Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
A lot of misguided people about here.
-
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.
CW50 2nd Edition (aka WWIII) - No 21 - 30
- Thread starter smash84
- Start date
Sparkley
Banned
''Yes, I definitely remember Kallis being rated amongst the best bowlers of his era''
That is a moot point. Swann is the number one spinner in the world today. It doesn't automatically make him better than a Kumble or a Saqlain just because they had to play in the same era as Murali and Warne and were never number one as a result of that.
That is a moot point. Swann is the number one spinner in the world today. It doesn't automatically make him better than a Kumble or a Saqlain just because they had to play in the same era as Murali and Warne and were never number one as a result of that.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
4th place suggests to me that's amongst the best to me (incidentally at the same time he was the best batsman in the world as well)
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Hey Burgey, do you think there is an Australian cricketer who makes it to these lists and is overrated?
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Oops Sorry, I had Hutton too - just one or 2 places below Gavaskar...
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't know who's on the full list yet, neither do you.
I thought I already said in the other thread that I didn't have Border in my top 25, and he's probably my favourite player of all time. I don't think I'd have Waugh in my top 50 either. But he'd be close.
So how about we just wait and see who ends up where?
Having said that, I reserve the right to **** can other peoples' choices
Last edited:
So ricky ponting would make your top 25 but dravid would not make your top 50I had everyone bar the Indians who made this 10.
It's the just way it turned out.. Gavaskar was very close, Dev was quite close and although I would be happy enough with Dravid squeezing into a top 50; I didn't really consider him for my top 25.
Thats bizzare considering there is not a lot of gap between the two.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah there is.So ricky ponting would make your top 25 but dravid would not make your top 50
Thats bizzare considering there is not a lot of gap between the two.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Reckon this should be allowed without question TBH.Dravid definitely deserves a top spot in my opinion, he's just such a gentleman and worked so hard. He held an entire team togetherI'd put Miller right up near first place if I was to redo my list too.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
WAC etc.lol....if he had so much miller love then he shouldn't have forgotten him in the first dig
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
What number did you vote Miller, Sean?
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I had him at no.7 - I don't actually reckon I'll be his highest ranking. Someone ranked him no.3 last time around IIRC, and it wasn't me.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I wanted to put him higher but could only justify #16. My sort of player to a tee in a few ways but the exact opposite in a few others.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Number 16 is still pretty bloody good, and give or take I reckon that's about where he'll end up.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Haha I agree with you about so many things when it comes to ranking cricketers over time, in particular the processes and what's important, but that's one thing we'll always differ greatly on.
The difference between, for example, Miller's batting and McGrath's batting is always going to be a lot bigger than the difference between their bowling. I think in all our hair-splitting and personal preferences, we lose sight of just how little difference there is between the quality of two great bowlers or two great batsmen; if you can split them by something that's an obvious point of difference like lower order batting or useful change bowling, then you should. We have a natural bias against doing that though IMO in our efforts to rate the greatest at each discipline in order.
It's a different thing altogether when picking all-time teams because of diminishing returns, diseconomies of scale or whatever you want to call it - and I think this is another thing that biases us, because the quest to pick the greatest XI is always there - but when just rating players in order I think it's something we have a natural inclination not to do.