The Greats

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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 crap.

I bet you Lara's 153 gets the nod though.

 

[social]

I bet you Lara's 153 gets the nod though.

If the criteria by which the innings is assessed are consistent, then it cant and nor can any innings played in the history of the game.

 

[UncleTheOne]

I would like to put forward Curtly Ambrose for future voting. In my opinion the greatest fast bowler of the last 15 years and possibly of all time. He had it all, and although his pace dropped in later years he stayed as accurate as the likes of Mcgrath, Pollock. Simply a joy to watch, not for the batsmen though.

 

[honestbharani]

Hobbs - yes

Akram - yes

Hadlee - yes

Lara's 153* - yes

Holding's over to Boycott - haven't seen it, no vote

S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995 - yes

Ashes 2005 - yes

 

[Slats4ever]

Hobbs - No
Akram - Yes
Hadlee - Yes
Lara's 153* - No
Holding's over to Boycott - No
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995 - No
Ashes 2005 - Yes

I'd also like to nominate Dean Jone's 200 against India... Anyone?

 

[honestbharani]

I will second Deano's 200 odd at Chennai, and Lara's 277 and Ganguly as a one day player, which was the nomination, I believe. And I would second Agarkar, simply because he is a CW legend.


And I will third Lara's 400.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd also like to nominate Dean Jone's 200 against India... Anyone?

I'm sure Deano would like to second that...

 

[social]

I'm sure Deano would like to second that...

Surprised that he didnt propose it.

 

[Jono]

Hobbs - No

What? He was was one of the cricketer's of the century and probably the best batsman from England ever. How is he not a 'great'.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'll third Deano's innings.

 

[Slats4ever]

What? He was was one of the cricketer's of the century and probably the best batsman from England ever. How is he not a 'great'.

Well to be perfectly honest I've never really heard too much about Hobbs. I mean I knew he existed, but I gotta know a bit about the guy before I'm going to call him great.

Geez Jono.

 

[Blaze]

Nathan Astles 222 is the greatest hitting I have ever seen. Probably not one of the greatest innings cause it was in a losing cause but I hadn't seen anything quite like it before and haven't seen anything like it since.

A couple more NZ nominations - Steven Fleming as a captain
- Martin Crowe's 1992 world cup tournament. (both as a batsman and a captain)

 

[Slow Love™]

Meh, this is all turning out too random for me. I guess I can stomach Steve Waugh and Lillee not making the cut (although I would have called them both greats), but Laxman's 281 being passed over??? Sheesh.

We probably needed to define, for the purposes of the thread, what "great" meant before we started voting. Looking at some of the results, I don't really know what it means. In a sense it shows just how difficult this kind of thing is, even when it's a panel of experts doing their damnedest to be neutral.

LOL at Kallis not getting a single "yes" vote though.

 

[cozmiccoyoete]

Hobbs - yes
Akram - Yes
Hadlee - no
Lara's 153* - yes
Holding's over to Boycott - No
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995 - No
Ashes 2005 - Yes

 

[Slats4ever]

Meh, this is all turning out too random for me. I guess I can stomach Steve Waugh and Lillee not making the cut (although I would have called them both greats), but Laxman's 281 being passed over??? Sheesh.

We probably needed to define, for the purposes of the thread, what "great" meant before we started voting. Looking at some of the results, I don't really know what it means. In a sense it shows just how difficult this kind of thing is, even when it's a panel of experts doing their damnedest to be neutral.

LOL at Kallis not getting a single "yes" vote though.

just because you don't agree with it slow love doesn't mean that it's not gospel.

I think the concept is working really well and at the end of the day pretty much the right people are coming out with great next to their name

 

[Blaze]

How can people justify Richard Hadlee and to a lesser extent Steve Waught not being greats of the game, along with Laxman's 200?

 

[Slow Love™]

just because you don't agree with it slow love doesn't mean that it's not gospel.

I think the concept is working really well and at the end of the day pretty much the right people are coming out with great next to their name

Well, gospel means "unquestionably true", and I don't think we're gonna get there with this thread, mate, even if I agreed with every pick. Don't set your hopes too high.

On another note, regarding the Kallis vote, didn't he need to be seconded and thirded to be considered? I guess those guys must not have voted in the end.

 

[Blaze]

I thought Theirry Henry offered a good arguement regarding Kallis. Just want to say that I agree with him.

 

[Pratters]

On another note, regarding the Kallis vote, didn't he need to be seconded and thirded to be considered? I guess those guys must not have voted in the end.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I would have imagined he could have obtained votes at least from the guys who nominated him and stuff.

 

[nightprowler10]

Hobbs - yes
Akram - Yes
Hadlee - yes
Lara's 153* - yes
Holding's over to Boycott - No
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995 - No
Ashes 2005 - Yes