The best after the Don? CW ranked 25 contenders, here is the countdown thread

[Red]

Warne is truly insane choice in that Wisden 5. Career wise, maybe (although I'd still disagree), but to put him ahead of someone like Imran (with more than twice as many votes) on the basis of a 8ish year career is madness.

Hadlee had more wickets, better average, better strike rate, better batsman, more critical to wins, career twice as long..., and even he probably doesn't deserve a place in this 5.

Yes that was mainly a 'top 5 popular cricketing superstars' kind of result.

Oh Christ. Warne mastered cricket's most difficult art.

Is that not enough?

Let's not go down the path of comparing spinners averages and strike rates because if that's what you wanna do it just reveals how little you know about how cricket works.

 

[Bolo]

Oh Christ. Warne mastered cricket's most difficult art.

Is that not enough?

Let's not go down the path of comparing spinners averages and strike rates because if that's what you wanna do it just reveals how little you know about how cricket works.

What exactly is this comment? Out of multiple pages of comments you choose the only two lines refering to averages and strike rates and counter with an argument that has already been addressed. Is this some weird form of sarcastic humour? An anger issue coupled with a reading disability?

Feel free to jump into the conversation. Just try to do it a little more constructively.

 

[Gob]

forget about being an alltime top 5 player , McGrath was not even considered among top 5 bowlers of that time. (Akram , Warne , Donald , Ambrose , Waquar (also world record holder Walsh ) were the top 5 )

McGrath was better than all of them

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

WG is the wrong century.
Ranji kinda wrong century

Hadlee so low is a bit of a travesty.

Procter doesn't really belong here IMO. It's not really a list of the most talented cricketers, it's a list of the ones who achieved the most, and that needs to include test cricket.

I would love to have known how strong Procter in particular would have been. His 1st class stats are ridiculous, and he spent half his career playing well past his best. For him to have averaged sub-20 with the ball in 1st despite having to switch to off-spin mid career must have meant some truly crazy results when he was bowling pace.

And 36 as a 1st class batting average playing in England and RSA is extremely impressive as well.

He likely wouldn't have had a full- length international career due to injury, but it would have been pretty spectacular while it lasted.

I am supporting Procter , because Barry is there.

also Marshall below G.Pollock

this wrong century WG was ranked 14

Hobbs , Sachin , Lillee , Botham,Viv , Gavaskar..... WG.... Headley , Marshall , Kapil , Hutton , Akram

either you should not include him , or he must be top 3 .

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

McGrath was better than all of them

May be.. but not then.
the poll was conducted around 2000

in my view
1.Akram
2. McGrath / Donald / Ambrose
5.Warne
6.Waquar

 

[Bolo]

I am supporting Procter , because Barry is there.

also Marshall below G.Pollock

this wrong century WG was ranked 14

Hobbs , Sachin , Lillee , Botham,Viv , Gavaskar..... WG.... Headley , Marshall , Kapil , Hutton , Akram

either you should not include him , or he must be top 3 .

I dont think Barry deserves to be there for the same reason as Procter. But agreed, if Barry should be there Procter should be too

WG Grace? I'm not seeing him. If he's there he shouldn't be- played almost exclusively in the 19th.

There was a fair amount of nationalist voting or strategic voting going on in this I think. You see a few fair players with a vote or 2 that have no place there, but people want to see their favorites. And you see a few players like Marshall and Ambrose hardly getting any votes. Looks like all the Windies fans used 4 of their votes on the same people and didn't have much to spread around the rest of their players.

 

[a massive zebra]

At least with him you could pray for rain

A reference to the two years in which these great batsmen were at their most prolific? Namely, the rather changeable, often windy and occasionally thundery summer of 1930, and the record breakingly hot and dry summer of 1976?

 

[fredfertang]

A reference to the two years in which these great batsmen were at their most prolific? Namely, the rather changeable, often windy and occasionally thundery summer of 1930, and the record breakingly hot and dry summer of 1976?

Sort of, although more the possibility of a sticky wicket than simply rain