The Greats

[Pedro Delgado]

I'll second that, actually. One of the best overs I've ever seen - in fact probably the best that I can remember vividly.

Continuing that theme, I'd like to nominate Holding's over to Boycott - not that I've ever seen it, but the general consensus is that it was the greatest over ever, so it deserves a mention.

Also, Lara's 153* must be considered great - I'm nominating that as well.

You know it makes sense. Come on Faaip? I remember you saying "Flintoff really is a great bowler" during that over, obviously you were caught up in the moment and better bowlers deserve more praise....but get voting man!

Adamc, Holding's over and the 153* have already been nominated I think.

 

[Shounak]

Ashes--- NO
Laxman's 281---YES
Imran Khan--YES
G.D.McGrath--NO
A.C.Gilchrist--NO
S.R.Waugh--NO
I.V.A.Richards--YES
M.Marshall--NO
D.Lillee--YES
J.Kallis--NO

Spot on.. Although the D.K. Lillee could do with a few exclamation marks..

 

[Dasa]

Continuing that theme, I'd like to nominate Holding's over to Boycott - not that I've ever seen it, but the general consensus is that it was the greatest over ever, so it deserves a mention.

Already done.

Also, Lara's 153* must be considered great - I'm nominating that as well.

Also done.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Quietly surprised McGrath is getting so many no votes. It would be boring if we all agreed of course, but still.

 

[Dasa]

M.Marshall--NO

Your bias against front-on actions, I presume?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Quietly surprised McGrath is getting so many no votes. It would be boring if we all agreed of course, but still.

Two factors that, for mine, have resulted in McGrath and Gilchrist not doing all that well, and WRT McGrath, struggling in comparison to Lillee.

1. If you asked this question 10-15 years down the track, then the two might be revered slightly more.
2. When talking about greats, then I think a lot of people believe that the ability to capture the emotions of the public should come into play. Dennis Lillee captured the imagination, and that of Australia especially - even now, largely because of him, Australian kids still want to bowl fast all the time. McGrath doesn't capture the public in the same way, thus doesn't have that "aura" about him that the "greats" seem to have.

 

[Adamc]

Already done.


Also done.

Heh, serves me right for not bothering to read the thread.

This one's probably been mentioned as well, but just in case it hasn't: Bradman's 270 during the third Test in Melbourne, 1937/38. 2-0 down in the series, his first ever as captain, comes in at 5-97 on a minefield in the second innings, puts on a record sixth-wicket stand with Fingleton and scores 270 (highest score for a #7 I think), wins the match as well as the next two, only team ever to come back from 2-0 down.

That's pretty great, I think.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How come Bradman was in at 7?

The captain with the old slippery pole, eh?

 

[social]

Two factors that, for mine, have resulted in McGrath and Gilchrist not doing all that well, and WRT McGrath, struggling in comparison to Lillee.

1. If you asked this question 10-15 years down the track, then the two might be revered slightly more.
2. When talking about greats, then I think a lot of people believe that the ability to capture the emotions of the public should come into play. Dennis Lillee captured the imagination, and that of Australia especially - even now, largely because of him, Australian kids still want to bowl fast all the time. McGrath doesn't capture the public in the same way, thus doesn't have that "aura" about him that the "greats" seem to have.

True, he just bowls sides out continuously.

Richie Benaud said it best on the weekend, "for the last 10 years, every batsman has known how McGrath has intended to attack them yet have been powerless to stop him."

He doesnt have extreme pace, swing, or seam yet remains the world's best pace bowler.

If he's not an all-time great then no-one is.

 

[Adamc]

How come Bradman was in at 7?

The captain with the old slippery pole, eh?

Probably didn't want to come in until the pitch had improved I imagine (England had just been bowled out for 76); obviously it worked.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Probably didn't want to come in until the pitch had improved I imagine (England had just been bowled out for 76); obviously it worked.

I guess it was that sort of thing that led to him copping a bit of the "selfish" tag.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

And waiting 15 years to make a judgement smacks of romanticism and nostalgia. McGrath and Warne are legendary in their own career-time, to coign a phrase.

 

[Adamc]

I guess it was that sort of thing that led to him copping a bit of the "selfish" tag.

Well, it's not as though the other batsmen weren't protected as well - Bill O'Reilly and Chuck Fleetwood-Smith opened the batting (both made ducks), and McCabe came in at 8. Comes across more as very clever rather than very selfish IMO, but it's hard to make those judgments since a pitch like that would never see the light of day in a Test match these days.

 

[nick-o]

All so subjective, it's hard to decide.

First, 'the Ashes' is such an integral part of cricket it seems pointless to vote. It's like voting on whether 'hitting sixes' is great or not.
Second, I've decided I'm only going to vote on players, not innings or matches or overs or whatever.

Regarding players, everyone will have their own standards: for me, there are 'legends' and 'all-time greats' and 'great players', and they all have different criteria. For example, I don't think Boycott is an all-time great, but he might qualify as a legend -- in fifty or a hundred years time, he'll be remembered where greater contemporaries aren't.

To get my vote, the individual has of course to show greatness, but must also have the promise to be an all-time great, which requires that little extra. For active players, this means that although they could get there, if they haven't gotten there yet they don't get a vote. Thus in the last round of voting, I voted for Lara but not Tendulkar. Lara has twice broken the record score and will be remembered as long as cricket is played. Tendulkar is one of the best batsmen of his generation. There is a difference. My final criterion is that I don't rate one-day cricket at all, so people whose reputation is enhanced by ODI cricket lose out.

So, as to this group:

Imran Khan --- Yes
G.D.McGrath --- Yes
A.C.Gilchrist - No
S.R.Waugh - Yes
I.V.A.Richards - Yes
M.Marshall - Yes
D.Lillee - No
J.Kallis - No

McGrath is a yes and Lillee is a no, because Lillee was not the best bowler of his time -- Roberts, Holding etc. were better -- but there has never been a bowler who has been so consistently so much more deadly than his contemporaries for so long as McGrath.

Richards, Imran and Marshall are obvious, just as Kallis is obviously not (yet). If Kallis passes Lara's 400, in a winning cause in a meaningful match, I'll think again.

Gilchrist and Waugh are borderline: Gilchrist is not an all-time great wicketkeeper, and he is not an all-time great batsman; in combination, he might be, but I think his career is too short and perceptions rest too heavily on ODIs. Waugh is one of my favorite cricketers and his attitude, especially as captain, redefined test cricket. As a batsman, I think I'd vote no, but as a cricketer and for his influence on the game, he gets a yes.

 

[Jono]

How McGrath can dominate nearly every batting line-up worldwide in an era full of flat pitches, shorter boundaries and basically a modern game which heavily favours the batting team, yet not be 'great' is absolutely beyond me. I just can't fathom it.

I won't even get started on Marshall, who one can legitimately argue to be the best bowler in the world without too many people thinking he's mad. You may disagree with him being 'the best', but you won't disagree with people thinking he is. He's definitely a great. No question.

Ashes - No, way too broad.
Laxman's 281- Yes
Imran Khan - Yes
G.D.McGrath - Yes
A.C.Gilchrist - Yes
S.R.Waugh - Yes
I.V.A.Richards - Yes
M.Marshall - Yes
D.Lillee - Yes
J.Kallis - No

 

[Fusion]

Ashes - Yes

Laxman's 281 - No

Imran Khan - Yes

G.D.McGrath - Yes

A.C.Gilchrist - No

S.R.Waugh - Yes

I.V.A.Richards - Yes

M.Marshall - Yes

D.Lillee - No

J.Kallis - No

 

[open365]

Ashes-no
Laxman's 281-no
Imran Khan-yes
G.D.McGrath-yes
A.C.Gilchrist-yes
S.R.Waugh-yes
I.V.A.Richards-yes
M.Marshall-no
D.Lillee-yes
J.Kallis-no



i'm not sure about Afridi's hundred,i'll second it but only because it was his debut.
I just think that if any top-class player batted like Afridi does all the time,then they would be able to do something simmilar.

and i'd like to nominate Micheal Bevan.

 

[archie mac]

I guess it was that sort of thing that led to him copping a bit of the "selfish" tag.

Almost every contemporary report of the time, praised him for this decision, and it had been done from the early part of the century. A player now long forgotten, Reg Duff whom was a regular opener scored a debut ton from No. 10. With Trumper batting 9 and Armstrong batting 11. around 1902 I think.

 

[onemangang]

Ashes-no
Laxman's 281-yes
Imran Khan-yes
G.D.McGrath-no
A.C.Gilchrist-no
S.R.Waugh-yes
I.V.A.Richards-yes
M.Marshall-no
D.Lillee-no
J.Kallis-no

 

[Hoggard]

Ashes - Yes

Laxman's 281 - No

Imran Khan - Yes

G.D.McGrath - a reluctant yes

A.C.Gilchrist - No

S.R.Waugh - no

I.V.A.Richards - Yes

M.Marshall - Yes

D.Lillee - No

J.Kallis - No