The CW50 - No.20-11

[Matt79]

So, Sangakkara missed out altogether?

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

Will be interesting to see where he places in the end. Shouldn't have been too far away. Flower missed out as well, and he had a better case for inclusion IMO (which is why I voted for him).

 

[G.I.Joe]

I had:

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

You're slipping, Ikki. I believe I had Miller higher up than you do

Can't believe Murali, Miller ,Gilchrist, McGrath didn't make the top 10.

 

[thierry henry]

Will be interesting to see where he places in the end. Shouldn't have been too far away. Flower missed out as well, and he had a better case for inclusion IMO (which is why I voted for him).

tbh I think it's crazy that Flower/Sanga miss out on the top 50 altogether while Gilchrist makes the top 20, UNLESS you make the argument that Flower/Sanga weren't really "proper" 'keepers (I can't remember exactly, but I think it's particularly hard to make this argument for Flower as he kept in a vast majority of the matches he played?).

I know Gilchrist set a standard for ALL batsmen as far as speed of scoring, but it really irks me when I hear "Gilchrist set the standard for what is expected with the bat from 'keepers", when it's pretty clear that there were 3 players, all roughly contemporaries of each other, and all similarly prolific with the bat (and more prolific than any others before them).

It also seems to me that Gilchrist gets rated above his contemporary batsmen as an overall cricketer because of the fact that he was a 'keeper as well. I agree with this logic but think it should also apply to Sanga and Flower- even if they didn't keep in every match -keeping in only, say, half the matches they played still counts for something imo. I think it would be perfectly tenable to say that Sanga and Flower are overall better cricketers than e.g. Ricky Ponting, because they were at least somewhat comparable as batsmen, but also kept. I'd be tempted to say the same with e.g. Sanga v Tendulkar, but then I'd really cop it....

 

[G.I.Joe]

Sangakkara averaged something like 39 as keeper, TH. Might as well vote for Dhoni (who averages 60+ as captain) too while you're at it.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah Sanga's overrated because he's near Bradmanesque when not keeping. When keeping, Gilchrist > him, any day.

Mind you, Flower was good, but his keeping....

 

[Matt79]

And hence perhaps deserved to get some more votes for that Bradmanesque batting. Sangakkara is a funny one - I usually tend to need players to be finished before I am comfortable rating them. It's only inthe last six months that I've had Ponting and Tendulkar in my best 25 and XI respectively. In another couple of years, I'd predict Sangakkara will berated higher. I do think that him being a keeper and his batting improving when he gave up the gloves in some weird way has counted against him in general perceptions - not sure why that should be the case though.

 

[thierry henry]

Sangakkara averaged something like 39 as keeper, TH.

Then you could argue, in the alternative, that had he never had to keep he would be the second best batsman ever behind Bradman.

Might as well vote for Dhoni (who averages 60+ as captain) too while you're at it.

If Dhoni keeps improving as a test batsman than why not? But not yet, obviously.

As for Dhoni as a one-day player...well I think there was just a thread about how highly he should be rated...put me in the camp that says he's already one of the greats

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

This is really the main point. We only picked 25 to obtain 50. Had everyone picked 50 the likes of Worrell, Walcott and Weekes would almost certainly have made the eventual 50.
Sangakkara wouldn't make a Top 100 if his mother was voting, but that's beside the overall point in relation to the selection method and explaining the absence of certain players.

 

[Matt79]

He should definitely make a top 50, let alone top 100.

 

[The Sean]

This is really the main point. We only picked 25 to obtain 50. Had everyone picked 50 the likes of Worrell, Walcott and Weekes would almost certainly have made the eventual 50.

Yep, exactly right - the three Ws seem to be players who just miss out on most people's 25 but would make everyone's 50. You're correct in that if all voters had submitted 50 players the Ws would certainly have made the final list, but making everyone submit that many players would have significantly decreased the number of contributors we got.

 

[thierry henry]

Sangakkara wouldn't make a Top 100 if his mother was voting

Hmmm

Why not?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think its because there's a hint of surrender to it, rightly or otherwise. I've mentioned it before I think, chronology plays a very important part in how people perceive a player. Its like Dravid's ODI career in reverse. Dravid started keeping wickets after playing as a pure batsman, and that element of accomodation and sacrifice elevated his status as an ODI player in the eyes of many. However, if he'd made his ODI debut as a compromise keeper who later gave up the keeping to concentrate on his batting, he'd have been perceived a lot differently, and marked down a bit.

 

[thierry henry]

He should definitely make a top 50, let alone top 100.

Just leave him be. He follows me around making devastatingly witty comments anytime I praise a player that anyone under 40 has seen play, or any player who had the temerity to score runs or take wickets and therefore amass impressive statistics.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He follows me around making devastatingly witty comments anytime I praise a player that anyone under 40 has seen play, or any player who had the temerity to score runs or take wickets and therefore amass impressive statistics.

Why does this make me think of your reaction any time someone praises Vettori?????

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yep, exactly right - the three Ws seem to be players who just miss out on most people's 25 but would make everyone's 50. You're correct in that if all voters had submitted 50 players the Ws would certainly have made the final list, but making everyone submit that many players would have significantly decreased the number of contributors we got.

I'm not knocking it, but it does mean that only the Top 25 is truly representative of who Cricket Web Forum members consider to be the top players.

 

[thierry henry]

Why does this make me think of your reaction any time someone praises Vettori?????

Because I'm devastatingly witty?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Because I'm devastatingly witty?

That would be it, of course!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Just leave him be. He follows me around making devastatingly witty comments anytime I praise a player that anyone under 40 has seen play, or any player who had the temerity to score runs or take wickets and therefore amass impressive statistics.

Follows you around? YOU quoted two of my posts, which I made no response to because the points you made were bollox.

 

[thierry henry]

Follows you around? YOU quoted two of my posts, which I made no response to because the points you made were bollox.

See what I mean? And the is there so you don't need me to tell you it's funny.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

See what I mean? And the is there so you don't need me to tell you it's funny.

Yes I see. My replying to something you've written for the first time in a year means I'm following you around even though I only replied to correctly shoot down your silly and baseless claim. Your line of logic reflects your line of cricketing logic.