• 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.

5 cricketers of the century and a bit?

ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Hadlee makes my top 5 of all time (And also PEWS' machine generated list :D). Was Hadlee's case something like Kallis for those who saw him in his playing days?
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
8ankitj said:
Five seems too small a number to fit in some great cricketers whose personalities towered over the sport of cricket, and achieved magnificent feats. I would probably have have these 5:

  1. Don Bradman
  2. Gary Sobers
  3. Imran Khan
  4. Muttiah Muralitharan
  5. Richard Hadlee
Viv Richards has fallen out of my top 5 slowly. At one time I would have had him ahead of Hadlee. But what Hadlee consistently achieved for a fairly mediocre side over more than a decade seems to have no parallel in the Test history. If there ever was a proverbial Atlas in the game of cricket, it was him.

Still feel bad for leaving out Viv Richards, Marshall, Barnes, Hobbs, Tendulkar from that elite list. They will complete my top 10.
Click to expand...
Would stick to this.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I respect Burgey's view on Hadlee here. Because if ever there was a poster whose opinion on the greatest cricket players ever should be counted, its Burgey. I mean he has seen test cricket live for over a century.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
8ankitj said:
Tell us your views. I am keen to know if he is someone who is rated more highly in retrospect.
Click to expand...
I think Hadlee was considered one of the best bowlers of his era at the time he was playing, but I don't believe he was rated by many or any as better than Marshall.

I think he was a magnificent bowler who slogged a bit down the order; sometimes effectively, most often not. I think he was at best the third of the four great all rounders of the 80s, and maybe fourth. He was arguably the best of them as a pure bowler, maybe Imran at his peak was his equal, but I'd give it to Hadlee (assessing bowling alone). FWIW, ie nothing, of those four blokes I'd have it Imran, Botham, Hadlee=Dev as all rounders. The last on the premise that Dev's batting was about as far ahead of Hadlee's, as Hadlee's bowling was ahead of Kapil's.

I would say there are five all rounders alone who are better cricketers than Hadlee in the 20th century + 10 years; and his record as a bowler, magnificent as it is, hardly puts him so far ahead of others of the same discipline as to render him a better cricketer than those others. As examples, I'd rate Sobers, Miller, Imran, Rhodes, Botham and Kallis ahead of him as all rounders. He was more like a Davidson, in that he was very much a bowling all rounder, only more prolific and longer lasting. It doesn't mean he wasn't a great player - he plainly was - but I think it's a stretch (to put it kindly) to have him as one of the five greatest cricketers of the past century and a bit.

Aside from the all rounders, the majority of people will factor in Bradman as one of the top five, because he was so far ahead of everyone in his one discipline as to render arguments about batting prowess superfluous; except for the stats-minded autistic savant who'll say certain others have scored more hundreds while under the pressure of having to wear a wig when they go to the movies, so therefore they're better. Then you've got players like Hobbs, Hammond and Headley to name but three batsmen with a claim (there are myriad others too, including the wig-wearer).

If you talk about cricketers of the century, some will go for blokes who were transformative cricketers - who did things others hadn't before. It's an argument people put up for Warne in terms of leg spin, as an example. Some will look at Grace (not so much 20th century, but the point stands), Ranji, Barnes, Bosanquet, or the Pakistani pace bowlers with reverse swing (not that "Irish" swing hadn't been around before, but they made it popular and mainstream). I would lean very strongly towards arguing Frank Worrell is one of the five cricketers of the past century and a bit, because what he did transformed WI and therefore world cricket. It started something big. Ntini will leave a bigger legacy to cricket than most - some might say he belongs in the argument by blazing a long, positive trail for black cricketers in SA post-Apartheid.

It's all subjective, but I don't think Sir Richard makes it tbh. He wasn't a transformative cricketer; there have been others who have bowled as well as he did, and I think there are a fair few better all rounders.

People will always have their opinions on these things. I don't think he had anywhere near the influence on the game of some others, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great cricketer.

I just don't think he was one of the five best.

Jono said:
I respect Burgey's view on Hadlee here. Because if ever there was a poster whose opinion on the greatest cricket players ever should be counted, its Burgey. I mean he has seen test cricket live for over a century.
Click to expand...
Not funny. Next.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top