Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[a massive zebra]

See The League for the Ages forum.

Stat Muppet noun
A player (especially a bowler) whose career averages are misrepresentative of his true ability due to his having played against either very poor oppositon, or on very poor opposition. Examples - SF Barnes, GA Lohman, JJ Ferris, W Bates, W Barnes...

Term derived from a certain unsporting individual (Halsey) packing their team full of them because he couldn't win fair and square.

Well SF Barnes' record is pretty good even allowing for that. All the other bowlers you mentioned are 19th century players who played on terrible pitches. Scores were not as low in the time SF Barnes played, although admittedly lower than they are now.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well SF Barnes' record is pretty good even allowing for that. All the other bowlers you mentioned are 19th century players who played on terrible pitches. Scores were not as low in the time SF Barnes played, although admittedly lower than they are now.

Nonetheless he's still an SM to some extent - hence omitted.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

actually only the 400* is post 2000.

501* and 375 is 1994

277 is 1993 and 153* and 213 are both 1999.

Thats exactly what marc is pointing out, that except for the 400* all the other records were in the 20th century.

 

[aussie_beater]

well i watched Dev regularly in 1981,82 (test series),83 (world cup),85(that world champ of cricket tourny in Australia),86 in England, 87 in the world cup and 90 in england...so if his peak was before 81, or in 1984 and 1988 then yeah i did miss his peak

hmmm... you watched him in 1985/86 in Australia ?....did you turn off the TV when he took 8/106 in Adelaide ? and yeah, McDermott also bowled in that same innings.....and you saw him around 1989/90 ? ....but again your TV was probably up for repairs when he took 6/84 against WI at Sabina Park

And you surely missed the 9/83 against WI at Kanpur in 1983 and the 8/85 versus Pakistan at Lahore in 1983 and all the others.... but then why let those things cloud your judgement...eh ?

 

[Sehwag309]

By the way, is there a vote of some kind for this List, or some people sitting in a room with cigars tell their preference.

Point being, is Bias an issue here!

 

[a massive zebra]

By the way, is there a vote of some kind for this List, or some people sitting in a room with cigars tell their preference.

Point being, is Bias an issue here!

Either way its still biased, unless they used statistics but even then its questionable.

 

[Revelation]

well that's the point. WISDEN picked the 5 cricketers of the 20th Century. 1900-2000. HENCE, one has to include 277,375,213,153* and 501*. How can you even think of selecting a player for the 21st century and it's not even 5% done yet?

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

How can you even think of selecting a player for the 21st century and it's not even 5% done yet?

I never did select anyone for the 21st century

 

[Sehwag309]

Either way its still biased, unless they used statistics but even then its questionable.

Ok, Then it's Wisdom's Cricketers of the Century

 

[aussie_beater]

Sehwag I feel looks like he is trying to knock the leather of the ball...Richards seemed to carress the ball to where ever he chose to hit it...carress gives the wrong impression, because he actually used to murder the ball, but it always looked controlled..and with his drives, the ball would go all the way along the ground, to the boundary in a flash,and quite often it would look like he had just flicked his wrist.Scary to watch sometimes

For me Viv Richards is the greatest batsman. I cannot think of anyone else to compare with him. He had no real weaknesses and had the attitude of a king when he went to bat. Bowlers would pretty much lose the plot, the moment he came in to the crease. He would play very unconventional looking strokes like a pull/hook on the front foot, and still make them look so simple and devastating all at the same time. He was a thrill to watch.

IMO, Sehwag is one of the most fiersome cutter of the ball in the game today. I have not seen too many batsman that can match the ferocity with which he cuts the ball.

 

[hellnback]

Don Bradman himself was once quizzed about Viv Richards. His response was that he felt that he was probably the most 'complete' batsman he'd ever seen, even more-so than himself.

The difference was he said, that while he used to continue to bat (i.e. NOT get out) and score big, that Viv, in his mind, at some point became 'bored' in batting, and found it no longer challenging, and therefore started to have fun with it.

If only he kept the 'hunger'...

 

[marc71178]

By the way, is there a vote of some kind for this List, or some people sitting in a room with cigars tell their preference.

Point being, is Bias an issue here!

I think it asked hundreds of top cricketers and broadcasters etc. to name their lists.

 

[marc71178]

well that's the point. WISDEN picked the 5 cricketers of the 20th Century. 1900-2000. HENCE, one has to include 277,375,213,153* and 501*. How can you even think of selecting a player for the 21st century and it's not even 5% done yet?

The 501* would have less bearing on it as it was in domestic cricket.

The 213 and 153* would also not have much relevance as although great knocks, they weren't big big scores.

Also, his career average in the timescale is under 50, which won't get you recognised as one of the top 5 of all time.

 

[Revelation]

oh please, give me a break. Then how come Viv Richards got in? He only has 3 Double centuries, the same numbet that Lara would have.

Lara: 375, 277 and 213 (Eng, Aus, Aus)
Viv: 291, 232 and 208. (Eng, Eng, Aus)

Lara played under much more pressure than Viv;remember,Viv NEVER played in a serires that the WI lost. I think that Lara's place in the top 5 is much more sure than Viv.

 

[Revelation]

As for Lara's average being below 50, well his last test of 1999 came against NZ, his 65th. up to theat point, he would have played 65 matches, 112 innings, 4NO, 5573 runs, HS of 375, 13 100s, 29 50s, AVERAGE:51.60, more than viv's overall average of 50.23. Note also that in those 65 matches, HE NEVER PLAYED AGAINST THE MINNOW TEAM OF THE TIME, ZIMBABWE. He only made is debut vs Zimbabwe last year, 2003 and will only make his debut vs Bangladesh next week.

 

[a massive zebra]

For me Viv Richards is the greatest batsman. I cannot think of anyone else to compare with him. He had no real weaknesses and had the attitude of a king when he went to bat. Bowlers would pretty much lose the plot, the moment he came in to the crease. He would play very unconventional looking strokes like a pull/hook on the front foot, and still make them look so simple and devastating all at the same time. He was a thrill to watch.

IMO, Sehwag is one of the most fiersome cutter of the ball in the game today. I have not seen too many batsman that can match the ferocity with which he cuts the ball.

Oh my word. If he was so invincible why did he struggle against the best attacks available at the time (Pakistan and New Zealand), and why did Gavaskar finish with a slightly better record despite having to face the mighty West Indies bowlers (and do very well against them) and having more pressure on him because of the comparative mediocrity of the Indian side. And no one ever said Gavaskar was the best batsman ever.

 

[a massive zebra]

Don Bradman himself was once quizzed about Viv Richards. His response was that he felt that he was probably the most 'complete' batsman he'd ever seen, even more-so than himself.

The difference was he said, that while he used to continue to bat (i.e. NOT get out) and score big, that Viv, in his mind, at some point became 'bored' in batting, and found it no longer challenging, and therefore started to have fun with it.

If only he kept the 'hunger'...

If it was simply a question of getting bored then surely he would have made it to 50 in more than 37% of his Test innings. One can't imagine a batsmen getting bored before they reach that figure, and if they do, however talented they are, they're not wonderfully useful.

P.S. Don Bradman said that Jack Hobbs was the most complete batsman he had seen.

 

[Sehwag309]

Though they had no field restrictions but the ODI's were 60 overs that time and richards had more overs to get bored for

 

[Sanz]

I can't say remember the it clearly (remember them frying us on tour, when I was 7, but no details at all).

Kapil's Last 15 Tests:
408.1 Overs, 30 Wickets @ 29.33.

That's 27.21 Overs per game, compared to a career average of 35.29.

On the borderline of statistically significant, and definitely not hardly.

Point taken. But we are not discussing how great Kapil was as a bowler, IMO he was pretty good because he bowled on pretty much flat wickets all his life and alone and never missed any test due to injury in 20 years.

We are talking about Kapil's influence and trust me his influence was great, much more than Warnie has had. And no I am not biased because he comes from my country, I am saying this because I have witnessed his popularity. Check the archives of 1984 series when England Tour India and Kapil was dropped from Calcutta Test (for non-cricketing reasons). There were protests all over India and at in Calcutta pretty much every street had a 'No Kapil No Game' Banner. Infact people were so mad at Sunny Gavaskar for dropping Kapil that they insulted him and his wife in the Stadium and after that Gavaskar never played at Eden Gardens.

 

[Sanz]

is that baseless as in seeing Dev play in both England and Australia on several occasions throughout his career...or is that baseless as in judging a player on what a relative has told you

Well and we are talking about Shane warne having seen him play in India at least 3 occasions. The point here is not that Kapil was a great bowler or not, but his influence on Indians, which was huge. He inspired a generation to take up fast bowling.