ESPN's Legends of Cricket

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Ahem... http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/52812.html

Tests 121 182 12 8540 291 50.23

EDIT: And I'd also add that his average was, I think, a lot higher than 50 until the last couple of years of his career, when his eyesight started letting him down. Obviously being quite an eye-player, this affected him more than most.

 

[Armadillo]

Oh dear, must have been thinking of his ODI average but even that was 47, I swear it was 44, never mind. Still you see players like Sehwag with averages like 58.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Oh dear, must have been thinking of his ODI average but even that was 47, I swear it was 44, never mind. Still you see players like Sehwag with averages like 58.

Playing on dual carriageways against popgun attacks. You posted about ground statistics a handful of days ago, and now you come up with this. Go buy a DVD.

 

[Armadillo]

And what DVD would that be neil?

 

[Neil Pickup]

And what DVD would that be neil?

Any DVD with lots of Viv and no numbers should suffice.

 

[Jono]

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.

Relax... When this list was made Lara had notched up his 400* and a lot of his scores. I'm not entirely sure when it was made, but it was pre-2000 wasn't it? It was definitely pre-2002 for sure. Sachin was belting ton after ton after ton in the 90s, particularly the late 90s. Lara wasn't doing that great, and its been after the turn of the century that he's once again brought his name back.

Read the book anyway, it gives explanations as to why people like Lara and Murali didn't make the top 25.

 

[Autobahn]

Ahem... http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/52812.html

Tests 121 182 12 8540 291 50.23

EDIT: And I'd also add that his average was, I think, a lot higher than 50 until the last couple of years of his career, when his eyesight started letting him down. Obviously being quite an eye-player, this affected him more than most.

Well i think there's many people who believe he played on longer than he should have like botham.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Why was Sachin untouchable in the 80s?


I guess we disagree on the Sachin/Lara thingy mate. let's leave it at that. No need to open that Pandora's box now.

 

[honestbharani]

Relax... When this list was made Lara had notched up his 400* and a lot of his scores. I'm not entirely sure when it was made, but it was pre-2000 wasn't it? It was definitely pre-2002 for sure. Sachin was belting ton after ton after ton in the 90s, particularly the late 90s. Lara wasn't doing that great, and its been after the turn of the century that he's once again brought his name back.

Read the book anyway, it gives explanations as to why people like Lara and Murali didn't make the top 25.

It is not just about Lara. It was still more than a little biased. I watched the damn shows on ESPN and some of their explanations were just plain funny. it was before the 99 WC, BTW.

 

[Armadillo]

Any DVD with lots of Viv and no numbers should suffice.

Touche

 

[Deja moo]

Any DVD with lots of Viv and no numbers should suffice.

Any DVD with lots of Gilchrist and no numbers would suffice too I would imagine ?

 

[luckyeddie]

Any DVD with lots of Gilchrist and no numbers would suffice too I would imagine ?

If you think that there is ANY comparison between Viv and Gilchrist (other than 'a bad one'), you're probably the only one who does.

 

[Slifer]

When someone can explain to me how/why Dennis Lillee considered a better cricketer let alone bowler than both Malcolm Marshall and Hadlee i would really like to hear that argument.

 

[Deja moo]

If you think that there is ANY comparison between Viv and Gilchrist (other than 'a bad one'), you're probably the only one who does.

So a DVD package of Gilchrist wouldnt show him up in good light ?

 

[luckyeddie]

So a DVD package of Gilchrist wouldnt show him up in good light ?

Oh, yes - although Viv's probably got the edge as far as wicketkeeping is concerned. .

 

[Deja moo]

Oh, yes - although Viv's probably got the edge as far as wicketkeeping is concerned. .

Yeah, those old-timers were superheros..did he really give keeping up so his buddy Dujon could get into the side ? What a guy!

 

[luckyeddie]

When someone can explain to me how/why Dennis Lillee considered a better cricketer let alone bowler than both Malcolm Marshall and Hadlee i would really like to hear that argument.

Sir Richard Hadlee was actually on the selection panel.

I can only suggest that the tight-fisted Kiwi git didn't stick his hand in his pocket enough times when it came to pub time, and Richie, Both and the rest decided to stitch him up.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yeah, those old-timers were superheros..did he really give keeping up so his buddy Dujon could get into the side ? What a guy!

Sorry. Have you got a problem with cricketers who pre-date Dhoni?

 

[Deja moo]

Sorry. Have you got a problem with cricketers who pre-date Dhoni?

Nope, but I do have a problem with people who can twist an innocent statement.

 

[luckyeddie]

Nope, but I do have a problem with people who can twist an innocent statement.

So this is an innocent statement?

Yeah, those old-timers were superheros..did he really give keeping up so his buddy Dujon could get into the side ? What a guy!

It looked just a little sarcastic to me, so taking it in conjunction with the other 'Ashes' discussion we have been having (where Sanz is now kicking your butt), I naturally wondered why you seem to think that cricketers from as recent as the 1980's are no longer worthy of consideration.

You know, just for clarification.