Not your list of Great Cricketers

[NUFAN]

Top 10 Cricketers according to CW at the end of 2009.
1 Don Bradman
2 Garry Sobers
3 WG Grace
4 Shane Warne
5 Jack Hobbs
6 Sachin Tendulkar
7 Imran Khan
8 Viv Richards
9 Malcolm Marshall
10 Richard Hadlee

 

[Ikki]

This is very unlikely to happen ikki. Hobbs would definitely make it to the list in place of ponting. most cricket fans - including ex players - would certainly keep both hammond and hobbs in the top 10 cricketers and batsmen lists.

never seen ponting or miller in any top ten list ever. murali's achievements in tests surpassed miller's long long ago. miller would still be in the top 20 though but murali would be above him for sure.

CMJ's ranking of top 100 cricketers is a very good indicator of how history would judge these players for posterity. punter is very likely to make it to the top 30 (and to the top 15 among the batsmen) list.

I guess most people around the world would agree with this top 10
Bradman
Grace
Sobers
Hobbs
Richards
Warne
Imran
Tendulkar
Hammond
Murali

Any 20 of Hadlee, Marshall, SF Barnes, Hutton, Lillee, Gavaskar, Lara, Miller, Gilchrist, Botham, McGrath, Ponting, Miandad, Kapil Dev, Trumper, G. Chappell, O'Reilly, Border, Kallis, G Headley, Donald, Akram, S Waugh, Compton, Weeks, Holding, Walcott, S Pollock, Waqar, Ambrose, Dravid, Grimmett and Worrell would complete the top 30.

FTR Miller was just outside of ESPN's Legends of cricket top 10. He came 13th which is higher than what WG Grace ranked, for instance. Not to say that is how they should be ranked, but Miller is very well regarded. Especially here (no surprise).

You may be right about Hammond and Hobbs, but I just put what I thought and made a rough list. You can argue day and night about the names. I am sure some people will have a gripe why you don't have Lara, others will mind that you didn't have Gilchrist, etc.

I am not interested in what list I think "all" people would agree to, otherwise my list would be different. It is what you seem to observe the most in your part of the world or amongst your circle of sources. I expect to see subcontinental cricketers higher up on lists by subcontinental fans. For example, I have Lillee at #2 for bowlers and as vic explained it's very likely as an Aussie you will rate him higher than others.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, but for example look in the greatest players 1980+ thread where Streetwise lists a comfortable majority of peers voting him the best cricketer of the 00s over Murali.

This is not just to gauge what you think other CW posters think but what you think others think from a myriad of sources from former pros, current pros, writers, your friends, your coaches, and even CW posters.

I am not really concerned with agreeing with your rankings, more your perception. Put what you perceive.

It is not a comfortable majority and neither were they peers.. Two pretty important points... And the number of Aussies + English there seemed to outweigh the rest. Need to check that,as I am not sure of it.


But offhand, I can tell you EASILY that in India, you would be hard pressed to get ANYONE to believe Ponting is a better cricketer than Murali... The poll is closer in CW than what it would be in India.. And I don't think Ponting will make the top 20 of most people in India.. Definitely not top 15...

 

[Ikki]

Might have to do with the fact that he scored sweet fa in India. And why would the English vote for him? Anyway, leave that discussion for the other thread.

 

[honestbharani]

Might have to do with the fact that he scored sweet fa in India. And why would the English vote for him? Anyway, leave that discussion for the other thread.

yeah, that is what I meant.. The other thing is, even with the SC guys, perhaps they were torn between Sachin and Murali.. But perhaps Ponting predominated the entire Aussie/English/NZ votes... The way that voting system was designed, if you enough #1s, it will make you look MUCH better than in terms of actual noms, right?


As I said, with such a subjective ranking, any number of speculations are possible. But credit wherre it is due, it is a significant achievement that a lot as knowledgable of cricket as that voted him the player of the decade...

 

[bagapath]

FTR Miller was just outside of ESPN's Legends of cricket top 10. He came 13th which is higher than what WG Grace ranked, for instance. Not to say that is how they should be ranked, but Miller is very well regarded. Especially here (no surprise).

Miller was a superstar cricketer without doubt. that is why he is still loved and respected all over the world. But he would not make it to the all time top 10, I am confident. he will always hover around the 11 to 20 range in each and every list made anywhere in the world, which itself is a great great honor without doubt.

hobbs and hammond, on the other hand, would be there in 99 out of 100 such lists. of the people i have listed in the top 10, only murali's postion could be changed - may be for hadlee or marshall. or for adam gilchrist on certain occasions. but otherwise i don't see the other 9 players missing out. mcgrath would be in the top 20 and ponting in top 30. even the CW list had ricky at 27 and pigeon at 18 IIRC.

though I understand vic's point, hardcore cricket fans all over the world, who are mad enough to make such lists, can think beyond these little biases and appreciate all the real greats appropriately. that is why i think the list i have made has an eclectic mix of two aussies (don, shane), two west indians (soby, viv), three englishmen (doctor, wally, hobbs), one pakistani (imran) and one indian (sachin).

ofcourse you have made the list according to what you hear from people around you. may be i hang out with too many oldies so my list looks more like a wisden list.

younger fans in india would probably say...

tendulkar
sehwag
dhoni
warne
lara
murali
gilchrist
mcgrath
ponting
kallis

 

[vcs]

Is it a fair assumption that most Indian fans would consider Sachin a greater cricketer than Kapil? I'd be interested to hear what older Indian fans think of this... since I've only been following cricket since '91 or so.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Is it a fair assumption that most Indian fans would consider Sachin a greater cricketer than Kapil? I'd be interested to hear what older Indian fans think of this... since I've only been following cricket since '91 or so.

I'm not an old fan, but I'd say yes. Sachin > Kapil.

IMO, an all time list prepared by an Indian would probably have these as definite entries in the top 10:

Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gavaskar
Imran
McGrath
Muralitharan
Gilchrist

 

[Streetwise]

It is not a comfortable majority and neither were they peers.. Two pretty important points... And the number of Aussies + English there seemed to outweigh the rest. Need to check that,as I am not sure of it.


But offhand, I can tell you EASILY that in India, you would be hard pressed to get ANYONE to believe Ponting is a better cricketer than Murali... The poll is closer in CW than what it would be in India.. And I don't think Ponting will make the top 20 of most people in India.. Definitely not top 15...

The only problem with you assumtions is that most of the panelists that voted for Ponting were Indians.

I will dig up the article where I read that because they listed the panelists that voted and who they voted for.

 

[honestbharani]

The only problem with you assumtions is that most of the panelists that voted for Ponting were Indians.

I will dig up the article where I read that because they listed the panelists that voted and who they voted for.

can you link to it, please?

 

[bagapath]

I'm not an old fan, but I'd say yes. Sachin > Kapil.

IMO, an all time list prepared by an Indian would probably have these as definite entries in the top 10:

Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gavaskar
Imran
McGrath
Muralitharan
Gilchrist

Richards?
Warne?
Akram?

Even if young indians don't know about grace, hobbs and hammond, viv and shane would certainly be there in the top 10.

globally, bradman, grace, sobers, hobbs, richards, warne, imran, hammond and sachin are sure to make the top 10. the last place could go to one of murali, gilchrist, hadlee or marshall.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Richards?
Warne?
Akram?

Even if young indians don't know about grace, hobbs and hammond, viv and shane would certainly be there in the top 10.

globally, bradman, grace, sobers, hobbs, richards, warne, imran, hammond and sachin are sure to make the top 10. the last place could go to one of murali, gilchrist, hadlee or marshall.

Yeah, Viv probably would make it. Akram is 50-50, and I don't think Warne would make it into the top 10 tbh. IMO the Inzamam v Australia argument probably applies to the assessment of Warne. You can't expect Indians to ignore his performances against India. He'd still be accepted as a great cricketer, but a top 10 list is exclusive.

 

[Ikki]

Is it a fair assumption that most Indian fans would consider Sachin a greater cricketer than Kapil? I'd be interested to hear what older Indian fans think of this... since I've only been following cricket since '91 or so.

That's a good question I've heard Kapil being rated as more important for India than Sachin, or better I guess, and yet he probably wouldn't rank so high in these kinds of lists whereas Sachin would.

 

[Teja.]

For me, while Kapil objectively would add more value to the side, I'd consider Gavaskar/Tendulkar 'greater' cricketers compared to him.

 

[Jono]

That's a good question I've heard Kapil being rated as more important for India than Sachin, or better I guess, and yet he probably wouldn't rank so high in these kinds of lists whereas Sachin would.

Because the people you are 'hearing' it from aren't the majority though.

 

[shankar]

I think that when people think of 'Greatest player' we intuitively associate that with the player who's reached the greater heights of performance in any aspect of the game rather than the literal meaning of the term i.e. the player who has been of most value to his team.

 

[honestbharani]

I think that when people think of 'Greatest player' we intuitively associate that with the player who's reached the greater heights of performance in any aspect of the game rather than the literal meaning of the term i.e. the player who has been of most value to his team.

This..

 

[L Trumper]

If we consider players value to the game itself rather than team, which I think is the criteria every one doesn't look for;
Top 3 would always be Bradman, Sobers, Grace bar no one else..
Rest everyone can have their claims, but bagapath's list is very good
Hobbs
Richards
Warne
Imran
Tendulkar
Hammond
Murali
Out of these 7 , Gilchrist might come into one of the places down the road depending on how his legacy improved the game. May be in place of hammond. And marshall and murali is a close call. Considering fast bowling and leg spinning are the best things on a cricket field, i'd go for marshall.

 

[Furball]

That's a good question I've heard Kapil being rated as more important for India than Sachin, or better I guess, and yet he probably wouldn't rank so high in these kinds of lists whereas Sachin would.

Kapil's "greatness" stems from him being the only Indian quick to actually be any good.

If Tamim Iqbal can continue in the vein of form he's in and end his career with an average of between 40 and 45, he'll be regarded as a Bangladeshi ATG, despite statistically being miles short of his peers.

 

[Jono]

Are you suggesting that Kapil Dev wasn't a great cricketer? Or shouldn't be classified as a 'great' of the game?