Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Sanz]

Well if he can have Kuruvilla et al, I can have those two.

Kuruvilla played for India. Other players I named all of them played for India in Tests or ODIS.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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.

 

[tooextracool]

Are you telling me that Warnie never played against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka before this series ?? And I am just curious to know How many people actually think that India hammed warne-less Australia . Add to the fact the he was bowling to the weakest Sri Lankan Batting line up in last 20 years and their batting is only 3rd from last after Bangladesh and Zimbabwe..

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.
clearly india came out the better team in that series, especially considering this was played in australia.

AFAIK, aussies have got bigger beating in 1997,1998 & 2001 with warnie in the team.

thinks you should realise that those series were all in INDIA. if the aussies play like they did in australia in india i can assure you they will be hammered even further than they were in 98 or 01.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

have you heard of jayasuriya?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

the reason why lara didnt make the wisden list is because he had a very ordinary period between 96-00(remember thats when they made the list).
at that point he went from being a great player to just another member of the side who although did produce some magical performances at times(153* etc) but was largely inconsistent otherwise. it was only in 2001 in SL when he turned the clock back and brought back his consistent self.to make that wisden list you cant have a 5 year drought in the middle of you're career can you?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

ok if we're going to look at stats then we're going to have to look at it right!
for one viv richards played about 3-4 years longer than he should have. towards the end he became a very ordinary player and his average as a result dropped from about 53-54 to the low 50s.at the peak of his career)81-82) in fact he averaged in the low 60s,which in that era that is quite unbelievable.
and secondly the impact that richards had on bowlers hasnt been matched by anyone other than the don. richards could intimidate even the most experienced and successful fast bowler in the world and make him look like a complete novice. you have never seen richards bat....if you had you wouldnt have much doubt in picking him on that list.

 

[aussie_beater]

have you heard of jayasuriya?

Yep, I have seen Jayasuriya from the start of his career. And please check that I did not say Sehwag is "THE" most dangerous cutter of the ball... I said "one of the most", which I thought, does not exclude batsman like Jayasuriya.

 

[Sanz]

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.
clearly india came out the better team in that series, especially considering this was played in australia.

Still it was no hammering and australia missed Mcgrath more than Warnie. Mcgill performed as good as Warne if not better. So you assertion that Warne-less Australia was hammered by India and warnie's presence would have made a difference isn't true.

thinks you should realise that those series were all in INDIA. if the aussies play like they did in australia in india i can assure you they will be hammered even further than they were in 98 or 01.

And I thought those pitches were spinner friendly where even a non-turner like Kumble could take heaps of wickets. Wasn't a spinner like Shane warne supposed to do well and spun the Indian team out at least in one of those series ?

 

[a massive zebra]

ok if we're going to look at stats then we're going to have to look at it right!
for one viv richards played about 3-4 years longer than he should have. towards the end he became a very ordinary player and his average as a result dropped from about 53-54 to the low 50s.at the peak of his career)81-82) in fact he averaged in the low 60s,which in that era that is quite unbelievable. .

Javed Miandad averaged over 70 for a sustained period around that time and no one has mentioned him.

you have never seen richards bat....if you had you wouldnt have much doubt in picking him on that list.

I have seen Richards bat although admittedly not at his best. But I would not have selected him as one of those 5 because I pick players on how good they are not how good they look. Headley and Weekes were more than a match for Richards from the West Indies alone, and thats not just my view but also the view of Garry Sobers who knows a lot more than you.

 

[aussie_beater]

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.

Have you seen Richards play ? Or Gavaskar play for that matter ? Gavaskar was more sound technically then any other batsman I have seen and probably the best opener in post-war cricket(Barry Richards didn't play too many test matches), but I think you will agree that a batsman can be techinically a genius but still not be considered as the best batsman of the generation. Gavaskar's case was exactly that. He could blunt the best of the new ball attacks like WI of the 70s and 80s but he never really dominated an attack to the extent that Viv could do. Viv's average got badly damaged towards the later part of his career when he was well past his peak and still was playing. Viv's average was closer to 60 for about the first 10 years of his career, and he was playing bowlers like Lilee, Thommo, Willis, Snow, Imran, Botham and others.

 

[aussie_beater]

Javed Miandad averaged over 70 for a sustained period around that time and no one has mentioned him.

When was he averaging around 70 ? He alonwith Zaheer and Mudassar murdered the Indian bowling in 4 test series played between 1978 and 1984, but he was not really going at the same speed against any of the other attacks at that time.

 

[a massive zebra]

Have you seen Richards play ? Or Gavaskar play for that matter ? Gavaskar was more sound technically then any other batsman I have seen and probably the best opener in post-war cricket(Barry Richards didn't play too many test matches), but I think you will agree that a batsman can be techinically a genius but still not be considered as the best batsman of the generation. Gavaskar's case was exactly that. He could blunt the best of the new ball attacks like WI of the 70s and 80s but he never really dominated an attack to the extent that Viv could do. Viv's average got badly damaged towards the later part of his career when he was well past his peak and still was playing. Viv's average was closer to 60 for about the first 10 years of his career, and he was playing bowlers like Lilee, Thommo, Willis, Snow, Imran, Botham and others.

After 10 years of Test cricket Viv Richards record was:

77 116 7 5889 291 54.02 19 25

Impressive but not as impressive as you make out. Greg Chappell and Javed Miandad did just as well during that period and Gavaskar was consistent throughout his career unlike Richards who batted superbly until the late 70s then only occasionaly showed flashes of brilliance.

 

[a massive zebra]

When was he averaging around 70 ? He alonwith Zaheer and Mudassar murdered the Indian bowling in 4 test series played between 1978 and 1984, but he was not really going at the same speed against any of the other attacks at that time.

Until the 2nd Test vs India at Delhi in 1979.

 

[tooextracool]

Mcgill performed as good as Warne if not better.

macgill vs india(in australia)=50.79@ER 3.65
warne vs india(in australia) =41.88@ER 2.64

so how exactly can you say that macgill performed as well as warne? the crucial aspect about warne is that even if he doesnt get wickets, he keeps it tight at one end so that someone at the other end can get them, while macgill releases all the pressure with his mandatory one long hop every over.

So you assertion that Warne-less Australia was hammered by India and warnie's presence would have made a difference isn't true.?

i never said that warnes presence would have made a difference in that india series. my point is that a warneless australian side in SL would have struggled to compete in that series.

And I thought those pitches were spinner friendly where even a non-turner like Kumble could take heaps of wickets. Wasn't a spinner like Shane warne supposed to do well and spun the Indian team out at least in one of those series ?

what is you're point here?we were talking about how badly australia had been hammered in 98 and 01 and i was trying to say that india won both those series 2-1 and it wasnt much of a hammering because it was played in INDIA. warne did not enter this disccusion at all

 

[chicane]

and secondly the impact that richards had on bowlers hasnt been matched by anyone other than the don. richards could intimidate even the most experienced and successful fast bowler in the world and make him look like a complete novice. you have never seen richards bat....if you had you wouldnt have much doubt in picking him on that list.

Well Lara was brilliant(and very intimidating) against Australia in the 90's, right when McGrath was at his peak. McGrath is considered by some to be the greatest fast bowler ever.

 

[chicane]

And Sachin too. Especially in India, you could see the frustration and exasperation on McGrath's face.

 

[tooextracool]

Javed Miandad averaged over 70 for a sustained period around that time and no one has mentioned him.

so you bring in one more name into the discussion...it seems that everytime one of you're players are proven to not be as good as richards you throw in another. i was talking about gavaskar vs richards but anyways:
did javed miandad also have the effect of demoralizing bowling attacks and making the best bowlers look like novices?i think just about any fast bowler in the 80s would say that he would rather have bowled to javed miandad than viv richards.

I have seen Richards bat although admittedly not at his best. But I would not have selected him as one of those 5 because I pick players on how good they are not how good they look..

oh i forgot, you base all you're all your opinions on averages! if you havent seen him play then get some old tapes and watch some of his batting and then comeback and carry on this discussion instead of just judging players on averages. i could start a new thread saying andy flower is better than gavaskar...now would you agree to that??

Headley and Weekes were more than a match for Richards from the West Indies alone, and thats not just my view but also the view of Garry Sobers who knows a lot more than you.

and botham says that richards is the best player since the don and he knows a lot more than you too. dont just listen to what someone else says.

 

[aussie_beater]

Until the 2nd Test vs India at Delhi in 1979.

That was in a period of only three years, and you do realise that world cricket was seriously lopsided in those years due to the Packer series and most teams were short of their best players in those years.

 

[Kain]

Richards is still the man!

After 10 years of Test cricket Viv Richards record was:

77 116 7 5889 291 54.02 19 25

Impressive but not as impressive as you make out. Greg Chappell and Javed Miandad did just as well during that period and Gavaskar was consistent throughout his career unlike Richards who batted superbly until the late 70s then only occasionaly showed flashes of brilliance.

Both Chappell and Miandad might have had similar success during the same period,but only Viv had the aura of indestructibility that only a few players throughtout history seemed to possess.Bradman had it it due to the sheer weight of runs that flowed off his bat, Sobers due to his ability to change the nature of any game with his allround skills and Lillee with his ability to out think any batsman.Chappell, Miandad and Richards were all batsmen of supreme class yet Richards stood out.Why? Because he dominated every bowler of that era and did so for most of his career. There was no one bowler he respected with the possible exception of Lillee which he will most likely never admit. Many other great batsmen can't lay claim to that including todays greats Lara and Tendulkar. Fast bowlers tend to intimidate batsmen that is a fact of life. But Richards was never one to be grounded in normalcy and it was this quality and his sheer batting talent that allowed him to turn the tables on them. In a sense Richards is the modern day reincarnation of Sir Don Bradman. Not in technique and amount of runs scored of course where Bradman will always remain supreme. But in terms of their domination of their respective eras they are one and the same. By sheer weight of the number of runs that came off Bradman's bat no sane bowler would relish the chance to have a go at him. Oh yes they might eventually get him out but his score at that point wouldn't make good reading for the bowling side. Richards however went about it in a different way. He wasn't the run machine that was the Don, but he didn't need to be simply because of his approach to batting. Where the Don might score a double hundred thereby totally demoralizing the bowling team, Richards would only score fifty but have the same effect. Well you might ask how can a man who scored a double be compared to another who only scored fifty? The answer would be in the way they both scored their respective runs. Bradman made bowlers feel inferior because they couldn't stop him from scoring even when bowling ultra defensive(bodyline-still averaged fifty something). Richards made you feel inferior because he would just bash you about like if you were some school boy now learning your craft. Just the sight of him coming out to bat demoralized the other side's bowlers. During the mid seventies to early eighties no bowler could claim he had the measure of Sir Viv because everyone got the same treatment shared around in equal doses:they bowl, Viv swings and the ball ends up out of the park. Viv is one of the greatest batsmen the world has ever seen but this is not the reason he made the Wisden list as there were many other great batsmen and great bowlers during his time. Names such as Chappell, Gavaskar, Miandad, Imran Khan, Lillee, Lloyd, Hadlee, Boycott, Border, Botham and Dev were all world class players and will be remembered as some of the greatest cricketers to have ever played the game. But Sir Viv Richards was voted as one the five cricketers of the century and not the others. The Reason. Simply put he dominated them all. Wow! Got a little carried away there Sorry bout that.

 

[tooextracool]

Well Lara was brilliant(and very intimidating) against Australia in the 90's, right when McGrath was at his peak. McGrath is considered by some to be the greatest fast bowler ever.

you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. first of all mcgrath has dismissed lara more times than anyone else in the world has.
and i dont think you know the meaning of 'destroying a bowlers confidence' either. there were bowlers scared to bowl to richards and you come up with the worst possible example ever.
and who is this genius who rates mcgrath as the best fast bowler ever?