Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
It could easily be argued that Tony Greig - as an instigator of the Packer Circus - had a greater "legacy" than Wilfred Rhodes but he didn't get a single vote.
-
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.
Battle of the Legends
- Thread starter adharcric
- Start date
It could easily be argued that Tony Greig - as an instigator of the Packer Circus - had a greater "legacy" than Wilfred Rhodes but he didn't get a single vote.
archie mac
International Coach
True, but there were other things that Rhodes achieved that place him in the legend class (most wickets, length of Test career, batting in every spot form 1-11, being picked as a bowler then as a batsman and finally as a bowler), I am just having trouble understanding why McGath was a bigger legend then Laker.
Certainly nothing off the field comes to mind and on the field they were both great bowlers, so that only leaves Laker's 19 wickets
adharcric
International Coach
I agree. Some people are voting on the basis of "current" legend status (most notably SS
) while others are going by "general"/"future" legend status (ie Lara, Warne).Either way, it's tough to imagine how McGrath would become more legendary than Laker at any point in the near future. I'd like to hear the reasoning of the pro-GM folks.
Last edited:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Not easy to decide. When we used to talk about Zimbabwean cricket, one name which was synonymous was Dave Houghton. He was a skillful batsman. One one instance, when the fielders were back at the boundary and on the inner circle, he hit a couple of shots intentionally between the two scampering for runs. Flower's batting, particularly during the end of his career was brilliant and if he look to pin down the greatest Zimbabwean cricketer of all time, we might thing of Heath Streak and Neil Johnson for ODIs as contenders but no one comes close to Andy Flower. Given that Zimbabwean cricket has been on the decline, that tag associated with Flower is likely to grow stronger in time. It may not hold that much weight if the player from a weaker country is not of that high standard but Flower definitely was all quality. Ambrose is some one I rate very highly as a player - one of the best fast bowlers the game has seen but will have to vote for Flower here.
Last edited:
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
Toughie but juuuuusssstttt Flower
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Hadn't been on here for a couple of days, but good to see that tongue in cheek comments with a big grin at the end of them still get taken as OTT seriously as ever. Well done mate.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
LOL - that's the kind of response I like to see.Hammond wuz robbed
Sneaky crim had to go and die recently, just to win the battle
Rhodes btw, which may be considered a partisan blighty vote against the SAfrican born, and Australian-living idjit.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Ambrose
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I voted for McGrath on that one - my reasoning was that Pidgeon is and will continue to be acknowledged as one of the greatest bowlers of all time, and that a career of achievement that he had outweighed one extraordinary performance (or several, to be fair) in the "Legend" stakes. My thinking was that Hayden doesn't become a bigger legend than Tendulkar because of his 380, or Massie / Hirwani bigger legends than a Marshall or a Warne because they got 16 wickets on debut.I agree. Some people are voting on the basis of "current" legend status (most notably SS
Either way, it's tough to imagine how McGrath would become more legendary than Laker at any point in the near future. I'd like to hear the reasoning of the pro-GM folks.
However, I'm prepared to hold my hand up on this one and say I was wrong with the way I voted. I've been doing my best to vote on "status" rather than "quality" throughout these battles, but I think for this one I fell into the trap of voting for the better cricketer rather than the guy who occupies a position on a higher plane of cricket history. McGrath, for all his magnificence, wasn't particularly influential per se, nor did he produce a single to-be-talked-about-for-the-ages performance. He was simply consistently, ridiculously good year after year for a long time. I don't say this as an insult, but rather a reflection of his consistent quality.
Laker's 19-for, however, is the stuff of mythology, truly one for the ages. Hayden's 380 was broken in months, and someone, one day, will break Lara's 400. But I don't think anyone will ever have better match figures than 19/90, and indeed they will struggle to take more than his 46 wickets in a single Ashes series. And for that I should have voted Laker over McGrath.
Sorry Jim.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
If you think I take any post seriously then you must have been away for more than a couple of days.
I was expecting dull old Fiery to come back and say that Hammond played just before WW2 and not WW1 but he must have forgotten to take his tablets.
archie mac
International Coach
Well said mate, and I am sure Mr Laker will for give you, but McGrath
I think he may hold a grudge
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I think this process has just become 'vote for the better player.'
The criteria said someone you could look up to, and you have to literally look up to Ambrose but what Flower did in 2003 should at least get him more votes than he has.
The criteria said someone you could look up to, and you have to literally look up to Ambrose but what Flower did in 2003 should at least get him more votes than he has.