ESPN's Legends of Cricket

[Umar12345]

this list needs updating

tendulkar is a great batsman but since 2004 his average has been 32 if you were not to include bangladesh and zimbabwe. on the other hand lara has mentained his avearge of 53

Despite his record of scoring the most Test centuries, none of Tendulkar's innings found a place in the Wisden 100, a statistics-based list released by Wisden in 2001 of the 100 "greatest Test batting performances". Wisden stated that most of his best performances had come in draws and defeats, and so received a much lower weighting as they did not contribute to a victory.

Viv Richards has played the most match winning innings in history followed by inzi and waugh drawing.

Players like Waqar younis, Inzi , Dravid , Ponting, Murli would be there if this list was updated. Players like Alan Knott, Victor Trumper, Bishen Bedi wont be in the list

Its dissapointing on how a bowler of the class of Allan Donald is ranked 48 (below Alan knott!!) and Miandad ranked 44 even though he averaged 52 and more then 41 in ODI's

 

[Matt79]

It wasn't meant to be a live list, or regularly updated - it was a one-off special. And it was just based on the votes of a panel of ex-players, so its a subjective measure...

 

[The Sean]

I think Javed would be happy with a ranking of no.44 - there have been a hell of a lot of Test cricketers in the past 130 years, to be ranked 44th best is in fact a stunning achievement. Likewise Alan Donald at no.48, even if many of us would indeed have him a little higher.

I'm sure such a list will be done again, if not by ESPN then by someone else. John Woodcock did (an embarrasingly biased) one for The Times in 1997, and Geoff Armstrong undertook a similar exercise for a book last year.

And I seem to do one every few weeks or so.

 

[Jono]

this list needs updating

tendulkar is a great batsman but since 2004 his average has been 32 if you were not to include bangladesh and zimbabwe. on the other hand lara has mentained his avearge of 53

Despite his record of scoring the most Test centuries, none of Tendulkar's innings found a place in the Wisden 100, a statistics-based list released by Wisden in 2001 of the 100 "greatest Test batting performances". Wisden stated that most of his best performances had come in draws and defeats, and so received a much lower weighting as they did not contribute to a victory.

Viv Richards has played the most match winning innings in history followed by inzi and waugh drawing.

Players like Waqar younis, Inzi , Dravid , Ponting, Murli would be there if this list was updated. Players like Alan Knott, Victor Trumper, Bishen Bedi wont be in the list

Its dissapointing on how a bowler of the class of Allan Donald is ranked 48 (below Alan knott!!) and Miandad ranked 44 even though he averaged 52 and more then 41 in ODI's

Its a list at the time. How are they supposed to know the future?

And I'd also point to Sachin's record vs. Australia, and compare it to Inzy's.

 

[haroon510]

they have lara at number 34.. wow and sechin number 8... lol

i don't wana create the debate of who is better lara or sechin here but considering that lara has been the lonly fighter for WI i rank lara higher than sechin...

they are doing something wrong seriously...

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah I have nfi why Lara is at 34 (?).

 

[Jono]

Because the list was made in the 2000/01 season I believe. Lara was in meltdown mode just prior to that.

Obviously now Lara would be quite far ahead.

 

[Ikki]

Because the list was made in the 2000/01 season I believe. Lara was in meltdown mode just prior to that.

Obviously now Lara would be quite far ahead.

And Sachin was still going strong.

 

[haroon510]

And Sachin was still going strong.

i don't think so... sechin lost his form and what made him sechin right after world cup 99.

 

[Ikki]

i don't think so... sechin lost his form and what made him sechin right after world cup 99.

Well, compare it to how he has been for many years after that. I'd still say that at the time they made this list, Sachin's record wasn't as questionable.

 

[Arjun]

This list was likely to have its own share of contentious issues. In the very first episode, the panelist, Sidhu, said that it's not an easy list to make, especially from this generation. Many of them, for instance, haven't seen CK Nayudu or Vinoo Mankad in action. I haven't seen the likes of Hobbes and Sutcliffe in action, but I saw that one episode about Hobbes, where all the experts who spoke about him were (more or less) over 65 years of age and very much unknown, except for Richie Benaud, and the only panelists closer to this generation were Botham (who spoke one line at the end of the episode) and Crowe.

 

[emteekay]

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.

hello. i need the videos of some of greats of ESPNs legends of cricket of VIV RICHARDS, DENNIS LILLEE, MICHAEL HOLDING... from where i can dowload it?? i tried youtube, but nothing there. i did found on imran khan, tendulkar, sobers, marshall. kindly guide me. thnx

 

[emteekay]

It wasn't meant to be a live list, or regularly updated - it was a one-off special. And it was just based on the votes of a panel of ex-players, so its a subjective measure...

hello. i need the videos of some of greats of ESPNs legends of cricket of VIV RICHARDS, DENNIS LILLEE, MICHAEL HOLDING... from where i can dowload it?? i tried youtube, but nothing there. i did found on imran khan, tendulkar, sobers, marshall. kindly guide me. thnx

 

[honestbharani]

And Sachin was still going strong.

Also, Sachin has an ESPN-Star Sports contract......

 

[Chubby Rain]

Also, Sachin has an ESPN-Star Sports contract......

And yet he only made #7. Even conspiracy theories need some sort of basis.

 

[Athlai]

And yet he only made #7. Even conspiracy theories need some sort of basis.

Ah but thats the genius of it! If they put him in the top 5 it may have brought up suspicion, but no they made him number 7.

Brilliant.

 

[The Sean]

I suppose the thing is that, at the point at which this ranking was conducted, Sachin being at no.7 was not so far fetched:

- The list was compiled by many of his peers or men who had watched him close at hand and so unashamedly admired him (the overall list is indeed relatively skewed toward more modern players)
- He was at the time the dominant batsman in both forms of the game, and was at the absolute peak of both his form and his fame
- Steve Waugh, among others, had expressed the opinion that he might just be the second greatest batsman of all time after Bradman
- The Don himself had appointed him his earthly successor and chosen him in his all time XI
- To top it all he was still only 27 and there were widespread predictions of 50 Test centuries and 15000 Test runs.

Considering the context of the study and its timing, I don't remember there being too many arguments at the time for the position he came in at.

 

[Chubby Rain]

I suppose the thing is that, at the point at which this ranking was conducted, Sachin being at no.7 was not so far fetched:

- The list was compiled by many of his peers or men who had watched him close at hand and so unashamedly admired him (the overall list is indeed relatively skewed toward more modern players)
- He was at the time the dominant batsman in both forms of the game, and was at the absolute peak of both is form and his fame
- Steve Waugh, among others, had expressed the opinion that he might just be the second greatest batsman of all time after Bradman
- The Don himself had appointed him his earthly successor and chosen him in his all time XI
- To top it all he was still only 27 and there were widespread predictions of 50 Test centuries and 15000 Test runs.

Considering the context of the study and its timing, I don't remember there being too many arguments at the time for the position he came in at.

The scary thing is, dominant or not, he can still achieve the 50 hundreds and 15000 test runs milestone.

 

[honestbharani]

And yet he only made #7. Even conspiracy theories need some sort of basis.

I watched everyone of their shows on this and the reasons they gave were pathetic... First of all, who said it included ODIs as well? Check it out....


And if we are only talking abt tests, remember at that time, he had only 1 or 2 double hundreds... So much for #7... And even with all that, how was he better than Imran Khan who had such excellent figures as an all rounder for such a long time in his career? If you guys think there was no bias involved here, you seriously need to watch those shows again.... Of course, I think Sachin is one of the greatest of all time but that list and the way they went about it showed their obvious bias. Plus it is good PR to put an Indian as high as you can..... I don't think he is better than Kapil Dev in terms of contribution to cricket and Indian cricket in particular, for instance......

 

[honestbharani]

The scary thing is, dominant or not, he can still achieve the 50 hundreds and 15000 test runs milestone.

The scarier thing is that you guys think that his ODI record played a part in him being rated as better than ppl who never played any ODI cricket in their lives because it wasn't around at that time.....