There has been a lot of guys who got in and i thought they were too high, but i expected it cus its a democratic process. But as Aussie Tragic said its all cus of Trumper, there is about 20 odd batsmen infront of him if not more. Anyway cus of the effort you have put in i'll keep voting.adharcric said:
Oh my God, we actually agree on something?aussie tragic said:nah...it's because Trumper's in at 20....
Sorry, can't think of a player to follow Trumper... can think of at least a dozen Aussies ahead of him though...
Openers
Barnes
Morris
Simpson
Lawry
Slater
Hayden
Langer
Middle Order
Harvey
Walters
I. Chappell
M. Waugh
Gilchrist
.....but anyway, I'll go Harvey
silentstriker said:Oh my God, we actually agree on something?
btw, how come you haven't been kicked out of GM-OLAS for that commentsilentstriker said:
Because as an agent of the Devil, you lie and misrepresent the truth. I've never said that.aussie tragic said:btw, how come you haven't been kicked out of GM-OLAS for that comment
There were witnesses........silentstriker said:
Allelujah!! It only took 10 rounds of whinging and voting!adharcric said:We have a tie between Trumper and Barrington. I vote for Trumper.
The List
1. Don Bradman (AUS)
2. Garry Sobers (WI)
3. Jack Hobbs (ENG)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (IND)
5. Viv Richards (WI)
6. Brian Lara (WI)
7. Sunil Gavaskar (IND)
8. Wally Hammond (ENG)
9. Greg Chappell (AUS)
10. George Headley (WI)
11. Graeme Pollock (RSA)
12. Everton Weekes (WI)
13. Len Hutton (ENG)
14. Steve Waugh (AUS)
15. Clyde Walcott (WI)
16. Ricky Ponting (AUS)
17. Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG)
18. Allan Border (AUS)
19. Rahul Dravid (IND)
20. Javed Miandad (PAK)
21. Victor Trumper (AUS)
The vote for the #22 batsman of all-time begins now.
The Contenders
WTF?Matt79 said:Allelujah!! It only took 10 rounds of whinging and voting!
I vote for WG Grace for the next slot.
Its impossible to 'rate' anyone from that era IMO. The game was waaaay too different, its almost a different sport. How would grace do against the pace of Thompson or Akhtar or Lee? I have no idea, and neither do you..a different sport mate.Matt79 said:How anyone can say that Grace wasn't one of the greatest batsmen ever is quite beyond me. Its one thing to have a text book technique, its another thing to basically re-write the book. A great scientist once said that if I see far, it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants, and Grace is about as Giant as they come. Would you say that your high-school science teacher is a better scientist than Newton, because he understands more about physics than Newton did? No, and its non-sensical to say that Adam Gilchrist is a better batsman than Grace IMO.
Deal with it!
I disagree, I think you can make some comparisons. He was clearly the greatest batsman the game had seen to that point. His record against his contemporaries speaks for itself. I reckon saying "well how would he fair against Thompson, Holding or Akhtar" is about as valid as asking how Barnes would fair against Ponting, Tendaulkar or Richards. The average standard of batting has probably increased as much as the standard of bowling, but I'd say that the two have moved forward at roughly enough the same speed to make performances comparable. I frankly don't care whether he'd go well against today's bowlers - I rank players mainly on how well they did against the available opposition, and Grace dominated his available opposition to an extent Gilchrist, Kallis, Barrington and Compton could only dream about. Note, I didn't have him in my top 5 or even top 10, but to suggest that the man who redefined the sport and laid the foundation for the modern batting technique has no place at all in a list of the greatest batsmen in the sport is strange IMO...silentstriker said:
It is implicit that vast majority of the players will be from the modern era, because of the word 'greatest'.Matt79 said:
That in not in dispute.Matt79 said:
) as far as the WG debate goes. As a cricket personality, I think WG would be and rightly should be ranked as one of the very best. But as a pure batsman he, unfortunately, never got a chance to really prove himself on the test scene. I've read bits and pieces of his biography, and I think he was the greatest cricketer to come out of England by a country mile, but this thread is meant for pure batsmen, and even though he averaged between 60 and 70 at one point in his FC career, his lack of test experience has to go against him. If we were to weigh a players FC stats so high, surely Bart King would top every ranking that has to do with bowling.
silentstriker said:
