John Woodcock's 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Coronis]

Had Sachin done that much by 1997 to be top 30?

Predates even desert storm and the taming of Warne

Interesting question. I’m guessing his age and precociousness were factors, but here were his stats up to that point.. (Apr 1997 3 months prior to the list being released)

53 matches 80 innings 3617 @ 50.23 11 tons 18 fifties

at that point:

#69th in runs =47th in tons 27th in average

Lara at that point btw

43 matches 72 innings 3884 @ 55.48 9 tons 20 fifties

 

[mr_mister]

Lara had the 501 and 375 so I get his ranking a little more.

I guess the 96 WC did a lot for Sachins reputation

 

[Burgey]

Compton and Bedser were top tier darlings with the old English cricket writers. Understandable sentiments because they were key figures in carrying the team after the War but to implement that in projects that should be objective is unfair.

Personally think May was one of the best 1950s batsmen and his high peer rating extends beyond English people but he got a bit overcooked by Woodcock and CMJ etc too.

No rankings by anyone are objective though. I mean, I think this list is pretty lame don't get me wrong, but applying some sort of objectiveness criteria as a basis for saying so kinda doesn't float my boat.

 

[mr_mister]

The implied removal of the bias with the "extends beyond English people" part resonates with me though.

There's a lot of nationalistic bias on CW when comparing players (which can be pretty fun don't get me wrong)

 

[kyear2]

The implied removal of the bias with the "extends beyond English people" part resonates with me though.

There's a lot of nationalistic bias on CW when comparing players (which can be pretty fun don't get me wrong)

Very true.

 

[Coronis]

An objective list of top 100 cricketers to remove nationalistic bias should be based on how long each country has played tests - that should equate to the amount of players from that country that end up on the list. Including SA’s removal of status and Zimbabwe’s voluntary removal this should mean…

18 Australians
18 English
13 South Africans
11 West Indians
10 New Zealanders
10 Indians
8 Pakistani
5 Sri Lankan
3 Zimbabwean
3 Bangladeshi
1 Irish or Afghanistani

New Zealand perhaps the biggest beneficiary here? Along with Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Ireland and Afghanistan.

 

[sayon basak]

3 Zimbabwean
3 Bangladeshi
1 Irish or Afghanistani

But they don't even exist

 

[mr_mister]

Zimbabwe only have to have two filler players as Andy probably deserves a spot. I'd say only 4-5 kiwis are worthy of consideration on an all time top 100 list

 

[TheJediBrah]

An objective list of top 100 cricketers to remove nationalistic bias should be based on how long each country has played tests - that should equate to the amount of players from that country that end up on the list. Including SA’s removal of status and Zimbabwe’s voluntary removal this should mean…

No it shouldn't. It's actually the opposite. If you're limiting some countries and forcing representation of others based on a pre-conceived number of players you are almost certainly going to be choosing inferior players over better ones to fit the criteria.

An objective list should (ideally) have no thought given to country of origin at all

 

[Coronis]

Alternatively, based on W/L ratio you could do:

19 Australians
13 English
12 South Africans
11 Pakistani
11 Indians
9 West Indians
9 Sri Lankans
7 New Zealanders
5 Afghanistani
2 Bangladeshi
2 Zimbabwean

(fun fact: India have won and lost the same amount of tests)

 

[Coronis]

No it shouldn't. It's actually the opposite. If you're limiting some countries and forcing representation of others based on a pre-conceived number of players you are almost certainly going to be choosing inferior players over better ones to fit the criteria.

An objective list should (ideally) have no thought given to country of origin at all

Yeah dw its not serious mate

 

[sayon basak]

An objective list should (ideally) have no thought given to country of origin at all

Yeah objective list should be objective

 

[shortpitched713]

Alternatively, based on W/L ratio you could do:

19 Australians
13 English
12 South Africans
11 Pakistani
11 Indians
9 West Indians
9 Sri Lankans
7 New Zealanders
5 Afghanistani
2 Bangladeshi
2 Zimbabwean

(fun fact: India have won and lost the same amount of tests)

Do it! (If only to bring some recognition to some Afghan players not named Rashid Khan).

 

[Coronis]

Alfred Mynn was the third-highest run scorer and fifth-highest wicket-taker in history when he retired. Though I wouldn't rank him nearly as highly personally, it's at least reasonable, and there are plenty of others that aren't as much

Earn more money by betting on anything with friends on Betmelive

Quality post.

You win some, you lose more.

 

[sayon basak]

Alfred Mynn was the third-highest run scorer and fifth-highest wicket-taker in history when he retired. Though I wouldn't rank him nearly as highly personally, it's at least reasonable, and there are plenty of others that aren't as much

Earn more money by betting on anything with friends on Betmelive

Didn't get it at all

 

[sayon basak]

Quality post.

You win some, you lose more.

Was there a conscious mind behind that post? I don't think so.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Didn't get it at all

Bot. Basically copied the first reply (which I made) and added the promotional line at the end.

 

[sayon basak]

Bot. Basically copied the first reply (which I made) and added the promotional line at the end.

Pretty handy technique

 

[peterhrt]

The way these things work, The Times may well have asked Woodcock to write some pen portraits then got its editorial team to come up with an order to appeal to its readership profile, which would be on the old side. The same with Brian Glanville's 100 footballers. Woodcock and Glanville were both too internationalist to pack their lists with home players.

Grace as number one was fairly mainstream fifty years ago (The Grace Gates at Lord's refer simply to The Great Cricketer), but not by 1997.

 

[Coronis]

I wonder - if we did do an actual say, “CW 100” what would be a good way to go about it. Whether just voting on the 100 cricketers, or how Geoff Armstrong did his book (9 XIs and a 100th man).

Then of course we’d have to determine the criteria. Is it Test + FC, Test + ODI, Test + ODI + T20 or just everything?