Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Red]

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?

I think he took a bit of liberty with his selections, but not a heap. It's more compelling to read as a book if he puts the players in to nine teams, but in the book he actually ranks them from 1-100 as you read their biographies.

Thus, his actual top ten is:

Bradman
Grace
Sobers
Warne
Imran
Hobbs
Marshall
Tendulkar
SF Barnes
Gilchrist

 

[watson]

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

He continued at first class to 1986, finishing with 48,426 runs at 56.84, the highest aggregate of any batsman whose career started after World War II. Of all batsman to score 20,000 first class runs, only Don Bradman (28,067 at 95.14) has a better average.

Page 204

As pointed out above Boycott is one of cricket's greatest run machines and remains the "best made batsman I have ever come across" (Ian Botham). For these reasons Armstrong sees Boycott as a unique and original batsman who was the foundation of English batting for 2 decades, and a batsman that all Aussie bowlers saw as their greatest Ashes prise.

Boycott's effect on the game of cricket is simply bigger than Greenidge, Morris, and Mitchell.

 

[Red]

No problems with Boycott being in there. Would've liked to have seen Greenidge in there though. I'd have Greenidge over Matthew Hayden personally.

 

[Red]

btw, pretty sure Armstrong is Australian, and not English?

 

[watson]

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?

The word 'Greatest' provides an escape hatch for the author because it has a different meaning to 'Best'.

In other words, a batsman like Arthur Morris might be a better batsman than Geoff Boycott, but he is not greater. Better implies a superior technique or talent, but greatness encompasses everything.

Boycott IS an 'icon' of cricket. Morris never was.

 

[Coronis]

btw, pretty sure Armstrong is Australian, and not English?

I believe he is, but that doesn't mean he can't be biased towards Englishmen.

 

[watson]

No problems with Boycott being in there. Would've liked to have seen Greenidge in there though. I'd have Greenidge over Matthew Hayden personally.

Greenidge was pitted against Herbie Taylor during the contest for the final openers spot on page 303. And lost for the following reasons.....

The competition for the final opening batsman's spot in this top 100 is very tight. Among others considered were the two men who opened the most of the Windies' great days of the late 1970s and 80s, Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes. However, the fact that both these players averaged less than 45 in Test cricket, even though they never had to face the bevy of fast bowlers who made West Indian cricket so strong from 1976 to 1991, counts against them..........

Pakistan's Hanif Mohammad scored 12 centuries in 55 Tests from 1952 to 1969.......But, like all of Mitchell, Greenidge, Haynes, Morris, Barnes, and Hayward, there is nothing in Hanif's resume to match the success Herbie Taylor enjoyed over the series against a bowler as great as Sydney Barnes at his most dangerous. In one match of that series, so the story goes, Barnes was reduced to hurling the ball to the ground and crying, "It's Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, all the time!"

 

[archie mac]

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.

Why? Lohmann and Spofforth were considered the best bowlers in the world during their time. One has an average of 18 and the other 10.

Armstrong has an issue with Grimmett, I have read his stuff before and he takes pot shots at the little spinner at every opportunity.

 

[watson]

Why? Lohmann and Spofforth were considered the best bowlers in the world during their time. One has an average of 18 and the other 10.

Armstrong has an issue with Grimmett, I have read his stuff before and he takes pot shots at the little spinner at every opportunity.

I wonder why?

 

[Coronis]

I wonder why?

Wow. Looked at the intro and Mailey's entry, and in those he rambles on about their comparitive strike rates, whilst in the intro he talks about not rating Tallon and Grimmett highly just because Bradman and O'Reilly talked them up. Then in Mailey's entry he references Hobbs saying Mailey was the best.... blatant hypocrisy...

Also, Ponsford is mentioned in passing, something about him throwing away his wicket in a shield match once....

 

[watson]

Wow. Looked at the intro and Mailey's entry, and in those he rambles on about their comparitive strike rates, whilst in the intro he talks about not rating Tallon and Grimmett highly just because Bradman and O'Reilly talked them up. Then in Mailey's entry he references Hobbs saying Mailey was the best.... blatant hypocrisy...

Also, Ponsford is mentioned in passing, something about him throwing away his wicket in a shield match once....

Armstrong makes the very good point that we tend to get carried away, then exaggerate the opinion of men like Don Bradman just because of their reputation. Bradman played with and against Grimmett, but never Mailey. So of course he is going to speak more highly of Grimmett. We need to be aware of that.

In other words there is no such thing as an objective opinion no matter the status of the person voicing the opinion. An opinion comes with 'baggage' and therefore is, by definition, purely subjective. We need not value Bradman's words over those made by Jack Hobbs even though our natural inclination is to do so.

 

[morgieb]

I have the updated edition. Good read.

 

[archie mac]

Wow. Looked at the intro and Mailey's entry, and in those he rambles on about their comparitive strike rates, whilst in the intro he talks about not rating Tallon and Grimmett highly just because Bradman and O'Reilly talked them up. Then in Mailey's entry he references Hobbs saying Mailey was the best.... blatant hypocrisy...

Also, Ponsford is mentioned in passing, something about him throwing away his wicket in a shield match once....

I don't like his tendency to be black and white in his judgements, at least he is not a fence sitter I suppose.

Armstrong makes the very good point that we tend to get carried away, then exaggerate the opinion of men like Don Bradman just because of their reputation. Bradman played with and against Grimmett, but never Mailey. So of course he is going to speak more highly of Grimmett. We need to be aware of that.

In other words there is no such thing as an objective opinion no matter the status of the person voicing the opinion. An opinion comes with 'baggage' and therefore is, by definition, purely subjective. We need not value Bradman's words over those made by Jack Hobbs even though our natural inclination is to do so.

Bradman did play against Mailey on at least one occassion but when the latter had retired and he smashed him all over the park but yes he was retired.

Also Mailey and O'Reilly did not like each other. Tiger said Mailey tried to change his grip and told him to drop a catch in the slips. Mailey was still questioning O'Reilly's ability long after he was considered one of the best bowlers in the world.

Personally I have issues with the importance of S/R when applied to the 1920s for matches in Aust. since they were played to a finish there was no need to worry about time remaining in which to dismiss the opposition

 

[hendrix]

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

this

The word 'Greatest' provides an escape hatch for the author because it has a different meaning to 'Best'.

In other words, a batsman like Arthur Morris might be a better batsman than Geoff Boycott, but he is not greater. Better implies a superior technique or talent, but greatness encompasses everything.

Boycott IS an 'icon' of cricket. Morris never was.

Ok, so why leave out Hanif Mohammad? Probably one of the most iconic players and had an immense effect on the game.

Hanif was the first star of Pakistan cricket, the "Little Master" who played the longest innings in Test history - his 970-minute 337 against West Indies in Bridgetown in 1957-58 - then followed it a year later with the highest first-class innings to that point, 499 run out. With such feats, broadcast on radio, he turned cricket in Pakistan from the preserve of the Lahore educated elite into the mass sport it is today. Although famous for his immaculate defence and never hitting the ball in the air, Hanif could also attack, and was probably the originator of the reverse-sweep.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I'd love to watch Sehwag and Boycott running between the wickets. Be a ridiculous contrast in styles. Sehwag would be on 100 and Boycs would just about be in double figures.

 

[Jager]

Miller in the fourth XI. Don't rate it

 

[Coronis]

Miller in the fourth XI. Don't rate it

I have the 06 edition, but, last para in the intro.....

I mean, Neil, do you really think that Lillee was a better bowler than Marshall? That Hadlee was better than Imran? That Miller was a better all-rounder than Botham and Kapil Dev?

Got no problem with Marshall > Lillee. Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran in my opinion. But the last statement.. blasphemy.... of the worst kind. Dev better than Miller?????? Botham at his prime, possibly.. But Dev?

 

[SJS]

The word 'Greatest' provides an escape hatch for the author because it has a different meaning to 'Best'.

In other words, a batsman like Arthur Morris might be a better batsman than Geoff Boycott, but he is not greater. Better implies a superior technique or talent, but greatness encompasses everything.

Boycott IS an 'icon' of cricket. Morris never was.

That's an interesting point

 

[watson]

I have the 06 edition, but, last para in the intro.....



Got no problem with Marshall > Lillee. Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran in my opinion. But the last statement.. blasphemy.... of the worst kind. Dev better than Miller?????? Botham at his prime, possibly.. But Dev?

Dev better than Miller? Probably not.

But was Dev greater than Miller? Probably yes, for the simple reason that for several years Dev was Indian cricket. If Dev fired then India won, if he didn't then they lost or drew.

In other words, he was the Indian equivalent of Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Murali, or (mid-80s) Allan Border.

Incidently, I wonder how Miller would have gone if he didn't have Lindwall, Johnston, Morris or Hassett to prop him up, and therefore couldn't play his usual care-free style? Who knows, Miller may have buckled under pressure if he played in a mediocre side and had to shoulder responsibility for a change?

 

[Cabinet96]

Kallis in hte 8th XI and Shaun Pollock not being considered good enough for the 9th XI. Meanwhile Rahul Dravid in the 6th XI, and Andrew Flintoff in the 9th XI. If he was a CW poster, he'd be on my ignore list.