ESPN's Legends of Cricket

[Francis]

ESPN'S LEGENDS OF CRICKET (www.legendsofcricket.tv)

This was a TV series which asked several judges: Wasim Akram, Sunil Gavaskar,
Richie Benaud, Sir Richard Hadlee, Dickie Bird, Michael Holding, Allan Border, John Knowles, Ian Botham, Robin Marlar, Ian Chappell, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Tony Cozier, Mike Procter and Martin Crowe to rank who they felt, were the 50 best cricketers ever! After they all voted, this was a result of the vote:

50 Bishan Bedi (India)

49 Alan Davidson (Australia)

48 Allan Donald (South Africa)

47 Allan Knott (England)

46 Victor Trumper (Australia)

45 Ray Lindwall (Australia)

44 Javed Miandad (Pakistan)

43 Clarrie Grimmett (Australia)

42 Jim Laker (England)

41 Glenn McGrath (Australia)

40 Michael Holding (West Indies)

39 Curtly Ambrose (West Indies)

38 Andy Roberts (West Indies)

37 Joel Garner (West Indies)

36 Richie Benaud (Australia)

35 Clyde Walcott (West Indies)

34 Brian Lara (West Indies)

33 Fred Trueman (England)

32 Mike Procter (South Africa)

31 Courtney Walsh (West Indies)

30 Bill O'Rielly (Australia)

29 Herbert Sutcliffe (England)

28 Wilfred Rhodes (England)

27 Everton Weekes (West Indies)

26 SF Barnes (England)

25 Allan Border (Australia)

24 Barry Richards (South Africa)

23 Steve Waugh (Australia)

22 Kapil Dev (India)

21 Wasim Akram (Pakistan)

20 Sir Leonard Hutton (England)

19 Sir Frank Worrell (West Indies)

18 George Headley (West Indies)

17 Greg Chappell (Australia)

16 Malcolm Marshall (West Indies)

15 Graeme Pollock (South Africa)

14 WG Grace (England)

13 Keith Miller (Australia)

12 Sir Richard Hadlee (New Zealand)

11 Ian Botham (England)

10 Sunil Gavaskar (India)

09 Wally Hammond (England)

08 Imran Khan (Pakistan)

07 Sachin Tendulkar (India)

06 Dennis Lillee (Australia)

05 Sir Jack Hobbs (England)

04 Shane Warne (Australia)

03 Sir Vivian Richards (West Indies)

02 Sir Garfield Sobers (West Indies)

01 Sir Donald Bradman (Australia)



A few things should be remembered. Firstly, this happened in 2001 so of course more recent players would be higher. Murali didn't become great until around 1999 so obviously if it were done today, he'd be in there. When McGrath was mentioned, the narrator made sure to note that he'd surely be higher as time went by. Lara was in a period where people remembered that his average once dropped below 50. Unfortunately for him, this was before his beyond brilliant series in Sri Lanka.

The idea of the series was to invite conversation and debate, which is what I hope will happen. It's interesting when you get voters like Richie Benaud who'd vote for SF Banes in their top ten etc. And then you'd have someone like Sunil Gavaskar who'd list someone like Bishan Bedi.

 

[Blaze]

Lol at Botham above Hadlee

 

[Francis]

There's actually a good case for Botham over Hadlee.

Hadlee was definitely more of a bowling allrounder to full fledged all rounder like Botham. It's been argued before that Malcolm Marshall was a better bowler than Hadlee, but Marshall had to share wickets with Holding, Garner and Roberts etc. While Hadlee had more time to get wickets as NZ's only striker. Similar to the Warne/Murali debates. So Hadlee gets his ranking mostly off bowling.

It's also been said that Botham's figures don't reflect how good he really was. In one year Botham made 1000 runs in a clanendar year I believe. That's what the best batsmen do today... yet Botham's average would never suggest that.

Don't forget, most of all, that all rounders are the toughest cricketers to judge with stats. Because three wickets and a fifty can easily mean as much as a century, if not more at times.

Then again, Ian Botham was a judge on the panal and might have put himself as number #1, who knows.

It's important to remember stats aren't everything and that every person who voted on the panel are cricket greats... then again, as I said, the intriguing thing is that they are from different schools. Benaud from an old school, while Botham represents a new school.

 

[Jono]

I've got the book and DVD set of this, well its actually the book and DVD of the top 25. They shortlisted 50 players, and then chose 25 from there. I remember watching a few of the shows, but couldn't watch them all, hence why I purchased the DVD set which is absolutely awesome.

I really recommend either the book or DVD set to anyone who is interested in the history of these champion players. Its great.

 

[Beleg]

Here's a list of some cricketers who I consider 'legends' within local or international context.

West Indian legends:

1. Sobers
2. Lara
3. Headley
4. Richards
5. Weekes
6. Walcott
7. Worrell
8. Kanhai
9. Kallicharan
10. Lloyd
11. Holding
12. Garner
13. Roberts
14. Marshall
15. Walsh
16. Ambrose
17. Gibbs
18. Alf Valentine
19. Sonny Ramadhin
20. Bishop

Australian Legends:

1. Bradman
2. Trumper
3. Morris
4. Harvey
5. Ian Chappell
6. Greg Chappell
7. Richie Beanud
8. Ray Lindwall
9. Claire Grimmett
10. Alan Davidson
11. Steve Waugh
12. Alan Border
13. Dennis Lillee
14. David Boon
15. Mark Waugh
16. Ricky Ponting
17. Damien Martyn
18. Adam Gilchrist
19. Shane Warne
20. Glenn McGrath

Pakistani Legends

1. Miandad
2. Imran
3. Wasim
4. Inzamam
5. Waqar
6. Hanif Mohammad
7. Zaheer Abbas
8. Fazal Mahmood
9. Saeed Anwar
10. Majid Khan

Indian Legends:

1. Lala Amarnath
2. Gavaskar
3. Tendulkar
4. Kumble
5. Dravid
6. Azharuddin
7. Vengaskar
8. Saeed Kirmani
9. Kapil Dev
10. Javagal Srinath
11. Subash Gupte
12. Bedi
13. Chandershekar
14. Persana
15. C. K. Naidu
16. Nawad Mansoor Ali Khan Patudi
17. Mohinder Amarnath
18. Saruav Ganguly


South Africa

1. Bruce Mitchel
2. Dudley Nourse
3. Alan Donald
4. Kallis
5. Peter Pollock
6. Graeme Pollock
7. Shaun Pollock
8. Gary Kirsten
9. Hansie Cronje
10. Jonty Rhodes
11. Barry Richards
12. Mike Proctor
13. Eddie Barlow
14. Tayfield
15. Lance Klusener

New Zealand:

1. Richard Hadlee
2. Glen Turner
3. Martin Crowe
4. Chris Cairns
5. Sutcliffe
6. John Wright
7. Stephen Fleming
8. Richardson
9. Chris Harris
10. Lance Cairns

Sri Lanka:

1. Ranatunga
2. Mendes
3. De Silva
4. Jayasuria
5. Muralitharan
6. Vaas
7. Manahma
8. Gurusinha
9. Sangakara
10. Attapatu

Zimbabwe

1. Andy Flower





2. Grant Flower
3. Dave Houghton
4. Alistair Campbell
5. Heath Streak

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Personally, I'd rate Streak above all Zimbawean's minus A. Flower.

 

[chooka_nick]

I've got the book and DVD set of this, well its actually the book and DVD of the top 25. They shortlisted 50 players, and then chose 25 from there. I remember watching a few of the shows, but couldn't watch them all, hence why I purchased the DVD set which is absolutely awesome.

I really recommend either the book or DVD set to anyone who is interested in the history of these champion players. Its great.

Yeah, I've read the book but I'd love the DVD. The book was great!

Personally, I'd rate Streak above all Zimbawean's minus A. Flower.

Me too man.

 

[luckyeddie]

Lol at Botham above Hadlee

Both of them were on the panel too. Perhaps they fought for it.

The programs are still shown over here on Sky immediately following a day's play in a test or a ODI - personally I don't give a damn who is ranked higher than whom.

 

[cric_manic]

Here's a list of some cricketers who I consider 'legends' within local or international context.








New Zealand:

1. Richard Hadlee
2. Glen Turner
3. Martin Crowe
4. Chris Cairns
5. Sutcliffe
6. John Wright
7. Stephen Fleming
8. Richardson
9. Chris Harris
10. Lance Cairns

 

[honestbharani]

That was a rather biased list. YOu will see that ESPN's commentators and Sky's commentators (they have a tie up with ESPN) were all placed high. Not a great list. Lara at 34 and Tendulkar at 7 is just plain right funny. I don't think there is much to seperate them and any ranking system that does not have both these guys around 5 places of each other is not very fair, IMHO.

 

[Deja moo]

That was a rather biased list. YOu will see that ESPN's commentators and Sky's commentators (they have a tie up with ESPN) were all placed high. Not a great list. Lara at 34 and Tendulkar at 7 is just plain right funny. I don't think there is much to seperate them and any ranking system that does not have both these guys around 5 places of each other is not very fair, IMHO.

Its an old old list after all...Sachin was at his peak in 98, while Lara seemed to be in decline.

That said, I really don't see the point of the poster bringing up this outdated list for discussion. Noob enthusiasm perhaps ?

 

[Francis]

I brought it up because the list isn't outdated. The only people who's ranking would change are Sachin (maybe), Lara, McGrath and Murali would be in there. Other than that it's a list which illustrates how the games greats rank their peers.

-Firstly, the massive gap between Sachin and Lara is easy to explain. Lara had an average over 60 at one point, this dipped below 50 in the 90s. Lara was often criticised for not being motivated and that hurt him. However, reportedly, if Lara had one of two votes go his way, he'd be top 25.

-Sachin, however, was untouchable in the 80s. Just brilliant... and really I have no criticisms of him from the 90s. He got centuries faster than Gavaskar... and remember he's slowed down these last few years and still beat it faster than Gavaskar. Martin Crowe ranks him the best batsman after Bradman... debateable but he's a contender. Really, for me, Sachin was the cricketer of the 90s.

So yes it does make sense if you ask me. I personally don't see any bias in the picking... mainly because you have guys from different eras from different countires with difference opinions.

I love Lara, at his best, he's my favorite batsman to watch and he's the second best batsman for making insanely huge scores in cricket history (Bradman). But to say there should only be five rankings between them I don't agree with. It's not that they're not close... it's just that there are so many close rankings that could go either way.

For batsman better than Lara, I'd go with Bradman, V. Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Pollock, Gavaskar. For all-rounders better than Lara there's Sobers (of course), Imran Khan is a mile ahead of Lara if you look at Imran at his peak. Botham, Hadlee and Miller were better for me as all-rounders than Lara is with the ball. For bowlers I'd have Warne, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and Murali as better...

Of course with time I'd have him over guys like Chappell... but the point is that it's close... very close. And for me, to say only five positions sepparate them when there've been so many great cricketers... well I don't agree with it. That point of the list is that guys are so close that it incites dicussion... that's why I posted it.

 

[33/3from3.3]

Onya Bradders

 

[Beleg]

?

 

[cric_manic]

?

Oh,i dont agree with your list,but it is just your opinion

 

[Armadillo]

I still can't get my head around the Viv Richards thing. I mean, I never saw him play but his average is, well, average. 44 is not the average of the 3rd best player of all time. Surely stats have something to do with his ratedness.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Richards averaged higher than 44, though his average admittedly wasn't that of an all time great. He averaged relatively low because of the way he played, and because of boredom. I for one am certain that if he had played a bit more conservatively he would have averaged over 60, and would rightly be considered a great, but as it is he's considered great because of the way he took the game away from the bowlers in an instant.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Lol at Botham above Hadlee

Don't see what's wrong with it personally, there's a case for either being above the other, but I'd have Botham because at his absolute peak he was the second best all-rounder ever IMO, Sobers obviously being first. That said, his peak wasn't that long.

EDIT: Amusing typo...

 

[Armadillo]

Richards averaged higher than 44, though his average admittedly wasn't that of an all time great. He averaged relatively low because of the way he played, and because of boredom. I for one am certain that if he had played a bit more conservatively he would have averaged over 60, and would rightly be considered a great, but as it is he's considered great because of the way he took the game away from the bowlers in an instant.

His average is 44. If he took the game away from the bowlers, with an average of 44, he wouldn't do this as consistently as his ratedness (pardon for using this word) suggests.

 

[Armadillo]

Surprise surprise, Sunny rates himself in the top ten. No way was he a better player than Brian Lara is, he's always seemed arrogant to me.