Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Swervy]

It is really amazing how sparklingly brilliant and popular this thread has turned out to be. Well done Ford!

true, i havent had this much fun on this forum since Richard was going on about first chance averages

 

[Neil Pickup]

true, i havent had this much fun on this forum since Richard was going on about first chance averages

Peace, Harmony and Self-moderating debate

Me=Happy

 

[a massive zebra]

true, i havent had this much fun on this forum since Richard was going on about first chance averages

I hope Richard comes back sometime. Me thinks he had had enough of the abuse being levelled his way. Take a look at his penultimate post:

Or read as...
I'm disappointed if I sound dumb.

 

[Swervy]

I hope Richard comes back sometime. Me thinks he had had enough of the abuse being levelled his way. Take a look at his penultimate post:

Or read as...
I'm disappointed if I sound dumb.

i think he may have been more dissapointed with us thinking he sounded dumb

 

[Sanz]

It still doesn't prove any point because Richards never played those bowlers(Roberts/Garner etc) either. Infact those poor bowlers(of 71,75 & 78) were still better than the tiny boppers Indian wre bowling to Richards.

 

[aussie_beater]

This Wisden list has generated enough debate in the last 3-4 years and there is no way a list like that can be compiled without it being questioned by many.I think only Bradman and Sobers probably cannot be touched but everyone else's position can be questioned. English fans and other would say Hobbs also comes in the same league, and I don't have much opinion on that.Have read some great stuff about Hobbs.

But when it comes to players that I have seen and admired, I would like to put Richards in there myself before putting anybody else besides Bradman and Sobers. The only question mark for me is Warne ? I cannot convince myself on his position, and there are other players that I can think of who deserve to be there before Warne in terms of career averages and impact and everything else. Sachin is one, Marshall is another.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Like I say, let's give White and Casson (and all the other kids) ten years and see then.

White is in the ODI squad for Zimbabwe and is likely to see at least one game, I reckon.

White is only in the Test Squad for Zimbabwe

 

[Neil Pickup]

White is only in the Test Squad for Zimbabwe

Meh, close enough

 

[marc71178]

As for Lara's average being below 50, well his last test of 1999 came against NZ,

Century ends in 2000, no?

 

[marc71178]

india won the 2nd test and definetly had the upper hand in the 4th test, while australia comprehensively won the 3rd test and the 1st test ended with honours even.

If India had upper hand in 4, Australia did in 1.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Century ends 23:59.59, 31-12-1999.

00:00.00, 01-01-2000 is the 21st Century

Do the first few balls of the New Year's Day Test in Australia count?

 

[marc71178]

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
13 1 60 0 4.62 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Sydney
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata

He clearly does not always keep it tight and has been hammered by India on a number of occasions.

And if you took the 5 worst performances of someone like, SRT, you'd have 5 ducks...

Does that make him bad as well?

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

It is really amazing how sparklingly brilliant and popular this thread has turned out to be. Well done Ford!

Thanks

I'm unlucky because when I go to bed here in Australia (all the UK CW members are obviously still awake) I miss out on the main action

I wake up the next day, there seems to be more than 100 posts.

Though at least everyone is enjoying my thread which is the main thing

 

[marc71178]

Pure assumption on your part. Sri Lanka with this batting lineup would have struggled anyway.

And yet again the current SL batting line-up is harshly criticised!

 

[marc71178]

Century ends 23:59.59, 31-12-1999.

00:00.00, 01-01-2000 is the 21st Century

Do the first few balls of the New Year's Day Test in Australia count?

A great debate, but if the first millenium started in 1AD, the second started in 1001AD, so the third millenium was 2001...

Otherwise, please tell me which century only had 99 years?

 

[Swervy]

And yet again the current SL batting line-up is harshly criticised!

almost as harshly criticised as Viv Richards battings by some people

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

This Wisden list has generated enough debate in the last 3-4 years and there is no way a list like that can be compiled without it being questioned by many.

Thats the great thing about the Wisden's five is that its open for such a wide debate by many with differing opinions

 

[Neil Pickup]

A great debate, but if the first millenium started in 1AD, the second started in 1001AD, so the third millenium was 2001...

Otherwise, please tell me which century only had 99 years?

I was under the impression the first millennium started in the year 0 until the year 999.

 

[a massive zebra]

A great debate, but if the first millenium started in 1AD, the second started in 1001AD, so the third millenium was 2001...

Otherwise, please tell me which century only had 99 years?

The century ends in 99, the millenium ends in 00. I know that for a fact.

 

[marc71178]

Gavaskar Vs WI: 2749 @ 65.45

His best 2 series were 70/71, before the quicks came in, and 78/79 (Packer meant the Windies attack was spearheaded by Phillip and Clarke)

Remove them and his average is suddenly in the low 40s...