Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Red]

Unsure if this book by Armstrong was reviewed on CW ever, but this thread stems from a discussion in the random auction draft about Martin Crowe not being included in Armstrong's list of 100 cricketers. Armstrong selects who he considers to be the 100 greatest, and then places them in 9 teams (plus his favourite, Doug Walters). Armstrong also writes an excellent bio on each of the players in the book. Anyway, do you think Crowe should have been in, and what do you think of the rest of the list?

The first XI- WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Imran Khan, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne and Sydney Barnes.



The second XI- Len Hutton, Victor Trumper, Viv Richards, Wally Hammond, Brian Lara, Ian Botham, Alan Knott, Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee, Fred Spofforth, and Muttiah Muralitharan.



The third XI- Sunil Gavaskar, Herbert Sutcliffe, George Headley, Greg Chappell, Frank Worrell, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Jack Blackham, George Lohmann, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn McGrath.



The fourth XI- Archie MacLaren, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Keith Miller, Wilfred Rhodes, Alan Davidson, Jim Laker, Godfrey Evans and Curtly Ambrose.



The fifth XI- Barry Richards, Arthur Shrewsbury, Ricky Ponting, KS Ranjitsinhji, Denis Compton, Frank Woolley, Richie Benaud, Syed Kirmani, Ray Lindwall, Fred Trueman and Alec Bedser.



The sixth XI- Virender Sehwag, Geoff Boycott, Rahul Dravid, Charlie Macartney, Javed Miandad, Mike Procter, Les Ames, Harold Larwood, Joel Garner, Bishan Bedi and Bhagwat Chandrasekhar.



The seventh XI- Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden, Rohan Kanhai, Neil Harvey, Ken Barrington, Monty Noble, Johnny Briggs, Wasim Bari, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Charlie Turner.



The eighth XI- Graham Gooch, Billy Murdoch, Clem Hill, Peter May, Dudley Nourse, Jacques Kallis, Ian Healy, Hugh Trumble, Fazal Mahmood, John Snow and Waqar Younis.



The ninth XI- Stan McCabe, Herbie Taylor, Vijay Hazare, Clive Lloyd, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Andy Flower, Andrew Flintoff, Bill Lockwood, Jeff Thomson, Tom Richardson and Arthur Mailey.

 

[harsh.ag]

So difficult to rank teams this way, especially after the 3rd XI. At a casual glance, major exclusions seem to be

Spinners:
Clarrie Grimmett, Anil Kumble, Erapalli Prasanna, Derek Underwood, Abdul Qadir
Laker, Benaud, Rhodes and Chandrasekhar have been overrated

Pacemen:
Allan Donald, Courtney Walsh, Shaun Pollock, Dale Steyn, Colin Croft
Holding, Roberts and Waqar are under-ranked.
Bedser, Larwood and Lindwall have been overrated

Batsmen:
Gordon Greenidge, Kumar Sangakkara, Martin Crowe, Arthur Morris, Bill Lawry
Perhaps Cook and Smith
Shrewsbury is a welcome addition, but Murdoch and MacLaren do not merit a place here.
McCabe and Kallis are under-ranked (Poor Kallis, again)

Wicketkeepers:
Andy Flower should be higher up, and Kirmani should be replaced by Farookh Engineer or Rodney Marsh

The 4th and 5th XIs' bowling makes no sense whatsoever to me, given the options available. Too much all-rounder love going on. Need better bowlers in these two line-ups.

Apart from that, nice work by the author. Just couldn't hide the fact that he is British, and is too afraid to leave Tendulkar out of the first XI (understandably )

 

[hendrix]

Hanif Mohammad is a bigger exclusion than Crowe, IMO

 

[Days of Grace]

I own that book. It was written about five years ago, so I'm sure that if there was a second edition, Kallis would be moving up in accordance with the greater respect afforded to him these days.

 

[harsh.ag]

I own that book. It was written about five years ago, so I'm sure that if there was a second edition, Kallis would be moving up in accordance with the greater respect afforded to him these days.

Ah then Steyn, Cook, Sangakkara and Smith safely out of range. Why in god's name would he not include Donald and Grimmett and Kumble and Greenidge though.

My major problem is that he is so blatantly pro-English, it is just sad. He should have titled the book 80 Greatest Cricketers and my English Favorites

 

[L Trumper]

So difficult to rank teams this way, especially after the 3rd XI. At a casual glance, major exclusions seem to be

Spinners:
Clarrie Grimmett, Anil Kumble, Erapalli Prasanna, Derek Underwood, Abdul Qadir
Laker, Benaud, Rhodes and Chandrasekhar have been overrated

Pacemen:
Allan Donald, Courtney Walsh, Shaun Pollock, Dale Steyn, Colin Croft
Holding, Roberts and Waqar are under-ranked.
Bedser, Larwood and Lindwall have been overrated

Batsmen:
Gordon Greenidge, Kumar Sangakkara, Martin Crowe, Arthur Morris, Bill Lawry
Perhaps Cook and Smith
Shrewsbury is a welcome addition, but Murdoch and MacLaren do not merit a place here.
McCabe and Kallis are under-ranked (Poor Kallis, again)

Wicketkeepers:
Andy Flower should be higher up, and Kirmani should be replaced by Farookh Engineer or Rodney Marsh

The 4th and 5th XIs' bowling makes no sense whatsoever to me, given the options available. Too much all-rounder love going on. Need better bowlers in these two line-ups.

Apart from that, nice work by the author. Just couldn't hide the fact that he is British, and is too afraid to leave Tendulkar out of the first XI (understandably )

Lindwall is overrated? No way, there is very good case to be made for him to be austraila's greates fast bowler coupled with his batting he is as good as any.

As far as 4th , 5th XI considered,,

Are you telling me below one is not a good bowling attack? You've gotta be kidding!
Keith Miller, Wilfred Rhodes, Alan Davidson, Jim Laker, and Curtly Ambrose.

Even 5th XI has bloody great fast bowling attack, and benaud is pretty good spinner and arguably best of his time.
Frank Woolley, Richie Benaud, Ray Lindwall, Fred Trueman and Alec Bedser.

As far as OP is considered, not just Crowe there are one or more other omissions too. But I agree Crowe should be there. If he selects it now Sangakkara would be a shoo in.
And Greenidge , Hanif, Arthur Morris all are ahead of Gooch IMO. Above all I think Bruce Mitchell is the biggest omission

 

[harsh.ag]

Lindwall is overrated? No way, there is very good case to be made for him to be austraila's greates fast bowler coupled with his batting he is as good as any.

As far as 4th , 5th XI considered,,

Are you telling me below one is not a good bowling attack? You've gotta be kidding!
Keith Miller, Wilfred Rhodes, Alan Davidson, Jim Laker, and Curtly Ambrose.

Even 5th XI has bloody great fast bowling attack, and benaud is pretty good spinner and arguably best of his time.
Frank Woolley, Richie Benaud, Ray Lindwall, Fred Trueman and Alec Bedser.

As far as OP is considered, not just Crowe there are one or more other omissions too. But I agree Crowe should be there. If he selects it now Sangakkara would be a shoo in.
And Greenidge , Hanif, Arthur Morris all are ahead of Gooch IMO. Above all I think Bruce Mitchell is the biggest omission

I guess Lindwall can be called arguably better than Holding, Roberts, Garner, Waqar. Cool.

In the 4th XI, Alan Davidson can be replaced by all the names above easily. Plus, Laker and Rhodes should be replaced by the likes of Grimmett and Kumble/Mailey. Of course it's a good bowling attack, I just don't think it is the 4th greatest of all time.

5th XI, Bedser and Benaud need to be replaced. Grimmett, Mailey, Qadir, Kumble are all better than him easily. No need for another all-rounder.

Yeah, Bruce Mitchell is a big omission, and come to think of it, so is Aubrey Faulkner. Faulkner will kick Flintoff's ass all year long. Better than many on that list. I am glad that Macartney was included though.

 

[watson]

to answer Monk's question: I think that Martin Crowe should have been included by virtue of the fact that he is New Zealand's greatest batsman, laid the foundation for series wins in the mid-80s, and was fabulous to watch as a spectator.

Since Javed Miandad represents Pakistan as their greatest batsman (6th team), it seems fair that Inzy should make way for Crowe in Armstrong's list.

 

[watson]

The omission of Anil Kumble is indicative of Armstrong's philosophy when selecting his ATG players;

Anil Kumble has taken over 500 Test wickets, but I believe this is proof of his enormous tenacity and durability, rather than his greatness. In my view, Kumble is not entitled to be ranked ahead of bowlers such as Bhagwhat Chandrasekhar, Hugh Trumble, Johnny Briggs, and Arthur Mailey, who all make the top 100, or even Abdul Qadir and derek Underwood, who did not.

Page 12

Geoff Armstrong prefers players who brought something new and exciting to the game, or inspired by their uniqueness. Successful, but 'run-off-the-mill' players seem to get the shaft for the most part.

 

[Coronis]

Grimmett's exclusion is the biggest thing for me. He is easily one of the top 5 spinners of all time, imo. Find it hard to believe Hanif Mohammad and Bill Ponsford were left out.

I also own this book and there was some definite disappointment when reading it. Kallis is underrated ridiculously. Even back then, he warrants far better than that.

 

[watson]

Grimmett's exclusion is the biggest thing for me. He is easily one of the top 5 spinners of all time, imo. Find it hard to believe Hanif Mohammad and Bill Ponsford were left out.

I also own this book and there was some definite disappointment when reading it. Kallis is underrated ridiculously. Even back then, he warrants far better than that.

Here is Armstrong's rationale for choosing McCabe over Ponsford (it again highlights Armstrong's selection philosophy);

Question marks also existed over Ponsford's ability against very quick bowling. Footage of him batting against Larwood in Brisbane during the 1928/29 series - where the tourists made 521 in their first innings - shows him backing away as he faces the great English fast man. This seems more a problem of technique than courage, for four years later Ponsford was very brave, most notably in Adelaide when he made 85 and took a series of blows on the body. However, he was dropped twice during the summer, for the second and fifth Tests, as his footwork was consistently shown up by the speed and skill of Larwood and Voce. Compared to the way McCabe used his bat as D'Artagnan had used his sword, Ponsford looked very ponderous indeed.

page 284

 

[watson]

And here is a small part of Armstrong's rationale (it actually goes for 2 full pages) for preferring Mailey to Grimmett;

Leaving Grimmett out to fit Mailey in this top 100 is extremely difficult. But the fact Mailey took an English wicket every 60.48 deliveries, a better Strike Rate than not just Grimmett, but also Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, the outstanding Australian fast men of the 1920s is a compelling argument in his favour. Mailey's Strike Rate is also better than a number of other exceptional spinners from different eras, such as South Africa's Hugh Tayfield (79.81), India's Subash Gupte (75.73), England's Derek Underwood (73.61), Pakistan's Abdul Qadir (72.57) and India's Anil Kumble (65.48).

Page 312

 

[Mike5181]

Fred Spofforth ahead of guys like McGrath? There's so many baffling selctions in there.

 

[Coronis]

And here is a small part of Armstrong's rationale (it actually goes for 2 full pages) for preferring Mailey to Grimmett;

Hmm, even though Mailey averaged almost 10 runs more than Grimmett, and ha a worse economy. Might have something to do with Grimmett averaging 65 overs a match.

 

[watson]

Hmm, even though Mailey averaged almost 10 runs more than Grimmett, and ha a worse economy. Might have something to do with Grimmett averaging 65 overs a match.

The fact that Armstrong places more emphasis on Strike Rate rather than Average/Economy is consistent with his selection philosophy. Mailey was an exciting risk-taker and a unique/original cricketer, hence he was the greater player

 

[harsh.ag]

The fact that Armstrong places more emphasis on Strike Rate rather than Average/Economy is consistent with his selection philosophy. Mailey was an exciting risk-taker and a unique/original cricketer, hence he was the greater player

I don't buy this. Doesn't hold with his other selections. What is Boycott doing there ahead of Greenidge, Morris and Mitchell? Barrington ahead of Crowe, Archie Jackson, and Mark Waugh? Ponting behind Border and Waugh? Waqar should be miles ahead by this method. Instead, we get the great Bradman slayer, Alec Bedser, Charlie Turner and Fazal Mahmood.

I think he is just biased towards certain players and pulls out bull****, uh.. sorry, ''specious claims'' in support of his argument. Look at the bucketful of English players on the list. Because, yes, the English have been such an exciting and unique bunch of players since WWII

 

[Himannv]

Fred Spofforth ahead of guys like McGrath? There's so many baffling selctions in there.

This is the first thing that struck me as well. Him and Lohmann seem far too high on that list.

 

[harsh.ag]

This is the first thing that struck me as well. Him and Lohmann seem far too high on that list.

I guess he is trying to give some sort of a sanction to every generation while picking each XI. I won't say he is doing justice to every generation, or being kind, because the best players hate being picked ahead of their betters in a competitive environment for any reason.

 

[SJS]

Unsure if this book by Armstrong was reviewed on CW ever, but this thread stems from a discussion in the random auction draft about Martin Crowe not being included in Armstrong's list of 100 cricketers. Armstrong selects who he considers to be the 100 greatest, and then places them in 9 teams (plus his favourite, Doug Walters). Armstrong also writes an excellent bio on each of the players in the book. Anyway, do you think Crowe should have been in, and what do you think of the rest of the list?

The first XI- WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Imran Khan, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne and Sydney Barnes.



The second XI- Len Hutton, Victor Trumper, Viv Richards, Wally Hammond, Brian Lara, Ian Botham, Alan Knott, Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee, Fred Spofforth, and Muttiah Muralitharan.



The third XI- Sunil Gavaskar, Herbert Sutcliffe, George Headley, Greg Chappell, Frank Worrell, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Jack Blackham, George Lohmann, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn McGrath.



The fourth XI- Archie MacLaren, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Keith Miller, Wilfred Rhodes, Alan Davidson, Jim Laker, Godfrey Evans and Curtly Ambrose.



The fifth XI- Barry Richards, Arthur Shrewsbury, Ricky Ponting, KS Ranjitsinhji, Denis Compton, Frank Woolley, Richie Benaud, Syed Kirmani, Ray Lindwall, Fred Trueman and Alec Bedser.



The sixth XI- Virender Sehwag, Geoff Boycott, Rahul Dravid, Charlie Macartney, Javed Miandad, Mike Procter, Les Ames, Harold Larwood, Joel Garner, Bishan Bedi and Bhagwat Chandrasekhar.



The seventh XI- Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden, Rohan Kanhai, Neil Harvey, Ken Barrington, Monty Noble, Johnny Briggs, Wasim Bari, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Charlie Turner.



The eighth XI- Graham Gooch, Billy Murdoch, Clem Hill, Peter May, Dudley Nourse, Jacques Kallis, Ian Healy, Hugh Trumble, Fazal Mahmood, John Snow and Waqar Younis.



The ninth XI- Stan McCabe, Herbie Taylor, Vijay Hazare, Clive Lloyd, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Andy Flower, Andrew Flintoff, Bill Lockwood, Jeff Thomson, Tom Richardson and Arthur Mailey.

It is one of the better books on this or similar subject. It is impossible for each of us not to have differences of opinions with the author but its a good job nevertheless.

The fact that he rates the players 1-99 (irrespective of discipline) and still manages to get a keeper, two openers and so on each segment of 11 from 1-11 to 89-99 makes it clear that his 1-99 rating for individual players is of doubtful pedigree. He would have been smarter to pick, say, 22 (or more) best openers in history and rank them; pick the 11 (or more) best keepers and rank them, and similarly rank the best all rounders, the best new ball bowlers, best spinners and rank them in each category and then pick the teams from the highest ranked available for selection from each list.

That he does not do so and still calls his individual players' ranking from 1-99 as done honestly and puts players against each other even if they come from completely different disciplines while putting a value their worth as a cricketer is a very suspect exercise.

Other than that I admire the work and have wondered how much I would have differed from it as well. My differences with him do not make me upset because he has chosen cricketers who do not look misfits in a list of the 100 best cricketers of all time. How you or I would personally rank a player against another is not something that shows him up as wrong. It just shows you and I have 'different biases' then him . . .

 

[harsh.ag]

The fact that he rates the players 1-99 (irrespective of discipline) and still manages to get a keeper, two openers and so on each segment of 11 from 1-11 to 89-99 makes it clear that his 1-99 rating for individual players is of doubtful pedigree. He would have been smarter to pick, say, 22 (or more) best openers in history and rank them; pick the 11 (or more) best keepers and rank them, and similarly rank the best all rounders, the best new ball bowlers, best spinners and rank them in each category and then pick the teams from the highest ranked available for selection from each list.

That he does not do so and still calls his individual players' ranking from 1-99 as done honestly and puts players against each other even if they come from completely different disciplines while putting a value their worth as a cricketer is a very suspect exercise.

Other than that I admire the work and have wondered how much I would have differed from it as well. My differences with him do not make me upset because he has chosen cricketers who do not look misfits in a list of the 100 best cricketers of all time. How you or I would personally rank a player against another is not something that shows him up as wrong. It just shows you and I have 'different biases' then him . . .

The 'different biases' approach is the right way to look at it. But the thing is when I make a list of such a nature, I call it 'My Favorite100 Players', but using words like Greatest 100 Players puts a lot more responsibility on the author, and he should take stock of that. What do you say?