Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Ford_GTHO351]

oh yes, without a doubt and as i was saying in another thread it wasn't entirely his fault that Ind lost the WC final. i THINK that the bowlers who conceded 349 should shoulder just a bit of the blame too.

Khan 0/67 (7)
Srinath 0/87 (10)

Soon as you start to have bowlers performing like that in a WC final, it was always going to be hard for the Indian batsmen.

Still though, Tendulkar has choked in recent finals.

 

[Revelation]

that is also true. Sachin has not done as well as he could have but then everyone goes through a patch like this.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

I know....though not in the finals, he's been phenomenal in ODI's.

His career record in ODI's has been superb.

333 Matches, 13134 runs@ 44.82, SR: 86.53

 

[honestbharani]

Sachin is without a doubt, an awesome performer.....But I still think he hasn't made the transition from being the lone guy carrying all the weight in the side to being one of the great batters in the side just as yet, although I am sure it won't be long before he does it.

 

[Revelation]

i have to disagree.....Since Laxman's 281 and then Dravid's 233 and 270 i think that sachin is no longer the mainstay of Indian batting.

 

[biased indian]

i have to disagree.....Since Laxman's 281 and then Dravid's 233 and 270 i think that sachin is no longer the mainstay of Indian batting.

ya he now only scores 242* and 194*

 

[chicane]

i have to disagree.....Since Laxman's 281 and then Dravid's 233 and 270 i think that sachin is no longer the mainstay of Indian batting.

He and Dravid form the core of our batting. Dravid more in Tests, Sachin more in ODI's.

 

[Revelation]

ya he now only scores 242* and 194*

What i meant was that the batting no longer revolves around him. he can make 0 and India will still post a healthy tota. Compare to Lara who makes 0 and WI makes 47 and Lara who makes 400* and WI makes 751/5.

 

[dotcompals]

Cricketers of the Century (in my opinon)

Don Bradman : For his 99+ text average

Gary Sobers : For his allround performance

Sachin Tendulkar: For his Batting genius in both Test & ODIs

Brain Lara: Breaking the world record of Sir Gary Sobers and then after 10 years again breaking the World Recod of Matt Hyden. What can one say about this man called BRAIN CHARLES LARA.

Shane Warne: for reviving the dying art of the Orthodox Leg Spin.

Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Garfield Sobers
Sir Jack Hobbs
Shane Warne
Sir Vivian Richards

Do you all agree with Wisden's choices for their five cricketers of the century or should someone else be in that list?

 

[Swervy]

what a great thread this was

 

[SJS]

what a great thread this was

R.I.P.

 

[Richard]

Don Bradman : For his 99+ text average

Gary Sobers : For his allround performance

Sachin Tendulkar: For his Batting genius in both Test & ODIs

Brain Lara: Breaking the world record of Sir Gary Sobers and then after 10 years again breaking the World Recod of Matt Hyden. What can one say about this man called BRAIN CHARLES LARA.

Shane Warne: for reviving the dying art of the Orthodox Leg Spin.

What a typification of most-recent-is-best-remembered!
The two best players the game has ever produced, and three current players!

 

[SJS]

Bradman for being the greatest batsman ever. Everything confirms that least of all statistics.

Barnes for being the greatest bowler the game has ever seen. All accounts seem to confirm that , agai statistics only do it for those so inclined, but they do.

Hobbs for being the most perfect batsman with a technique that allowed him to master two generations of bowlers on the worst of pitches over nearly five decades in the game

Sobers for being the greatest all rounder the game has ever seen and a close contestant with the Don for the top spot in this rarefied group.

Richards for being the greatest in the generation which played two differnt forms of the game and his absolute command of both forms.

 

[Richard]

Sobers for being the greatest all rounder the game has ever seen and a close contestant with the Don for the top spot in this rarefied group.

Personally I would say I'd give Sir Garfield the number-one tag anytime.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Utter rubbish! Hadlee's wicket count is as high as it is because he had so little support from other Kiwi bowlers in that era (a la Murali today).

One of the greats? Yes. The greatest? Be off with you.

Neil, what you fail to realise - through ignorance or bias - was that because there was very little bowling support opposition batsmen frequently blocked out Hadlee and scored runs from the pie-throwers at the other end. This made Hadlee work bloody hard for his wickets.

Hadlee only played against quality opposition, unlike Murali who has plundered BAN, ZIM, and WI wickets in recent times. Not sure he ever played Zimbabwe. New Zealand's batting during his era was never dominant, so he didn't have the luxury of defending large totals that created pressure on the opposition batsmen.

For these reasons, and his excellent average, I believe Hadlee was the greatest bowler in cricketing history. It is ridiculous to say Bradman was more than 40% better than any bowler, as these are totally different skills.

While I agree Bradman was the greatest cricketer of all time, he played in an era where the following occured:

- Umpires would have been frightened to give him out
- Close decisions on run-outs, stumpings, and catches were all given in favour of the batsmen
- Playing long tours (6 tests) against the same opposition (usually England with the same bowlers) allows great players to build such prolific averages
- Very few GREAT bowlers during his period (partially due to his dominance)

I believe Viv Richards or Greame Pollock may have achieved a similar average under such conditions.

 

[tooextracool]

- Umpires would have been frightened to give him out

err wtf?

- Close decisions on run-outs, stumpings, and catches were all given in favour of the batsmen

run outs and stumpings maybe(of course i dont really think that run outs can be used against anyones record, since it doesnt exactly require being outbowled or poor batting), catches however went the other way. if a fielder claimed to have taken a catch, he was given out....unlike now where the batsman can refer a catch to the third umpire.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Not taking anything away from Bradman but do you seriously think giving him out was an easy decision for an umpire in those days? The Australians would have crucified umpires for any marginal decisions against him.

That aside, Bradman was great for the game with his polite manner and complete professionalism. I'm not saying he stood there and scowled at the umpires in a WG Grace manner.

 

[Will Scarlet]

run outs and stumpings maybe(of course i dont really think that run outs can be used against anyones record, since it doesnt exactly require being outbowled or poor batting), catches however went the other way. if a fielder claimed to have taken a catch, he was given out....unlike now where the batsman can refer a catch to the third umpire.[/QUOTE]

That was not always true. Eg. Martin Snedden taking a catch in the WSC.

Most TV decisions on catches are fairly conclusive, and when they are not the fielder's claims are often upheld.

 

[tooextracool]

Not taking anything away from Bradman but do you seriously think giving him out was an easy decision for an umpire in those days? The Australians would have crucified umpires for any marginal decisions against him.

i dont really know what you are talking about, there was barely any technology in those days to crucify umpires for bad decisions, let alone marginal decisions.
id say that there was considerably less pressure for people to give bradman out then than there is to give some of the indian players with their large fan base these days.

 

[tooextracool]

That was not always true. Eg. Martin Snedden taking a catch in the WSC.

Most TV decisions on catches are fairly conclusive, and when they are not the fielder's claims are often upheld.

that's debateable but the point is that if someone claimed to have taken a catch in bradmans era, it was given out . so i dont think there was any benefit of doubt given to the batsmen.