SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
Chappatti- once a critic, always a critic.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The best after the Don? CW ranked 25 contenders, here is the countdown thread
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
#20
Rahul Dravid (177 points) FC average of 55.33, FC H.S of 270. 68 FC centuries
The wall as is he's often called was a bit of anomaly in the 21st century. His defensive mindset and great powers of concentration made him more a cricketer that would have been at home in the 1950s than in the t20 era. Mind you India weren't interested in giving him a go in the t20 format, but they did use him in the ODI arena and to minor surprise he performed pretty decently.
Tests were his bread and butter though of course. Dravid could bat time better than literally all his peers. The ying to Tendulkar's yang(and Sehwag's yang), Dravid built his career around solid foundations and solid defense. He obviously had the shots too, scoring 36 test tons is no small feat. He had a ridiculously impressive record in England and a respectable record at home. It was only in Australia and South Africa, on hard bouncy pitches, did he sometimes struggle. I was usually a little bored watching him bat as a kid, but there's no denying his greatness
Rahul Dravid (177 points) FC average of 55.33, FC H.S of 270. 68 FC centuries
The wall as is he's often called was a bit of anomaly in the 21st century. His defensive mindset and great powers of concentration made him more a cricketer that would have been at home in the 1950s than in the t20 era. Mind you India weren't interested in giving him a go in the t20 format, but they did use him in the ODI arena and to minor surprise he performed pretty decently.
Tests were his bread and butter though of course. Dravid could bat time better than literally all his peers. The ying to Tendulkar's yang(and Sehwag's yang), Dravid built his career around solid foundations and solid defense. He obviously had the shots too, scoring 36 test tons is no small feat. He had a ridiculously impressive record in England and a respectable record at home. It was only in Australia and South Africa, on hard bouncy pitches, did he sometimes struggle. I was usually a little bored watching him bat as a kid, but there's no denying his greatness
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
#19
Everton Weekes (184 points) FC average of 55.34, FC H.S of 304*. 36 FC centuries
Probably considered by most to be the best bat out of the 3 W's and its probably because his test average of 58 is the highest. But when you break it down it seems Walcott was a little more impressive. Weekes got to feast on more minnows, averaging ~80 from 21 tests against NZ, India and Pakistan, but only ~42 from 27 tests against Australia and England. Not that he failed against the very best, but he didn't have the record one might expect. He was said to be a very attacking player, possessing all the shots. And in his defence India had Gupte and Pakistan had Fazal, so it's not like he was scoring runs against complete scrubs. But he can probably count himself lucky to reach 19 on this list.
But i'm being too critical of the man now. Stats aside, the 3 W's, Worrell, Walcott and Weekes as a unit were very important in the West Indies establishing themselves as a cricketing world superpower. They complemented each other so damn well, even lone wolves like Headley, Sobers, Viv and Lara couldn't get the team batting totals as high as they were when the W's were on the scene.
Everton Weekes (184 points) FC average of 55.34, FC H.S of 304*. 36 FC centuries
Probably considered by most to be the best bat out of the 3 W's and its probably because his test average of 58 is the highest. But when you break it down it seems Walcott was a little more impressive. Weekes got to feast on more minnows, averaging ~80 from 21 tests against NZ, India and Pakistan, but only ~42 from 27 tests against Australia and England. Not that he failed against the very best, but he didn't have the record one might expect. He was said to be a very attacking player, possessing all the shots. And in his defence India had Gupte and Pakistan had Fazal, so it's not like he was scoring runs against complete scrubs. But he can probably count himself lucky to reach 19 on this list.
But i'm being too critical of the man now. Stats aside, the 3 W's, Worrell, Walcott and Weekes as a unit were very important in the West Indies establishing themselves as a cricketing world superpower. They complemented each other so damn well, even lone wolves like Headley, Sobers, Viv and Lara couldn't get the team batting totals as high as they were when the W's were on the scene.
Am I right in thinking that Javed was never lbw in a home test in his entire career? I seem to recall that being a thing... and that's partly why I put him a level below the likes of Border or Waugh. Plus didn't India and Pakistan play 6-test series that ended no more than 1-0, so flat were the pitches and so defensive was the mindset?
He was insanely good against my home-country NZ though (in stark contrast to Zaheer Abbas who was completely awful against us....)
He was insanely good against my home-country NZ though (in stark contrast to Zaheer Abbas who was completely awful against us....)
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
I tend to rate Walcott marginally higher than Weekes in my head. You provided good justification above.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Possibly. I didn't wanna get too much into a topic like that though
Victor Ian
International Coach
come on mister. I've got some likes here waiting for you.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dravid WAFG. Beasted some very difficult overseas conditions in England, NZ (2002) and WI (2006). Might not have been consistently great vs Aus and SA but our three most memorable wins ever vs that great Australia team all were made possible because of a big performance from him.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm without a computer til the 4th. Will make up for it with a big day of writing
a massive zebra
International Captain
No. He was dismissed LBW in a home test quite a few times.
lbw JR Ratnayeke 40 2 v Sri Lanka Sialkot 27 Oct 1985 Test # 1027
lbw ALF de Mel 63 2 v Sri Lanka Karachi 7 Nov 1985 Test # 1028
lbw JE Emburey 4 2 v England Karachi 16 Dec 1987 Test # 1086
lbw BA Reid 107 3 v Australia Faisalabad 23 Sep 1988 Test # 1105
lbw M Prabhakar 13 2 v India Faisalabad 23 Nov 1989 Test # 1128
lbw DK Morrison 27 2 v New Zealand Karachi 10 Oct 1990 Test # 1151
lbw EA Brandes 70 1 v Zimbabwe Karachi 1 Dec 1993 Test # 1237
lbw DH Brain 31 1 v Zimbabwe Lahore 16 Dec 1993 Test # 1241
ok, thanks for that - don't know where I got that piece of non-information from...
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Dennis Lillee sounds like a possible source for such rumors.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
#18
Jacques Kallis (207 points) FC average of 51.10, FC H.S of 224. 62 FC centuries
With a strike-rate only slightly higher than Dravids, but a big bulking frame way larger than him, you'd probably have expected Kallis to be more of an aggressive batsman. He's often criticised as a red-inker on here, as well being called boring or not adapting his game to changing situations. But he looked awesome when he played shots, his cover drive especially. The man scored 45 test centuries, second only to the great Sachin.
Taking his nearly 300 wickets out of the equation, you're still left with an absolute monumental cricketing career, with an awesome test aggregate and average. There's not much more to say about him. He batted slow but he batted with determination. In test cricket you can't ask for much more.
Jacques Kallis (207 points) FC average of 51.10, FC H.S of 224. 62 FC centuries
With a strike-rate only slightly higher than Dravids, but a big bulking frame way larger than him, you'd probably have expected Kallis to be more of an aggressive batsman. He's often criticised as a red-inker on here, as well being called boring or not adapting his game to changing situations. But he looked awesome when he played shots, his cover drive especially. The man scored 45 test centuries, second only to the great Sachin.
Taking his nearly 300 wickets out of the equation, you're still left with an absolute monumental cricketing career, with an awesome test aggregate and average. There's not much more to say about him. He batted slow but he batted with determination. In test cricket you can't ask for much more.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
#17
Herbert Sutcliffe (230 points) FC average of 52.02, FC H.S of 313. 151 FC centuries
Such an interesting player to analyse and such a fantastic player himself. His batting average never fell below 60 in tests, yet he never even scored a test double century. He was so consistently good at getting his country off to a good start with his long term partner Jack Hobbs. He remained largely in Hobbs shadow first, and then later Hammond's shadow. His last name not beginning with H probably contributed just a teeny bit in his legacy not being as strong as the other 3 great english bats of the inter-war era amongst cricket tragics, which is pretty unfair.
It has also been written that he might not have been able to stand up to true pace, of which most countries except his own lacked during the inter-war period. His domestic average which is considerably lower than his test average might be evidence of this, or maybe it's just evidence he brought his A game when it mattered most.
He still had to be able to handle Mailey, Grimmett and O'Reilly however and a test average of 66 against Australia is proof he was pretty competent at that. Being able to play spin with ease isn't something all openers can make a claim to. He didn't have the charisma of Hobbs, but he maybe had more stamina and patience than anyone bar Bradman.
Herbert Sutcliffe (230 points) FC average of 52.02, FC H.S of 313. 151 FC centuries
Such an interesting player to analyse and such a fantastic player himself. His batting average never fell below 60 in tests, yet he never even scored a test double century. He was so consistently good at getting his country off to a good start with his long term partner Jack Hobbs. He remained largely in Hobbs shadow first, and then later Hammond's shadow. His last name not beginning with H probably contributed just a teeny bit in his legacy not being as strong as the other 3 great english bats of the inter-war era amongst cricket tragics, which is pretty unfair.
It has also been written that he might not have been able to stand up to true pace, of which most countries except his own lacked during the inter-war period. His domestic average which is considerably lower than his test average might be evidence of this, or maybe it's just evidence he brought his A game when it mattered most.
He still had to be able to handle Mailey, Grimmett and O'Reilly however and a test average of 66 against Australia is proof he was pretty competent at that. Being able to play spin with ease isn't something all openers can make a claim to. He didn't have the charisma of Hobbs, but he maybe had more stamina and patience than anyone bar Bradman.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Or it a more a case that here he's been pitted against the greatest bats of all time in an exercise that doesn't factor his 300 test wickets?
Add his bowling and there's a good argument he gets in the top 5 out of this lot in terms of greatest cricketers.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
That's not a picture of Herbert Sutcliffe.#17
Herbert Sutcliffe (230 points) FC average of 52.02, FC H.S of 313. 151 FC centuries
Such an interesting player to analyse and such a fantastic player himself. His batting average never fell below 60 in tests, yet he never even scored a test double century. He was so consistently good at getting his country off to a good start with his long term partner Jack Hobbs. He remained largely in Hobbs shadow first, and then later Hammond's shadow. His last name not beginning with H probably contributed just a teeny bit in his legacy not being as strong as the other 3 great english bats of the inter-war era amongst cricket tragics, which is pretty unfair.
It has also been written that he might not have been able to stand up to true pace, of which most countries except his own lacked during the inter-war period. His domestic average which is considerably lower than his test average might be evidence of this, or maybe it's just evidence he brought his A game when it mattered most.
He still had to be able to handle Mailey, Grimmett and O'Reilly however and a test average of 66 against Australia is proof he was pretty competent at that. Being able to play spin with ease isn't something all openers can make a claim to. He didn't have the charisma of Hobbs, but he maybe had more stamina and patience than anyone bar Bradman.
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
Looks like it's a picture of this guy: Billy Sutcliffe | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo