Socerer 01
International Captain
were there other Imran’s and Hadlee’s?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll
- Thread starter CricAddict
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Definitely. And no fast bowler in the top five.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah Wisden asked voting panel to "interpret greatness broadly" in their 5 cricketers of the century exercise. It's fine really.
smash84
The Tiger King
It's a really weak argument
both Imran and Hadlee’s reputation on this board are (justifiably IMO) higher than theirs in the broader cricketing world - many rateBotham because of his incredible peak higher than either of them.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
But was Warne "greater" than any other bowler in cricket history already by 1999, including the likes of Marshall, Barnes, O'Reilly, Hadlee and Imran?
by a broad definition of greatness, yes.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
By a broad definition of "greatness" you could also justify then Kumble being greater than Marshall.
Socerer 01
International Captain
that has more to do with how England and Australia centric the broader cricketing world has been for a long long time
if at all its true since Imran’s reputation is ridiculously good anyway
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
www.espncricinfo.com/story/five-cricketers-of-the-century-153387
Really interesting article to see who voted and how/why they voted.
Interestingly, Miller didn't get a single vote and Godfrey Evans (3) is the only keeper with votes. Also WG Grace was ineligible as a player of the 19th century.
Worrell obviously got votes for leadership and Compton for style.
I like what John Reid said about Marshall and Walter Hadlee said about his own son.
Really interesting article to see who voted and how/why they voted.
Interestingly, Miller didn't get a single vote and Godfrey Evans (3) is the only keeper with votes. Also WG Grace was ineligible as a player of the 19th century.
Worrell obviously got votes for leadership and Compton for style.
I like what John Reid said about Marshall and Walter Hadlee said about his own son.
Last edited:
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, like the consensus that Kanhai was WIs best batsman over Sobers Or Compton being better than Hutton....
shortpitched713
International Captain
It betrays an Ashes centered, chauvinist approach, exemplified not just by Wisden, but the rest of the old English establishment (MCC, ICC leadership) that dominated the discourse of cricket at the time.
Even with legitimate criticism of the current BCCI centered regime, I say good riddance to that old order.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
People have to also understand that Wisden is an English institution. Warne was selected based on his status and effect re English cricket and culture. This isn't a secret and was never treated as one.
It's also not just about bowling. Warne was something else. Watch Happy Gilmore if you need an analogy. He brought personality and interest to the sport among general viewership
Many people legit believe both these things including Gavaskar
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well known for his fair and reasonable judgement of the West Indies
The pre-eminence of English and Australian cricket writers and commentators ended long before 1999. It probably ended with Packer.
Before WSC only England had ever won a Test series in Australia. West Indies and South Africa won their first home series against the Aussies only the decade before.
Cricket writers were generally old. They had watched a lot of cricket, spoken to a lot of players, and spoken to each other. They had been brought up to believe that a golden age had occurred during the twenty years up to 1914, when the balance between bat and ball was about right and runs had to be earned, not simply collected. Some of these writers were still around to vote with Wisden in 1999.
Rating of historical players was based largely on eye-witness testimony, of which there was plenty. With a much smaller historical playing pool than now, there was broad agreement on who the best cricketers had been.
Specialist statisticians emerged but in a supporting role. Statistics were very much of secondary importance. The ability of batsmen on bad pitches, and bowlers on good ones, counted for much when wickets were uncovered. The obsession with fast bowling dates only from the 1970s. Before then, a balanced attack was preferred. Short-pitched assaults, especially on the tail, were frowned upon.
English writers tended to be harder on their own players than those from elsewhere. They didn't like slow batting, unless it was genuinely justified, bowlers who couldn't adapt to different conditions, or wicket-keepers picked for their batting. When occasionally accused of living in the past, their response would be that the alternative was to ignore the evidence of their own eyes.
Before WSC only England had ever won a Test series in Australia. West Indies and South Africa won their first home series against the Aussies only the decade before.
Cricket writers were generally old. They had watched a lot of cricket, spoken to a lot of players, and spoken to each other. They had been brought up to believe that a golden age had occurred during the twenty years up to 1914, when the balance between bat and ball was about right and runs had to be earned, not simply collected. Some of these writers were still around to vote with Wisden in 1999.
Rating of historical players was based largely on eye-witness testimony, of which there was plenty. With a much smaller historical playing pool than now, there was broad agreement on who the best cricketers had been.
Specialist statisticians emerged but in a supporting role. Statistics were very much of secondary importance. The ability of batsmen on bad pitches, and bowlers on good ones, counted for much when wickets were uncovered. The obsession with fast bowling dates only from the 1970s. Before then, a balanced attack was preferred. Short-pitched assaults, especially on the tail, were frowned upon.
English writers tended to be harder on their own players than those from elsewhere. They didn't like slow batting, unless it was genuinely justified, bowlers who couldn't adapt to different conditions, or wicket-keepers picked for their batting. When occasionally accused of living in the past, their response would be that the alternative was to ignore the evidence of their own eyes.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Each round of voting reveals a few surprises. Generally I refrain from comment except when obvious choices (in my eyes, and on the 2022 polls) get few mentions.
However, I can't help but comment on one player who was among the votes this round. Playing in a modest 22 Tests he had just 54 wickets at an average of almost 35. Surely there are bowlers, who have yet to gain a vote, who deserve better. Without giving names, as this might influence the current and future rounds, we have bowlers with far more wickets and vastly superior averages who have yet to crack a mention.
However, I can't help but comment on one player who was among the votes this round. Playing in a modest 22 Tests he had just 54 wickets at an average of almost 35. Surely there are bowlers, who have yet to gain a vote, who deserve better. Without giving names, as this might influence the current and future rounds, we have bowlers with far more wickets and vastly superior averages who have yet to crack a mention.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
What?
