The Greats

[ohtani's jacket]

Hobbs - Definitely
Akram - No
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 - Yes
Ashes 2005 - Yes

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How about players like Denis Compton, Peter May, Burt Sutcliffe, Neil Harvey, Frank Worrell, Frank Wooley () and Freddie Trueman?

I'll second Harvey, Worrell and Trueman.

 

[social]

Just because people happen to disagree with you, you have that sort of childish reaction.

Not because they disagreed with me (or the majority of world's experts for that matter) but because the logic is flawed and/or inconsistent.

Take Jack Hobbs as an example.

He, quite rightly, is being voted as a "great". Yet many of the same people who voted for him as such, have declined to vote on other matters because they havent seen the individual or performance in question.

Well, there's not a lot of footage of old Jack lying around so that wipes out those people who need to see things with their own eyes.

In other cases, people have decided things based on statistics alone.

Unfortunately, his stats dont match up to either Kallis or Ponting, so how can Hobbs be great and the others not?

Almost every cricketer mentioned has been elite. However, depending on your bias, one can construct an argument for inclusion or exclusion fro a list of "greats."

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I'll second Harvey, Worrell and Trueman.

Thirded.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

There Has Never Been A Great Test Match Innings.

 

[Buddhmaster]

Um sorry thierry, but Sobers is way way way infront of Kallis.

On another note, i've missed this thread most of the time, so i'd like to say why don't we just vote on great players, would be less confusing.

Oh, and what was so good about Lara's 153. I'm not saying it's bad, ive just never seen it

 

[social]

Um sorry thierry, but Sobers is way way way infront of Kallis.

On another note, i've missed this thread most of the time, so i'd like to say why don't we just vote on great players, would be less confusing.

Oh, and what was so good about Lara's 153. I'm not saying it's bad, ive just never seen it

Quality of the innings and opponent, context of the match and series, quality (or lack thereof) of support.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

I nominated Kallis originally, and as far as I know, no-one seconded or thirded the nomination. He was put in the list anyway, and then I didnt vote, leaving him with the one vote of Thierry.

 

[Zinzan]

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

Hobbs Yes
Hadlee Yes

Akram and the rest ..no

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Um sorry thierry, but Sobers is way way way infront of Kallis.

On another note, i've missed this thread most of the time, so i'd like to say why don't we just vote on great players, would be less confusing.

Oh, and what was so good about Lara's 153. I'm not saying it's bad, ive just never seen it

I'm guessing you don't know the context of the innings, which is what makes it great.

1999, Australia touring the West Indies, in Steve Waugh's first series as captain. Australia won the first test, thanks to Gillespie and McGrath knocking over the Windies for 51, and it appeared the series was heading for a farce. Lara made 213 in the second test though, and the West Indies won it and squared the series 1-1 with 2 to play.

In the third test, Australia made 490 and took a massive first innings lead of 161. Walsh took 5 though, and the West Indies were set 311 to win with the series on the line. After a good start, the Windies collapsed to 5/105 and it looked like Australia would win comfortably. Jimmy Adams held up one end though, and with Lara attacking at the other they added 133 for the 6th wicket. Adams got out with 73 still to get, and then McGrath got Jacobs and Perry in consecutive balls, and with 2 wickets in hand it looked like Australia would win again. Lara kept going though, while Ambrose survived 38 balls in a 54 run stand. When he got out, the West Indies still needed 9 more, and they got the last of them when Lara hit Gillespie through the covers to bring up his 150.

In all, the score was 9/311 in the 4th innings. Lara made 153 not out, the highest other score was 38, and only 3 other batsmen made it into double figures. This was on a 5th day pitch facing McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and MacGill, and the victory kept the series alive, though Australia won the 4th test to tie the series. It was simply one of the greatest innings ever.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I'm guessing you don't know the context of the innings, which is what makes it great.

1999, Australia touring the West Indies, in Steve Waugh's first series as captain. Australia won the first test, thanks to Gillespie and McGrath knocking over the Windies for 51, and it appeared the series was heading for a farce. Lara made 213 in the second test though, and the West Indies won it and squared the series 1-1 with 2 to play.

In the third test, Australia made 490 and took a massive first innings lead of 161. Walsh took 5 though, and the West Indies were set 311 to win with the series on the line. After a good start, the Windies collapsed to 5/105 and it looked like Australia would win comfortably. Jimmy Adams held up one end though, and with Lara attacking at the other they added 133 for the 6th wicket. Adams got out with 73 still to get, and then McGrath got Jacobs and Perry in consecutive balls, and with 2 wickets in hand it looked like Australia would win again. Lara kept going though, while Ambrose survived 38 balls in a 54 run stand. When he got out, the West Indies still needed 9 more, and they got the last of them when Lara hit Gillespie through the covers to bring up his 150.

In all, the score was 9/311 in the 4th innings. Lara made 153 not out, the highest other score was 38, and only 3 other batsmen made it into double figures. This was on a 5th day pitch facing McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and MacGill, and the victory kept the series alive, though Australia won the 4th test to tie the series. It was simply one of the greatest innings ever.

Wow. I saw most of it and just reading that send a shiver down my spine. Lara for president!! Lara! Lara! Lara!

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'm guessing you don't know the context of the innings, which is what makes it great.

1999, Australia touring the West Indies, in Steve Waugh's first series as captain. Australia won the first test, thanks to Gillespie and McGrath knocking over the Windies for 51, and it appeared the series was heading for a farce. Lara made 213 in the second test though, and the West Indies won it and squared the series 1-1 with 2 to play.

In the third test, Australia made 490 and took a massive first innings lead of 161. Walsh took 5 though, and the West Indies were set 311 to win with the series on the line. After a good start, the Windies collapsed to 5/105 and it looked like Australia would win comfortably. Jimmy Adams held up one end though, and with Lara attacking at the other they added 133 for the 6th wicket. Adams got out with 73 still to get, and then McGrath got Jacobs and Perry in consecutive balls, and with 2 wickets in hand it looked like Australia would win again. Lara kept going though, while Ambrose survived 38 balls in a 54 run stand. When he got out, the West Indies still needed 9 more, and they got the last of them when Lara hit Gillespie through the covers to bring up his 150.

In all, the score was 9/311 in the 4th innings. Lara made 153 not out, the highest other score was 38, and only 3 other batsmen made it into double figures. This was on a 5th day pitch facing McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and MacGill, and the victory kept the series alive, though Australia won the 4th test to tie the series. It was simply one of the greatest innings ever.

Laxman's innings was at least Lara's equal. Sure, Laxman had support, but at least there was some hope for the Windies. The Indians were following on. They were one match down and facing the strongest attack on the planet. And these two men basically batted as though they'd never play another innings of cricket for their country.

I just honestly can't believe it got rejected.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Laxman's innings was at least Lara's equal. Sure, Laxman had support, but at least there was some hope for the Windies. The Indians were following on. They were one match down and facing the strongest attack on the planet. And these two men basically batted as though they'd never play another innings of cricket for their country.

I just honestly can't believe it got rejected.

Not denying Laxman's innings was also great. No question about it. I think however the pitch was somewhat easier to bat on, and the bowling less dangerous, and the support more reliable. The extra 130 runs doesn't hurt though.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Oh no doubt, a fifth day pitch against a more in-form attack.I think the difference to me is that while Lara won them the match, Laxman [+ Harby of course ^_^] pretty much won India the series.

 

[nick-o]

Hobbs - yes
Akram - no
Hadlee - no (too close to call really; but I decided at the outset I wouldn't vote yes unless I was 100% certain)

Just a comment to people who are critical of the results of this exercise -- everyone voting is evidently using their own criteria, and the 75% of votes required means that a very wide range of criteria have to be fulfilled before someone gets the nod. That seems fair. If the criteria were laid down in advance and it was simply a question of saying yes or no, a different set of results would emerge. But here, we have some people who might class 50 cricketers as great, others who might class 25, others only 10. If someone gets 75% of votes despite all that, then that is a powerful endorsement. If they fall short, it doesn't mean it's a useless exercise, just that the parameters are open to a variety of interpretations.

 

[SJS]

Hobbs......YES
Akram.....NO
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.....YES
Ashes 2005.....NO

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hobbs - yes
Akram - no
Hadlee - no (too close to call really; but I decided at the outset I wouldn't vote yes unless I was 100% certain)

Just a comment to people who are critical of the results of this exercise -- everyone voting is evidently using their own criteria, and the 75% of votes required means that a very wide range of criteria have to be fulfilled before someone gets the nod. That seems fair. If the criteria were laid down in advance and it was simply a question of saying yes or no, a different set of results would emerge. But here, we have some people who might class 50 cricketers as great, others who might class 25, others only 10. If someone gets 75% of votes despite all that, then that is a powerful endorsement. If they fall short, it doesn't mean it's a useless exercise, just that the parameters are open to a variety of interpretations.

Why wouldn't you consider Hadlee great? I think he's got a fair case to be the best fast bowler of all time, and if not certainly in the top 5.

 

[SJS]

Laxman's innings was at least Lara's equal. Sure, Laxman had support, but at least there was some hope for the Windies. The Indians were following on. They were one match down and facing the strongest attack on the planet. And these two men basically batted as though they'd never play another innings of cricket for their country.

I just honestly can't believe it got rejected.

It didnt get rejected, it got fewer votes than the three that made it Evens Lara's innings may not make it in case that makes you feel better...kidding

Laxman'z innings was great but everyone may not have seen it and it doesnt mean as much to rest of the world as it does to us Indians.

Just for information, in Wisden's top 10 test innings Laxman's innings as well as Lara's innings are included. Lara at no.2 and Laxman at 6. Surely an innings that is rated by Wisden as the sixth greatest of all times (in 1769 test matches - maybe some 50,000 innings) surely it WAS a great innings but then.....

 

[vic_orthdox]

Laxman'z innings was great but everyone may not have seen it and it doesnt mean as much to rest of the world as it does to us Indians.

It's be interesting to see the nationality of who voted against it. I'm guessing that the Indians would have been voting in favour. Aussies might have been split - some acknowledging how good in the innings was, some still dirty that we didn't win the series - but I'd say that it'd be those from countries that weren't involved in the series who would have voted "No".

 

[SJS]

Just for those who may want to see them, here are

- Wisden's top 100 test innings

- Top 100 test bowlings (in an innings)

You may not agree with the entire list but it is still a great reference work.