The Greats

[social]

Over whelming response I must say!

Its tough to make the list of greats as the criteria is tough. So if some one doesnt make it, dont blame me!


Candidate total votes against
Ashes 34 15
Laxman's-281 35 11
Imran Khan 38 2
McGrath 38 8
Gilchrist 38 25
Waugh 38 14
Richards 38 0
Marshall 38 8
Lillee 38 13
Kallis 38 38


So the candidates who made made the list are Imran Khan, G.McGrath, V.Richards and M.Marshall.

So, given the above:

a. there are no great rivalries in test cricket;
b. there has never been a great innings played;
c. there has never been a great keeper/batsman;
d. there were no great fast bowlers in the 70s;
e. there were no great batsmen in the 90s;
f. Aus has only had one great batsman ever; and
g. current batsmen averaging under 57 need not apply

Pretty high standard.

 

[Pratters]

Grace	2
Headley	2
Barnes	
Gavaskar	2
McGrath 61*	2
Flintoff's over to remove Langer and Ponting	2
Smith's double centuries	2
McGraths opening spell A 2005	
Bevan boundary off last ball	
Afridi 100	
McGrath 2/5 Lords	
Ambrose 1/7 Perth	
Warne 23/7 Brisbane	
M.Waugh's century vs RSA 1997	
Australia's come backs in 3  consecutive world cups	
Warne's spell in 99 world cup semi	2
World Cup 1999 semi RSA vs AUS	
World Cup 1999 final AUS vs PAK	
Ajit Agarkar	
Lara's 400*	2
Pieterson's 90 at Bristol	
Sobers' six sixes in an over	
Warne's ball to Gatting	2
Ganguly 	
Laker's 19 	2
West Indies tour of Australia 1960-61	2
Michael Holding's 14 wicket haul against England	
Kumble's 10	
Murali's 17 at Oval	
Miandad	2
Greg Chappell	
Border	
Miller	
Hammond	
Trueman	
Hutton	
Donald	
Pollock	
Ambrose	
Holding	
Bradman's 270 in Melbourne	
Bevan	
Taylor	
Lara's 277	
Qadir

The nominations so far are as above. Those with nothing in front have been nominated while those with 2 have been seconded. When the above are thirded, they will be put up for voting.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

An absolute joke that Lillee didn't make it, forget Gilchrist.

No doubt that Laxman's 281 was great as well, and so was Steve Waugh.

 

[social]

The candidates for the next voting are as follows. The voting period is the next 14 and half hours and closes at 9 PM IST.

Hobbs
Akram
Hadlee
Lara's 153*
Holding's over to Boycott
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995
Ashes 2005

No - unproven on sub-continent
Yes
No - Lillee's regarded as a better bowler and isnt great
No - never been a great innings played
No - only got one wicket
No - never been a great innings played
No - there are no great rivalries so how can there be a great series

No doubt someone will come up with a reason as to why left-handed bowlers cant be great, in which case I'll change my votes to "no" for Akram

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

The nominations so far are as above. Those with nothing in front have been nominated while those with 2 have been seconded.

And what is this new list about? i mean what is Agarkar doing in the list????

 

[Pratters]

And what is this new list about? i mean what is Agarkar doing in the list????

Some one nominated Agarkar. Some one has to second and third any such nomination to come up for voting.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The candidates for the next voting are as follows. The voting period is the next 14 and half hours and closes at 9 PM IST.

Hobbs
Akram
Hadlee
Lara's 153*
Holding's over to Boycott
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995
Ashes 2005

Hobbs - Yes, without a doubt
Akram - No, since Lillee got a no.
Hadlee - Yes
Lara's 153 - Yes
Holding's over to Boycott - Yes
Waugh's 63* and 200 - Yes
Ashes 2005 - Yes

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Hobbs....Yes
Akram...YES
Hadlee...No
Lara's 153*...YesHolding's over to Boycott... not sure
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995...yes
Ashes 2005...YES

 

[thierry henry]

So is that why when a good side is batting he's suddenly got an injury and can't bowl, but a week later Zimbabwe are in town and you can't get the ball off him then?

What's your point.

He's not the captain. If he bowls against Zimbabwe it's because his captain thinks he is bowling well.

If you are insinuating that he fakes injuries to avoid bowling, than we will have to agree to disagree on that point. Suffice to say I find the insinuation offensive and ridiculous.

Perhaps I will analyze this in further depth later, but iirc Kallis' career stats are not unduly affected by performances against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.

Recently his bowling has been ineffectual, but that is utterly irrelevant in the wider context, because he has already achieved enough to be regarded as a GREAT. The comparison with Sobers is not inflammatory or contrived, it is made simply because Sobers is the only cricketer ever to have achieved something similar.

Even if the Sobers comparison is ignored, Kallis' achievements with bat and ball are statistically so outstanding that imo they cannot possibly be analyzed in such a way that excludes him from greatness.

 

[thierry henry]

btw, I'm happy that Lillee wasn't voted as great as imo that would pave the way for an exorbitant number of equally successful bowlers to be included.

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Akram - No, since Lillee got a no.

Great reasoning there!

 

[Blaze]

Yes to every nominee in this round.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Great reasoning there!

Makes sense as far as I'm concerned. Lillee was, in my opinion, at least Akram's equal as a bowler. If Lillee's not a great, Akram shouldn't be either.

In my opinon of course, both are greats.

 

[Dasa]

Hobbs - Yes
Akram - Yes
Hadlee - Yes
Lara's 153* - Yes
Holding's over to Boycott - Yes
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995 - Yes
Ashes 2005 - Yes

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

It is absolutely ridiculous that Laxman's 281 isn't considered great. If that isn't then no innnigs ever played should be.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Imran was a better batsman than Botham because of his average. He scored runs more consistently over the entirety of his career.

Not really. He scored far, far less runs in a similar number of games, and had (off the top of my head) 2 centuries to Bothams dozen or so. He simply batted lower in the order, had a great deal of not outs, and improved as his career went on while Botham declined, and so maintained a better average.

I don't care who you are, if you average 34 with the ball over that period of time it PROVES conclusively that you are pretty average with the ball.

As I said, a perfect example of why judging players on average alone is ridiculous. It is not simply that Sobers took more wickets than Kallis, but that Sobers led his attack at times, bowled with both the new and old ball, was called upon to dismiss the oppositions best batsman, and was during his career one of the most prolific wicket takers in the entire world. Kallis was a good bowler early in his career, as he was a good batsman, and as his batting has improves his bowling has declined, and now he hovers with an average around 30 because he never bowls.

 

[social]

It is absolutely ridiculous that Laxman's 281 isn't considered great. If that isn't then no innnigs ever played should be.

Precisely.

Flawless innings played in a hopeless situation in one of the most important test matches in recent times against an attack containing 2 "greats" (as defined here anyhow) on a wearing wicket.

If that's merely very good then innings such as Bradman's 334 were little more than average.

 

[nehrafan]

Hobbs - Yes
Akram - Yes
Hadlee - no
Lara's 153* - Yes
Holding's over to Boycott -don't know
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995 - Yes
Ashes 2005 - Yes

 

[Jono]

Makes sense as far as I'm concerned. Lillee was, in my opinion, at least Akram's equal as a bowler. If Lillee's not a great, Akram shouldn't be either.

In my opinon of course, both are greats.

Yeah but you shouldn't change the way your vote because of that. Otherwise what is the point in having your say of who is great?

Hobbs - Yes
Akram- Yes
Hadlee - Yes
Lara's 153* - Yes
Holding's over to Boycott - Yes
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995 - Yes
Ashes 2005 - Yes

All those things and players have added something to cricket that I don't think will be duplicated, and for their time were absolutely brilliant. So they're all great IMO.

 

[social]

Makes sense as far as I'm concerned. Lillee was, in my opinion, at least Akram's equal as a bowler. If Lillee's not a great, Akram shouldn't be either.

In my opinon of course, both are greats.

All true plus "greats" such as Richards (given that he's faced both, he'd have a better idea than you or I) rate Lillee higher than Hadlee so he cant get the nod either.