The CW50 - No.20-11

[silentstriker]

I think the Top 10 will be - though not in this order.

Grace
Bradman
Sobers
Richards
Tendulkar
Marshall
Warne
Hobbs
Imran Khan
Hadlee

That would give me 24 out of the 25 I chose being in the Top 50

I'm guessing the list of top ten will be (in order):


Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Marshall
Imran
Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Hadlee
Warne
Grace

 

[andyc]

I'm guessing the list of top ten will be (in order):


Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Marshall
Imran
Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Hadlee
Warne
Grace

Grace will be top 5 easily IMO. Reckon he'll slot in at 3 behind Bradman and Sobers.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, probably should be. I think some may have put him in the top three, while others may have left him out all together if they don't like voting for players of that era, so that might hurt him.

 

[morgieb]

In no order, reckon it'll be (the top 10)

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Richards
Tendulkar
Warne
Marshall
Imran
Hadlee
Grace? (may not get that much votes, but probably got heaps of high ranking votes)

 

[morgieb]

Yea, probably should be. I think some may have put him in the top three, while others may have left him out all together if they don't like voting for players of that era, so that might hurt him.

How I'm thinking. Mind you, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most people do think he's gun.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Curtley Ambrose at 19 is a travesty. Should be much, much higher (no prizes that I was the guy who voted him at #2)

 

[Fusion]

I had Botham (23), Ambrose (22), Gilchrist (25), Hammond (10), Lilee (9), Lara (12), Murali (14), and Barnes (17).

My guess at the top 5:

Bradman
Sobers
Grace
Hobbs
Richards

 

[Matt79]

Curtley Ambrose at 19 is a travesty. Should be much, much higher (no prizes that I was the guy who voted him at #2)

On the face of it. But who of those above him would not be equally unlucky to be so low? I put Ambrose ahead of McGrath personally but by the finest of margins, I don't know whether Lillee is a better bowler than Curtly, but to my mind he's a 'greater' one. :shrug: Gilly was better in his field than Curtly, Lara and Hammond are equals in their pantheon and Barnes and Murali are freaks.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'd put Ambrose ahead of McGrath and Lillee. As much as I rate McGrath and Lillee's bowling, Ambrose was nearly the perfect fast bowler for me.

I'd also put him ahead of Gilchrist as there were are both better batsmen and better keepers than Gilly. Obviously, the combination is ground-breaking, but I don't feel he lead the field in either discipline enough to be considered ahead of the all-time greats of either batting or bowling. I certainly don't begrudge Gilly being in there though.

Barnes. Arguable. I prefer Ambrose as I've seen him play and he's one of the best I've seen. Its hard to assess what you've seen behind anecdotal and statistical evidence I guess.

Murali... Well... My personal preference is to Ambrose, but I can certainly understand him being higher in the list.

 

[pasag]

Forgot Gilly!

Had Ambrose (6), Hammond (12), Lillee (8), Lara (19), Miller (18), McGrath (9), Murali (21), Barnes (13).

 

[Furball]

Gilly's pretty much redefined what is expected of a wicketkeeper and is also one of the best ODI openers of all time.

The first of those 2 definitely makes him an all time great in my opinion.

 

[Matt79]

I'd put Ambrose ahead of McGrath and Lillee. As much as I rate McGrath and Lillee's bowling, Ambrose was nearly the perfect fast bowler for me.

I'd also put him ahead of Gilchrist as there were are both better batsmen and better keepers than Gilly. Obviously, the combination is ground-breaking, but I don't feel he lead the field in either discipline enough to be considered ahead of the all-time greats of either batting or bowling. I certainly don't begrudge Gilly being in there though.

Barnes. Arguable. I prefer Ambrose as I've seen him play and he's one of the best I've seen. Its hard to assess what you've seen behind anecdotal and statistical evidence I guess.

Murali... Well... My personal preference is to Ambrose, but I can certainly understand him being higher in the list.

Re: Gilly - in that case, would you say that either Hadlee or Imran were good enough bowlers to deserve a place ahead of the likes of Ambrose or Murali then?

 

[bagapath]

superb set of players....

sean, this series has been a thumping success so far...

 

[Ikki]

I had:

Botham: 13th
Ambrose: 25th
Gilchrist: 12th
Hammond: 11th
Lillee: 4th
Lara: 22nd
Miller: 7th
McGrath: 9th
Barnes: 25th

 

[thierry henry]

Murali too low

 

[thierry henry]

So, Sangakkara missed out altogether?

Begs the question, would he make the list if he was still 'keeping?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Re: Gilly - in that case, would you say that either Hadlee or Imran were good enough bowlers to deserve a place ahead of the likes of Ambrose or Murali then?

Interesting question. I put Ambrose ahead of Hadlee and Imran for the very reason that their main reason for being in the team is to take wickets and I feel Ambrose was the better at it. I'm sure other people see things differently and judge on the all-round ability of the three.

As it happens though, I always used to enjoy watching Ambrose bat. It was... entertaining?

 

[chasingthedon]

Surprised that less than half of those voting had Beefy in their top 25.

 

[Matt79]

Most people voting are too young to have seen him in his pomp.

 

[NUFAN]

So, Sangakkara missed out altogether?

Begs the question, would he make the list if he was still 'keeping?

If he continued to bat as good or nearly as good while keeping, I think he would have made the top 50. For mine it's just a bit of a stretch to find room for him in my 25, but if we were all selecting 50 Cricketers he might have been in with a chance.