How FLAWED is Warne's list of 100 greatest cricketers?

[kyear2]

No more or less flawed than Benauds or Bradman's selections.

As striker insinuated, its all about perspective.

 

[Sanz]

As flawed as any other individual's list of 100 greatest cricketers. It is Warne's list, if you don't like it, create your own.

 

[Jager]

As flawed as any other individual's list of 100 greatest cricketers. It is Warne's list, if you don't like it, create your own.

I am actually about to start my own now that I saw this comment, so I guess I need some criteria so I can organise things in my mind. I was thinking that the player needs to have excelled in at least two of the following areas: batting, bowling, fielding, captaincy or influence. By influence, I mean a few different things. Using Hobbs as an example, he was universally lauded as the finest batsman of the time, which qualifies him as someone who had influence. Ranjitsinhji is often credited with the invention of the leg glance and the late cut, so he had huge influence in a different way. Lillee's influence could be seen on the pitch as huge crowds chanted his name. Pretty subjective but it makes sense.

I figured that you can't be great unless you have at least two of those. For example, we consider Saeed Anwar an excellent batsman, but his fielding was poor, he hardly bowled, only captained seven matches and personally, I don't think he had huge influence on cricket. Therefore, I probably wouldn't consider him in the top hundred.

If anyone wants to give me some input, go ahead. I would suggest that Warne had no such structure to his selections and probably rushed his choices without giving too much consideration to the placings.

 

[weldone]

The purpose of the exercise was to rate 50 Aussie cricketers he played with (in order), and 50 non-Aussie cricketers he played against (in order). Overall the list looks absurd to many; but it looks slightly less absurd when they look at it keeping the purpose in mind.

 

[Furball]

The purpose of the exercise was to rate 50 Aussie cricketers he played with (in order), and 50 non-Aussie cricketers he played against (in order). Overall the list looks absurd; but it looks slightly less absurd when you look at it keeping the purpose in mind.

The list isn't absurd at all.

 

[weldone]

The list isn't absurd at all.

I've edited my post to be politically correct (and hence out of your claws).

 

[Furball]

The list still isn't absurd.

 

[weldone]

You still haven't read my edited post.

 

[Furball]

You still haven't read my edited post.

Yes I have.

 

[weldone]

Then you haven't understood.

 

[Briony]

Warne has an axe to grind re. Steve Waugh and Gilly.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Just as flawed as the man himself.

 

[watson]

Just as flawed as the man himself.

Well that was an indepth comment.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Very flawed, to answet the opening post.

No Younis Khan
Brett Lee at 20- something, ahead of Steve Waugh!
Mark Waugh ahead of Steve

Also, as a Pom -

No Matty Hoggard
No Trescothick
No Strauss
Graham Thorpe was way too low. He was our best batsman and averaged 45 against Australia in a horrible era for English cricket

 

[Maximas]

The addition of Shaun Marsh, NCN and Forkers Faulkner probably pushing it from Warnie

 

[GuyFromLancs]

If he updated now, we could be reasonably sure it'd have Liz Hurley above Steve Waugh.

 

[Red]

If he updated now, we could be reasonably sure it'd have Liz Hurley above Steve Waugh.

My list would too?

 

[Migara]

Not at all. That's HIS list and it's perfect according to him.

 

[Jono]

Inswing @ 95mph would be ****ing difficult to bat against itbt

Forgot I posted this baby. Good times.