• 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.

CW's 100 Greatest Cricketers Poll

Brook's side

International Regular
My top 10
1. Bradman
2. Hadlee (R)
3. Imran
4. Marshall
5. Murali
6. Sobers
7. Garner
8. Barrington
9. Weekes
10. Viv
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
I recalled posting a top 10 when I was still new at CW and nerding out about cricket history. I found it from 2007 (I have no recollection of the thought process back then):

1. Sir Donald Bradman
2. Sir Garfield Sobers
3. Imran Khan
4. WG Grace
5. George Headley
6. Jack Hobbs
7. Keith Miller
8. Bart King
9. Sydney Barnes
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
 

capt_Luffy

International Captain
I recalled posting a top 10 when I was still new at CW and nerding out about cricket history. I found it from 2007 (I have no recollection of the thought process back then):

1. Sir Donald Bradman
2. Sir Garfield Sobers
3. Imran Khan
4. WG Grace
5. George Headley
6. Jack Hobbs
7. Keith Miller
8. Bart King
9. Sydney Barnes
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
Bart King is certainly a unique choice. But yeah, everyone here in Top 6 is ranked barring Headley.
 

Brook's side

International Regular
Chris Woakes 10 :laugh:

11. Garner
12. Murali
13. Barrington
14. Weekes
15. Ambrose
16. Warne
17. Lara
18. G Chappell
19. S Waugh
20. Ponting


Changed from as follows, if allowed:
17. G Chappell
18. S Waugh
19. O'Reilly
20. Botham
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Probably. But we rank just Test cricketers quite often. I wanted to conduct what could be an overall group of Greatest Cricketers. If that definition doesn't includes LO for you, or FC or you; or you don't want to look at very old cricketers, so be it. Everyone can define "Greatness" however they want imo.
Yeah this is fair. Interpret greatness broadly for once ffs.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Muttiah Muralitharan
Jacques Kallis
Sydney Barnes
Keith Miller
Shane Warne

Steve Smith
Brian Lara
Curtly Ambrose
Ian Botham
Wally Hammond
 
Last edited:

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
Goddard was a an opening bat, a front line bowler with a nearly ATG average, and had a long career.
His bowling strike rate of 1 wicket every 95.4 balls is remarkably low for a pace bowler; the next lowest for a player with 100+ wickets is 84.2 by Ewen Chatfield. (Conversely, of course, his economy rate of 1.64 is by far the lowest for *any* type of bowler with 100+ wickets).
 

Bolo.

International Captain
His bowling strike rate of 1 wicket every 95.4 balls is remarkably low for a pace bowler; the next lowest for a player with 100+ wickets is 84.2 by Ewen Chatfield. (Conversely, of course, his economy rate of 1.64 is by far the lowest for *any* type of bowler with 100+ wickets).
I'd rate him higher if his SR was lower. But a low SR/ER from a person who isn't really taking a bowlers slot is still incredibly useful.

He's just a weird case in general. Strange bowler. Unique combination of batting and bowling roles and workloads.
 

sayon basak

State Regular
Donny B
Sobers
Grace
Sangakkara
Warne
Marshall
Gayle-Force
Gilchrist
Imran
Worrell
Everyone there except sanga, Warne, Gayle, Gilchrist and worrell appeared in the top 10. You have to vote your top 20, in which you can include some of your top 10 players that didn't make it into the overall top 10.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's a youtube video which suggests probably not!

As someone comments, "modern tailenders bat better than him"

I really do think that pre-WW2 cricketers are incomparable to the modern era in terms of skills.

If this is off-topic let me know and I'll delete and post it elsewhere.
Don't underestimate the extent to which players in those old reels staged their movements. Obviously not in recordings of matches but I was surprised to read many years ago that the cost of film and equipment back then meant stuff was done very deliberately. You sort of didn't film for a day and edit reams of it like happened later on.

I don't know how true it is but it stuck with me as a point of interest when I look at those old reels. Same with the Bradman ones post-the 1930 Ashes where he's playing certain shots with Oldfield up to the stumps behind him and you can see by the way the keeper is moving the ball has basically been tossed outside off stump at the pace a toddler would lob it up. Like, the ball is on its way down as he hits it. He looks bog average. Then you see footage of him from a distance playing in a test against the likes of Larwood with the keeper back a pitch length and it's plainly obvious the bloke is a genius.
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Don't underestimate the extent to which players in those old reels staged their movements. Obviously not in recordings of matches but I was surprised to read many years ago that the cost of film and equipment back then meant stuff was done very deliberately. You sort of didn't film for a day and edit reams of it like happened later on.

I don't know how true it is but it stuck with me as a point of interest when I look at those old reels. Same with the Bradman ones post-the 1930 Ashes where he's playing certain shots with Oldfield up to the stumps behind him and you can see by the way the keeper is moving the ball has basically been tossed outside off stump at the pace a toddler would lob it up. Like, the ball is on its way down as he hits it. He looks bog average. Then you see footage of him from a distance playing in a test against the likes of Larwood with the keeper back a pitch length and it's plainly obvious the bloke is a genius.
Fully agree. But then we only have to look at who posted the clip and their comments.
 

Brook's side

International Regular
Don't underestimate the extent to which players in those old reels staged their movements. Obviously not in recordings of matches but I was surprised to read many years ago that the cost of film and equipment back then meant stuff was done very deliberately. You sort of didn't film for a day and edit reams of it like happened later on.

I don't know how true it is but it stuck with me as a point of interest when I look at those old reels. Same with the Bradman ones post-the 1930 Ashes where he's playing certain shots with Oldfield up to the stumps behind him and you can see by the way the keeper is moving the ball has basically been tossed outside off stump at the pace a toddler would lob it up. Like, the ball is on its way down as he hits it. He looks bog average. Then you see footage of him from a distance playing in a test against the likes of Larwood with the keeper back a pitch length and it's plainly obvious the bloke is a genius.
All noted. Notwithstanding all of that though, and whilst I respect that opinion, I can't believe Joe Root would ever look as hopeless as Hobbs does in the shot at 36 seconds "Jack doesn't mind a yorker", regardless of whether the ball was just lobbed up or the film cost a lot of money or whatever else. He literally looks like he's batting with his wrong hand.
I realise there are different opinions of it which may be correct, but the same with the Grace footage, to me very brief as it is, it shows someone not with the same skillsets as the top modern player. These were untrained, probably fairly uncoached, best of probably quite a small pool of players, who were developing the sport, and it shows.
What my eyes are telling me I'm watching here is a transition player, between Grace who didn't move his feet and just swung and whacked it along the ground (people say he was 50 or whatever, but he was still playing 1st class cricket, and you can bet your life if you asked Ricky Ponting to hit a few balls aged 50 he wouldn't stand there feet glued to the spot swinging at it like a victorian lady), to someone who has parts of the repertoire of the late 20th century batsman.
Just different opinions, and neither of us is going to convince the other, and that's fine. Just wanted to put it out there for consideration (and dismissal where applicable and no worries with that either).
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I can't believe Joe Root would ever look as hopeless as Hobbs does in the shot at 36 seconds
Then you should watch him bat in Australia.

And of course old players don't have the same skill set as modern players. Neither do previous era footballers, basket ballers, tennis players etc etc. But great players adapt, it's why they're great. Tendulkar played for over 20 years - you reckon the game didn't change in that span? Of course it did.He adapted because he's a great player.

You don't lob Hobbs into 2024 with a match stick for a bat and other 1920s equipment & training methods then say "see, not up to it." You'd have to be an imbecile to do that. If you transplant someone to a different era, you must assume they are given the same opportunities and training as the other players in that era. To do otherwise is as unfair as dropping a modern player onto a pre-WW1 green top and expecting them to perform as they do today with zero prep or opportunity to adapt.
 
Last edited:

peterhrt

U19 Vice-Captain
I'd rate him higher if his SR was lower. But a low SR/ER from a person who isn't really taking a bowlers slot is still incredibly useful.

He's just a weird case in general. Strange bowler. Unique combination of batting and bowling roles and workloads.
In a defensive era, Goddard was probably the most negative bowler. Left-arm over medium pace fired into the batsman's pads.

Towards the end of his career, prior to the 1966/67 series against Australia, Eddie Barlow bullied him into bowling properly at off stump to try to get people out. The improvement was immediate. He could have been a much better bowler.
 

howitzer

State Captain
Not unfortunate that I didn't vote for the first ten as my votes wouldn't have changed anything. Tendulkar and Hadlee would only have been slpit by 1 point though. Anyway here's my votes for 11-20

Kallis
Warne
Muralitharan
Lara
Gilchrist
Miller
Steyn
Hutton
Smith
Ambrose
 

Brook's side

International Regular
Then you should watch him bat in Australia.

And of course old players don't have the same skill set as modern players. Neither do previous era footballers, basket ballers, tennis players etc etc. But great players adapt, it's why they're great. Tendulkar played for over 20 years - you reckon the game didn't change in that span? Of course it did.He adapted because he's a great player.

You don't lob Hobbs into 2024 with a match stick for a bat and other 1920s equipment & training methods then say "see, not up to it." You'd have to be an imbecile to do that. If you transplant someone to a different era, you must assume they are given the same opportunities and training as the other players in that era. To do otherwise is as unfair as dropping a modern player onto a pre-WW1 green top and expecting them to perform as they do today with zero prep or opportunity to adapt.
But you're voting that a batsman who is clearly the standard of an international 10 or 11 today, is one of the greatest cricketers of all time, on the basis that he was less crap than everyone else in his day.

Of course if he was given modern training, coaching and equipment he would be a better player than he was.

There's no way of saying though that he would have been the best in the world, or even good enough to play for England.

As an assessment of the best cricketers of all time, he's plainly absolutely nowhere, and bearing in mind his record that probably stands for everyone pre-war, with the possible exception of Bradman who was so far ahead of everyone else that he may have reached a standard of excellence even by today's players.
 

Top