CMJ's top 100

[wfdu_ben91]

Pretty sure bowlers would need it more then an opening bat.

Pretty demanding to be in the field for a few days, in humid heat, before going into bat immediately as the 10th wicket falls, knowing that you won't be able to relax and recuperate until you've lost your wicket.

 

[NUFAN]

Pretty demanding to be in the field for a few days, in humid heat, before going into bat immediately as the 10th wicket falls, knowing that you won't be able to relax and recuperate until you've lost your wicket.

I don't know about you but whenever I opened the batting I was relaxing between each delivery and recuperating at the non strikers end. Imagine Hayden would be the same.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I don't know about you but whenever I opened the batting I was relaxing between each delivery and recuperating at the non strikers end. Imagine Hayden would be the same.

Nothing like putting your feet up and just relaxing. Especially in the heat, in cricket gear and under your helmet.

 

[NUFAN]

Nothing like putting your feet up and just relaxing. Especially in the heat, in cricket gear and under your helmet.

Reckon he was used to it and was obviously fit.

I agree Hayden should definitely be top 100, I've enjoyed seeing Hayden score well for QLD and Australia for the past 15 plus years. I'll leave it at that and would much rather have a chat about CMJ's list instead of talking about how much easier batsman at 5 and 6 have it then openers in the current era.

 

[Matt79]

Maybe Hayden's going to be in the top ten? :shrugs:

As always, interesting to see these things and more pertinently to read the reasons for the distinctions drawn, but def. not worth getting upset about. Never understood why fans get upset that others don't share their opinion. Wfdu_ben91, why are you worried if CMJ doesn't rate Hayden?

 

[SJS]

no kumble in top 100? that is strange.

alan davidson may not find a place too.

the top 10, i guess, could be

bradman
sobers
grace
hobbs
richards
warne
tendulkar
hammond
barnes
gilchrist

I agree with nine. I dont think Gilchrist will be there. I do not see Andy Roberts in the 90 (unless I missed it somehow) and he will be there.

I am also do not see Miller which is very surprising. But I cant imagine who he might leave out from these ten to accommodate the great Miller unless he decides that WG is above such mundane excercises

 

[Maximus0723]

Contemporary cricketers are getting unfair treatment.

1. Sir Bradman
2. Sir Sobers
3-5. Sir Viv/ Sir Hobbs/ Sachin
6. W.G.
7-9. Barnes/Hammond/Warne

 

[pskov]

Always has and always will be Bradman first and WG second for me. Don't really understand anyone else being placed above those two.

 

[fredfertang]

What a difference a decade makes!

The Times did exactly the same exercise in 1998 - John Woodcock was the selector then

These were his first ten, in order

WG Grace
DG Bradman
GS Sobers
A Mynn
JB Hobbs
SF Barnes
WR Hammond
IVA Richards
IT Botham
DCS Compton

These were the ones he selected who aren't in CMJ's list - they are in order of appearance in Woodcock's list

SK Warne
SR Tendulkar
GH Hirst
W Beldham
MJ Procter
HJ Tayfield
T Richardson
RB Kanhai
AK Davidson
IM Chappell
J Small
AG Steel
TG Evans
AC Maclaren
A Shaw
VAP Van der bijl
RB Simpson
F Mahmood
Hanif Mohammad
FS Jackson
RGD Willis
DL Underwood
S Ramadhin
WW Hall
HW Taylor
PA De Silva
JR Reid

 

[bagapath]

I agree with nine. I dont think Gilchrist will be there. I do not see Andy Roberts in the 90 (unless I missed it somehow) and he will be there.

I am also do not see Miller which is very surprising. But I cant imagine who he might leave out from these ten to accommodate the great Miller unless he decides that WG is above such mundane excercises

keith miller is at no.16. i am not sure who else he would choose for the top positions other than the 10 i've listed out. looks pretty obvious to me.

 

[pasag]

I agree with nine. I dont think Gilchrist will be there. I do not see Andy Roberts in the 90 (unless I missed it somehow) and he will be there.

Would be very suprised if Gilchrist wasn't there.

 

[SJS]

keith miller is at no.16. i am not sure who else he would choose for the top positions other than the 10 i've listed out. looks pretty obvious to me.

You seriously think Gilchrist is an undisputed top ten player of all time ??

But you may be right since he has chosen he is choosing his top cricketers and not just in one discipline. He could have given much greater weightage to Gilly's enormous batting talents which is more difficult to argue against.

But I am amazed to see Andy Roberts (and even Garner) out of that list and Walsh in.

 

[SJS]

Just always makes me ask why people bother. I can't see any use whatsoever in such exact things.

I like general lists - like categorising the seam bowlers into various categories with no exact rankings - but this one-to-hundred sort of thing is, IMO, completely and totally pointless.

Lists serve only one purpose, help retired people pass the time .

 

[SJS]

Lists serve only one purpose, help retired people pass the time .

Just to prove that sentence correct and as the leading "retiree" of the forum let me try and find " faults" (read missing pieces) in CMJ's list.

Lets take Aussie cricketer's first. There are four all rounders included by CMJ. Here they are in the order ranked.

1. Keith Miller (Australia)
2. Richie Benaud (Australia)
3. Jack Gregory (Australia)
4. Warwick Armstrong (Australia)

It is not possible to argue with the credentials of these four worthies to be in that let but . . . . no Monty Noble !!

and what about the man called the WG of Australia . . . George Giffen. I know George Giffen is not a name many of you may be familiar with but then so is Arthur Shrewsbury

Then we come to Australian Keepers.

There is just one name in that list. . . Ian Healy - a great keeper no doubt but what, what, what ??? only one wicket keeper (with Gilchrist maybe still to come in the last ten) from the land of great wicket keepers ? . . . what about these guys (listed in the order of their appearance on the cricketing firmament)

• Blackham
• Kelly
• Oldfield
• Tallon
• Grout
• Marsh

I suspect CMJ is not a great fan of wicket keeping skills and does not believe they make great keepers. One may disagree but then one cant deny him his opinions/preferences as he has included Stewart, Sangakarra, Walcott, Ames and Andy Flower all top class batsmen (and Gilchrist by common consensus is just the last list away). I listed all the wicket keepers in the world and then ranked them by Test centuries scored and guess which six came on the top - Stewart, Sangakarra, Walcott, Ames, Andy Flower and, of course, Gilchrist.

So CMJ wanted wicket keepers who could score Test centuries more often (kidding). Next in that list I made was Kamran Akmal (6 centuries) and then Boucher Knott and Dujon with five. Healy is next with four along with Waite and Moin. So okay, we conced that he picked Knott and Healy from these two subgroups for their superior keeping skills besides Test century scoring capability. I cant tell you how happy I felt at having solved this particular mystery

I dont like mysteries . . . not in cricket lists anyway

.... to be continued

 

[bagapath]

You seriously think Gilchrist is an undisputed top ten player of all time ??

no he is not. but if he is in someone's top ten i will not be too surprised. there are some greats, steve waugh and michael holding come to my mind, who are absolute champions but they would not be in anyone's top ten because there are even superior players in their disciplines. gilchrist, unlike them, is one of a kind. combining his devastating batsmanship with very good wicket keeping skills made him a very special member of the most successful team in history. he filled in the role of an all rounder so successfully and so entertainingly for so long that it is possible to single him out as one of the most important players of all time. he would be in my top 25.

 

[oitoitoi]

I'm sorry I just can't take this list seriously, Ambrose at 51 and Marshall at 11....utterly ridiculous. If I was making an all time team, I think Marshall would be the first on my list, above even the Don, undoubtedly the best quick ever.

Guessing his top 10 will feature Bradman, Sobers, Murali, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Warne, Grace, Richards, not sure about the other 2 spots.

Dissappointed at no Sehwag. No Davidson is very suprising too (unless he's in the top 10 which is too high). Dexter above Abbas, Donald, Harvey, Smith, Merchant? CB Fry shockingly low IMO. No Hazare will raise an Indian eyebrow or 2. Flintoff shouldn't be anywhere near that list considering the other names on it. Who the hell would want Flintoff in their team above Pollock, Donald, Holding or Statham? Think Saqlain was a better bowler than Qadir but that's probably just me. Gower and Jayasuriya placed so highly on aesthetic value, no way were they better than some of the names below them. Jon Snow very high IMO. No Hayden either is very harsh. I'd expect an England bias but some of the choices are hard to justify, e.g Bedser above Akram?

 

[andyc]

I'm sorry I just can't take this list seriously, Ambrose at 51 and Marshall at 11....utterly ridiculous. If I was making an all time team, I think Marshall would be the first on my list, above even the Don, undoubtedly the best quick ever.

 

[oitoitoi]

You only need so much batting, Marshall was possibly the only quick ever who could genuinely do it all and be devastating on all surfaces. That said Don would comfortably be no.2 on my list.

 

[bagapath]

Bedser above Akram?

like most indians i am a big wasim akram fan. the television age in india coincided with his career so perfectly that the first great fast bowler most of the country regularly watched on tv was wasim. but i understand cmj's logic here in ranking bedser above him. dont want to create another stats based discussion here; simply put akram's record is not that hot if you apply certain parameters of greatness stringently. he is among the top 15 or 20 great pacers of all time; will struggle to break into the top 10 though. so would bedser. but he might sneak in one place ahead of wasim.

 

[Migara]

Would be very suprised if Gilchrist wasn't there.

Gilchist over Murali in all time top ten? You must be joking.