The Greats

[Jono]

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.

I have no idea why Hobbs isn't talked about as much as Sobers and Don and Viv etc. Hobbs is almost universally the opener of most people's All-Time World XIs, and is IMO comfortably the best batsman from England. I just thought he'd be like Sobers and Don (but to a lesser extent) and be a cake walk into the 'great' list.

 

[Shoaib]

Hobbs-yes
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-no

 

[CaptainSaurav]

Hobbs-yes
Akram-no
Hadlee-no
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

 

[CaptainSaurav]

I would also like to nomitate the ex-Indian captain Saurav Ganguly, hope someone will second it soon!

 

[Robertinho]

How can you not nominate Wasim or Hadlee?? I would like to reject the nomination of Ganguly, he's crap and arrogant.

 

[Robertinho]

YES
J.B. Hobbs
Wasim Akram
R.J. Hadlee
M.A. Holding's over to G. Boycott
The Ashes 2005

N/A
B.C. Lara's 153* vs Australia at Bridgetown, March 1999
S.R. Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in the West Indies in 1995

Hmm, tough this round. Having never seen Lara's 153*, or Waugh's feats in West Indies, I had to go by the scorecards. I'm just really reluctant an innings/spell is "great" unless I've seen it. True, it may not be the best, but to me - a spell that I've never seen isn't great unless I'm convinced by what I've heard about it. Ok - just edited - I'm going to go with "no vote"

 

[Snippie]

Hobbs-yes
Akram-no
Hadlee-YES
Lara's 153*-Yes
Holding's over to Boycott- N/A - Haven't seen it, so can't really comment, are we allowed a N/A? Don't want to say yes or no without actually seeing the over in question...
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995-Yes
Ashes 2005- Yes

 

[thierry henry]

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 believe this to be the case. I thought later in his career he played a very important middle order role for Pakistan. He was the most consistent bat of the 80s allrounders.

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.

An extremely tenuous argument imo. Can you name me any other bowlers averaging 34, in the entire history of cricket, that you are willing to lavish such praise on? Or have you simply decided that Sobers is great regardless of the numbers (and without having seen him play), and are now arguing backwards from that conclusion?

 

[jamesicus]

I will base my nominations on those players who, in my eyes and experience, have achieved greatness by elevating and enhancing the game in extraordinary ways -- not necessarily just on-field accomplishments -- although I do include some players (or collection of players) strictly because of the sheer enormity and excellence of their career performance.

Like each one of yours, my selections are strictly personal ones and I don't expect everyone to agree with even a minority of them, in fact, I will be surprised if even a few do.

I must start off with some comments about Don Bradman. I know he is an automatic selection for this list, but I would like to offer some observations about his impact on cricket during my youth from my point of view and that of my father, uncles and boyhood friends. I don't like to generalize and pretend that I talk for others with unanimity, but in this event I think I am on good ground.

His incredible batting accomplishments, leadership/captaincy skills, organizational abilities, inexhaustible & boundless promotion of the game and his personal exemplary standards of excellence & ethical conduct are well recognized and chronicled, but from my perspective there was even more to him than that.

I first became aware of Don Bradman in the mid 1930s when I was a young boy. The great depression hit the Lancashire textile weaving towns (where I was born and grew up -- I was a child of the Depression) very hard -- nobody had any money and unemployment was rampant (in fact there were hardly any jobs to be had), food was scarce and a general atmosphere of doom and gloom prevailed. There wasn't a whole lot of joy and brightness around. Movies offered the best escape -- I remember Laurel & Hardy and Fred Astaire & Ginger Rodgers with particular fondness -- and then came Don Bradman! Suddenly the dreary newspaper headlines announcing labour strikes and food shortages were replaced with banners outlining his unheard of batting feats -- it was a much needed tonic! His exploits transcended the hard times and lifted our spirits -- one British author described him as "blazing across the heaven like a comet" during his famous 1934 Leeds Test innings of 334.

And in 1948, Don Bradman lifted the spirits of a war-weary Britain beset with austerity and drabness when he captained the immortal Australian team during their invincible Ashes tour. Suddenly there was sunshine and joy -- great cricket had been sorely missed for six long years -- Bradman was back and all was well once again. No wonder British cricket fans loved "the Don" so much!

I have many more nominations to offer, but I am tired now ..........

 

[Pratters]

Hobbs-yes
Akram-no
Hadlee-YES
Lara's 153*-Yes
Holding's over to Boycott- N/A - Haven't seen it, so can't really comment, are we allowed a N/A? Don't want to say yes or no without actually seeing the over in question...
S.Waugh's 63* and 200 to win the series in Windies 1995-Yes
Ashes 2005- Yes

Yeah of course!

 

[thierry henry]

How can you not nominate Wasim or Hadlee?? I would like to reject the nomination of Ganguly, he's crap and arrogant.

I already nominated Ganguly purely as an ODI batsman, but he didn't even make it to the voting.

 

[andyc]

Yes
Hobbs
Akram
Hadlee
Ashes 2005
S Waugh's two innings

NA
Lara's 153*
Holding's over to Boycott

 

[marc71178]

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

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

 

[marc71178]

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

No, he didn't bowl against England because he was supposedly injured, but when the easy picking came along a week later, he was there straight away. Surely if the injury was that bad he'd have been better off resting it to save it for more tricky opposition...

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

You think wrong then!

Without their games he's averaging 51.81 with the bat and 34.71 with the ball

 

[archie mac]

Hobbs= yes
Akram= yes
Hadlee=yes

The rest no

 

[Beleg]

Yes to everyone.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

An extremely tenuous argument imo. Can you name me any other bowlers averaging 34, in the entire history of cricket, that you are willing to lavish such praise on? Or have you simply decided that Sobers is great regardless of the numbers (and without having seen him play), and are now arguing backwards from that conclusion?

An average in the low 30s isn't really all that awful for a spin bowler, and while Sobers did not bowl spin all the time, it is generally accepted that it was his spin bowling that raised his average beyond what it otherwise might have been.

Abdul Qadir - 236 wickets @ 32.81
Lance Gibbs - 309 wickets @ 29.09
EAS Prasanna - 189 wickets @ 30.38
Bishen Bedi - 266 wickets @ 28.71
Ashley Mallett - 132 wickets @ 29.85
Saqlain Mushtaq - 208 wickets @ 29.84

Indeed, even Anil Kumble averages 28.39.

Regardless, the average does not tell the full story with Sobers in particular. Sobers didn't have the option of not bowling when the real bowlers knocked over the opposition, or just coming on to clean up the tail. He didn't only bowl in favourable conditions, he wouldn't stop bowling for the day if he was getting hit around, and he couldn't play just a defensive or just an attacking role. Hell, he couldn't even just stick to one style of bowling. Sobers was a great bowler because with the huge burden of responsibility he carried he still managed to be so successful, AND average close to 60 with the bat while he did it.

Put simply, Sobers is a better batsman, bowler and fielder than Kallis, and not just by a small margin in any capacity either.

 

[Mike Hussey]

Gilchrist, Lara, Bradman, Tendulkar, and the rest...

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Hobbs - Without a doubt
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 - Haven't seen them, but given some of the spoiled ballots, and given my geuine abhorrence and dissatisfaction that Waugh is not recognised as a great, I give a yes vote.
Ashes 2005 - Yes

 

[Beleg]

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