My Gripe

[PhoenixFire]

Constantly nowadays, I hear people claim that Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, and others are the Greatest bowlers of all time. Again, I hear people saying that Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting (although I rate him very highly), Adam Gilchrist and some others that I can't name off the top of my head, should be considered great.

Now, it might just be me wishing of the return of the so called 'Good old days', and being a grumpy old sod. But why do people nowdays forget the past? In my opinion the greatest bowler of all time is Wilfred Rhodes and the greastest all rounder Frank Woolley or WG. People seem not to remember players (of in my opnion) definite greatness, such as Phil Mead, Tich Freeman, George Lohmann, Charles Parker, Patsy Hendren, CW Fry and many others. Is this ignorance on others' (or mine maybe) part, or just that people now don't rate the afforementioned players highly?

 

[Xuhaib]

For most cricket fans seeing is believing.

 

[Neil Pickup]

CW Fry

Concrete proof that CW does damage the brain...

A lot of it is most recent - best remembered, and it's something that happens. Sensationalism grabs attention and we live in a world of instant gratification. "Ponting highly talented but needs twenty years of reflection before we can see how he stacks up in the annals of history" doesn't quite have the same ring as "Ponting best since Bradman". You just have to remember that a lot of people are best ignored.

 

[BoyBrumby]

By & large I'm of the opinion that comparing across the generations is an exercise in futility, because one isn't really comparing like-for-like. The best one can reasonably expect of any leading sportsman is that they're the best of their contemporaries.

Of the players PhF mentions one can make very strong cases for most being his field leader in his generation (Warne the greatest leggie, Wasim the greatest lefty seamer, Imran the greatest all-rounder, McGrath the greatest seamer, Gilly the greatest keeper/batsman, with Hayden & Punter very close if more open to argument) so for mine they're doing/have done all they reasonably can to establish their respective claims to greatness.

The one caveat is, of course, Sir Donald. I think his figures are such one can pretty fairly call him the greatest batsman of all-time.

 

[Perm]

There is no point in comparing players from one era to another, you just end up having arguments about the strength of bowling attacks and state of uncovered wickets etc. But I agree with Xuhaib when he said for most cricket fans, seeing is beleiving. Summed up beautifully.

 

[archie mac]

I find it a bit frustrating when we have threads that want to name the best bowler in history and some one like SF Barnes gets knocked out by an average bowler from recent history

Or people say you can ignore the record of WG because he was a cheat and he never had to face the Wrong un.

I don't believe for a second that WG was allowed to stay at the crease in a frist class match after he was bowled because he said 'I always get a practice ball'. This may have happened in Glouster V 22 of Crapshire but never in a FC match.

As for the wrong un, an average county pro can handle Warne on occasions bowling wrong uns so why wouldn't the GOM?

 

[James]

I've always wondered how people can consider Jeff Thomson one of the greats too.

He has a fairly average Test record and didn't a single 10 wicket bag in his entire career, and only eight five wicket bags from 50 Tests. He also has an awful ODI record.

One of the greats? I doubt it.

 

[silentstriker]

I've always wondered how people can consider Jeff Thomson one of the greats too.

He has a fairly average Test record and didn't a single 10 wicket bag in his entire career, and only eight five wicket bags from 50 Tests. He also has an awful ODI record.

One of the greats? I doubt it.

He was fast. People like that.

 

[James]

He was fast. People like that.

Oh yes, I remember now, as long as you can bowl 150kph you're one of the all-time greats.....

 

[silentstriker]

Oh yes, I remember now, as long as you can bowl 150kph you're one of the all-time greats.....

Never said they were. I am just saying why people have an unsual affecton for him. One of the reasons I think McGrath gets underrated compared to some of the other greats, especially those from WI - because he isnt express.

 

[archie mac]

I've always wondered how people can consider Jeff Thomson one of the greats too.

He has a fairly average Test record and didn't a single 10 wicket bag in his entire career, and only eight five wicket bags from 50 Tests. He also has an awful ODI record.

One of the greats? I doubt it.

For a short time he was the fastest bowler I have ever watched, balls on a good length jumping up shoulder height at the batsman. This when no other bowler from either team could get the ball up anywhere near as high.

If you ask any batsman who faced him in is prime 1974-76 they will tell you he was the fastest they ever faced.

unfortunatly when attempting to take a catch he smashed into Turner (I think) and badly damaged his shoulder. The Thomson after this was simply not the same bowler.

 

[Slow Love™]

I've always wondered how people can consider Jeff Thomson one of the greats too.

He has a fairly average Test record and didn't a single 10 wicket bag in his entire career, and only eight five wicket bags from 50 Tests. He also has an awful ODI record.

One of the greats? I doubt it.

That's interesting, Thommo is a particular sacred cow I haven't seen attacked much here (or maybe I just missed it, everyone's number tends to come up at some stage over here ).

Perhaps it's that he benefits from being one half of one of the most fearsome bowling partnerships the game has seen. Sadly, I was only about 5 or 6 when he was around his peak, and certainly, his figures suffered as he continued to play into the 80's, after the shoulder dislocation. He certainly has high acclaim among those that study the game though - perhaps it's yet another limitation of judging a player by statistics alone.

 

[Pratters]

Constantly nowadays, I hear people claim that Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, and others are the Greatest bowlers of all time. Again, I hear people saying that Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting (although I rate him very highly), Adam Gilchrist and some others that I can't name off the top of my head, should be considered great.

Now, it might just be me wishing of the return of the so called 'Good old days', and being a grumpy old sod. But why do people nowdays forget the past? In my opinion the greatest bowler of all time is Wilfred Rhodes and the greastest all rounder Frank Woolley or WG. People seem not to remember players (of in my opnion) definite greatness, such as Phil Mead, Tich Freeman, George Lohmann, Charles Parker, Patsy Hendren, CW Fry and many others. Is this ignorance on others' (or mine maybe) part, or just that people now don't rate the afforementioned players highly?

A large part has to do with ignorance and the seeing is believing factor some one mentioned earlier.

One aspect which cannot be denied is that sport has become more professional and so a case can be made for the over all increase of standards in general.

However, the question of what is the real test of a player comes up as well. For example, could modern day players cope up as well on uncovered pitches? Would they be as potent as the yesteryear class acts if they were not as dependant on the power of their bats and had to depend much more on timing? A few players even from the 80's have gasped at how easily the ball is despatched to the boundary nowadays.

I will take the example of tennis here. I watched Hingis recently at the Sunfeast Open WTA tournament and while the other players tried to use power against her, Hingis depended almost entirely on timing. She isn't as successful right now as the power players and you can wonder at the possibility of how much successs she could have achieved in an era of wooden rackets where timing and placement was so much more important.

Another way of looking at things - people should be compared with contemporaries or the ones near their eras as the variables become so many over a longer period. Bradman would probably still be the best batsman just as Tiger Woods would still rule golf regardless of the era he played in.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Never said they were. I am just saying why people have an unsual affecton for him. One of the reasons I think McGrath gets underrated compared to some of the other greats, especially those from WI - because he isnt express.

McGrath is under-rated? Most people with any respectable opinion seem to regard him as a great bowler, because he certainly is one.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Perhaps it's that he benefits from being one half of one of the most fearsome bowling partnerships the game has seen.

He bowled with neither Waqar nor Wasim.

That is all.

 

[Jono]

By the same token Phoenix, anyone playing know will never be as good as the previous era's players because for some reason, no matter what it is, be it cricket, movies, general attitude to life etc. people claim that stuff was better in the 'good old days' and that commercialism, politics and all kinds of other stuff have ruined *enter any topic here*, and because of that current players can never be as good as those of the past.

It goes both ways.

 

[nightprowler10]

By the same token Phoenix, anyone playing know will never be as good as the previous era's players because for some reason, no matter what it is, be it cricket, movies, general attitude to life etc. people claim that stuff was better in the 'good old days' and that commercialism, politics and all kinds of other stuff have ruined *enter any topic here*, and because of that current players can never be as good as those of the past.

It goes both ways.

True. Was just watching a program about baseball's good ol' greats like Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, etc. and the same seems to be true.