the list. Its almost impossible to get any two lists to b the same. However everyone of the cricketers on his list is a worthy candidate although he has taken some players from the pre test match era also.

That's a fair call mate - I've got no problem with the quality of the cricketers he's selected, or the worthiness of most of those names in a Top 100. As I say, it was the embarrassing home country bias that I had the big problem with.

 

[SJS]

That's a fair call mate - I've got no problem with the quality of the cricketers he's selected, or the worthiness of most of those names in a Top 100. As I say, it was the embarrassing home country bias that I had the big problem with.

That is something so many are unfortunately guilty of.

One could put it down to sentiments, exposure to more 'propaganda'/hype of oen-country heroes/legends and so on. I also suspect the fact that there was so much cricket literature published in the early years from England and so much less by comparicon from Australia and other countries that the English heroes almost all turned into folklore. Australians barring absolute exceptions like Trumper suffered in comparison.

 

[The Sean]

That is something so many are unfortunately guilty of.

One could put it down to sentiments, exposure to more 'propaganda'/hype of oen-country heroes/legends and so on. I also suspect the fact that there was so much cricket literature published in the early years from England and so much less by comparicon from Australia and other countries that the English heroes almost all turned into folklore. Australians barring absolute exceptions like Trumper suffered in comparison.

You're definitely right about that, when you read through all the early cricket literature the old time England players are deified to an extent that others are not, even at the times when England were not necessarily the best team going around - invariably due to most cricket literature being written in and focused on England.

There was a certain level of hypocrisy too concerning rating a player by FC performances as opposed to Tests, and the consideration that County Cricket in those days was very nearly as important as Test cricket - and Englishman with a great FC record but an ordinary Test record was still rated a legend (George Hirst is a great example), whereas an international cricketer was rarely if ever judged by the same standard.

My real disappointment was that a noted authority like Woodcock could not put such obvious discrepancies aside and be a little more objective about it all. I've always wanted to ask him in person if he honestly believes that of the top dozen cricketers of all time, nine of them are English.

 

[Richard]

No offense. That list is an absolute joke.

Any list trying to rank exactly 100 cricketers over 3 or 4 different eras, sadly, is bound to be a bit of a joke.

 

[SJS]

Any list trying to rank exactly 100 cricketers over 3 or 4 different eras, sadly, is bound to be a bit of a joke.

I am not sure if 'joke' is the rightword to use. It seems to indicate a ridiculous selection whereas what you are saying, as I understand, is that it is never going to be something that can be done without some subjective criteria creeping in. Then the selection is not a joke it is an opinion expressed in a thankless job to start with

The interseting thing is that when you go through such lists by one or more respected students/writers/players of the game(particularly those who have watched the game over a very long span) you find that the common players far out number the ones that are not.

When Wisden asked 100 former players and eminent writers to nominate for the cricketer of the year, a total of 49 players got nominated. Of these 17 were nominated by just one of the hundred.

The Woodcock list includes all but seven of these 49 Wisden nominees.

Everyone of these seven nominees who do not find a place in the Woodcock list do are from the 17 that were nominated by a single voter.

The point is that the Woodcock list is very similar to a list that is compiled from the nomination of a hundred former players and writers. Its uncanny.

So how do people tend to come up with the same names again and again for the games greatest. Its from those who have seen a 2-3 generations of the players, are acknowledged as keen students of the game and through word of mouth and the written word. Surely we do not have a better way to assess.

The propensity of statistics in our beloved game and the importance given to them in a day and age when fewer and fewer people are willing to understand the nuances of the game has made the stat almost like gospel and the scoreboard is no more considered "an ass".

If we are willing to look beyond the scoreboard we might find the curiosity and the desire to find out for ourselves why Larwood is considered one of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen we will discover a knowledge of the game and its history that is slowly going to be cosigned to museums. Its not because of what he did to Bradman, in fact the difference in Bradman's average in that series and the rest of his career is the only statistical evidence people are able to find for Larwood's legendry reputation.

Try and discover for yourself why Larwood was considered such a great bowler and you will be amply rewarded. Treat him purely on his stats and with the cynicism that comes so easily to us and the loss will be ours. Larwood is dead and gone, he does not need our certifictes as is WG Grace but if we continue to treat them as much lesser than they are made out to be from our superficial study of statistics, we will have lost a fabulous opportunity to gain from this beautiful game much more than just endl;ess hours spent in frony of the telly. We would have lost a chance to aqcuaint ourselves with the fabulous history of this lovely game and an introduction, as it were, with the legends who played it in those times.

 

[sideshowtim]

How can any list without Ponting be taken seriously? When we're talking cricketers of the last 15 years? I mean, honestly...He's been widely acknowledged the best batsman in the world for nearly half of those 15 years.

 

[Sanz]

I am not sure if 'joke' is the rightword to use. It seems to indicate a ridiculous selection whereas what you are saying, as I understand, is that it is never going to be something that can be done without some subjective criteria creeping in. Then the selection is not a joke it is an opinion expressed in a thankless job to start with

The interseting thing is that when you go through such lists by one or more respected students/writers/players of the game(particularly those who have watched the game over a very long span) you find that the common players far out number the ones that are not.

When Wisden asked 100 former players and eminent writers to nominate for the cricketer of the year, a total of 49 players got nominated. Of these 17 were nominated by just one of the hundred.

The Woodcock list includes all but seven of these 49 Wisden nominees.

Everyone of these seven nominees who do not find a place in the Woodcock list do are from the 17 that were nominated by a single voter.

The point is that the Woodcock list is very similar to a list that is compiled from the nomination of a hundred former players and writers. Its uncanny.

So how do people tend to come up with the same names again and again for the games greatest. Its from those who have seen a 2-3 generations of the players, are acknowledged as keen students of the game and through word of mouth and the written word. Surely we do not have a better way to assess.

The propensity of statistics in our beloved game and the importance given to them in a day and age when fewer and fewer people are willing to understand the nuances of the game has made the stat almost like gospel and the scoreboard is no more considered "an ass".

If we are willing to look beyond the scoreboard we might find the curiosity and the desire to find out for ourselves why Larwood is considered one of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen we will discover a knowledge of the game and its history that is slowly going to be cosigned to museums. Its not because of what he did to Bradman, in fact the difference in Bradman's average in that series and the rest of his career is the only statistical evidence people are able to find for Larwood's legendry reputation.

Try and discover for yourself why Larwood was considered such a great bowler and you will be amply rewarded. Treat him purely on his stats and with the cynicism that comes so easily to us and the loss will be ours. Larwood is dead and gone, he does not need our certifictes as is WG Grace but if we continue to treat them as much lesser than they are made out to be from our superficial study of statistics, we will have lost a fabulous opportunity to gain from this beautiful game much more than just endl;ess hours spent in frony of the telly. We would have lost a chance to aqcuaint ourselves with the fabulous history of this lovely game and an introduction, as it were, with the legends who played it in those times.

Perfect 10. One of the best posts I have read on CW. Thank You SJS.

 

[silentstriker]

How can any list without Ponting be taken seriously? When we're talking cricketers of the last 15 years? I mean, honestly...He's been widely acknowledged the best batsman in the world for nearly half of those 15 years.

Nah, you could keep him out of the top 10. Top 15, he should probably be there.

Look at the following bowlers that I think must make the top ten (in whichever order): McGrath, Warne, Murali, Ambrose, Donald, Wasim. That's six spots taken care of right there. Two more for Lara, SRT, and maybe a third for Waugh. That leaves 1-2 spots for guys like Walsh, Ponting, Gilchrist, Hayden, Flower, Pollock, Kallis, Dravid, Kapil Dev etc.

 

[sideshowtim]

Nah, you could keep him out of the top 10. Top 15, he should probably be there.

Look at the following bowlers that I think must make the top ten (in whichever order): McGrath, Warne, Murali, Ambrose, Donald, Wasim. That's six spots taken care of right there. Two more for Lara, SRT, and maybe a third for Waugh. That leaves 1-2 spots for guys like Walsh, Ponting, Gilchrist, Hayden, Flower, Pollock, Kallis, Dravid, Kapil Dev etc.

So people still aren't allowing Ponting to be grouped with Lara and Tendulkar?

That'll do me....

 

[pasag]

Perfect 10. One of the best posts I have read on CW. Thank You SJS.

Agreed.

 

[silentstriker]

So people still aren't allowing Ponting to be grouped with Lara and Tendulkar?

That'll do me....

I don't know about 'allowing'. A lot of people don't think he is as good yet. You might, and there is certainly an argument that he is as good (he made my list BTW). But in my opinion, he is getting closer but he is not there yet. I would still probably rate Waugh as a better cricketer than Ponting.

In one-two years, if he either improves his record in India or continues his clobbering form, I think he'll be right up there. If he does both of those things, he might even be considered the best of the three.