Your All-time Top 5's

[archie mac]

I was struggling to think of a 5th to be honest so I let bias creep in a little bit but I remember reading in a book published in the early to mid 1990's by Joseph Romanoes/ Jonathan Millnillow with a title along the lines of 100 greatest New Zealand cricketers that he was a brillant keeper for NZ to the spin of Merritt and Blunt and that apparantly after he moved tgo England, Alec Bedser thought he was the best keeper ever to keep to his bowling although James was in his late 30's past his prime and near retirement by that stage.

I'd also come to think of it bring in Billy Murdoch at 5 on my Batsman-Keeper's list

I think you may only hav the demon's support there mate

 

[archie mac]

/
He could pitch the ball outside of leg,and it would end up hitting off(according to Herbert Strudwick&Clem Hill),all off medium fast. He could cut the ball both ways at speed.
THAT is what made him a great bowler.
Funnily enough it was Archie MacLaren who invited Barnes to the Old Trafford nets.

Yes by all accounts a great bowler; if not the best

 

[The Sean]

I think you may only hav the demon's support there mate

And even then for only one Test...to his credit, the Demon was more than happy to acknowledge how wrong he was on that one.

 

[archie mac]

And even then for only one Test...to his credit, the Demon was more than happy to acknowledge how wrong he was on that one.

Nice to see someone getting one of my jokes

I known the irony that I never understand the jokes of others

I also know the above is not irony, but Alanis Morrisette (no idea of her real name), got away with it

 

[wfdu_ben91]

No, he wasn't. He was not good enough, was shown to be not good enough, and those who were far better (Taylor, Slater and Elliott) played instead. Hayden only ever played as an injury fill-in before 1999/2000.

Actually he performed very poorly apart from a single innings, in which he was dropped on some estimates 5 times (and 1 of the bowlers was Patterson Thompson BTW, who might just be the worst bowler ever to play Test cricket). Outperforming Mark Taylor at that time, who was woefully out-of-sorts, is no achievement of the slightest note whatsoever.

Exactly. The likes of Slater, Taylor and Elliot all got the chance to establish themselves against weaker opposition before tackling the West Indies whilst Hayden was thrown into the deep end straight away. Hayden still outperofrmed Taylor, who at the time would've been rated the best batsman out of that trio. After Hayden was established at International level, he went onto prove himself against the best in the world. It's similar to how Gavaskar's career panned out, where he murdered weak West Indies attacks of the early 1970's before going onto acchieve bigger things.

It's really rather amusing to suggest that knock at The Wanderers in 2001/02 proves anything particularly good about a batsman. Apart from the fact he was dropped by Kallis off an easy slip chance, the attack was a useless one. Donald was a skeleton of a once magnificent bowler; Ntini was pretty poor at that stage; Nel was utterly useless at that stage; and Kallis has always been hot-and-cold and was hot just once in 10 shots that series (which wasn't that match). Any fool who can bash weak bowling could've dominated that attack, especially on what was a very flat pitch (the SAfricans later made it look a minefield - if you looked only at the scorecard that is rather than watching the actual dismissals) and especially if you receive such an easy let-off.

If it was so flat then why did Steve Waugh suggest that it was difficult to bat on?

No, he isn't. Any decent seam-bowler could, and did throughout his career, sort him out. The standard of seam-bowling declined in 2001/02 and pitches around the globe flattened out to an extreme degree. Hayden has always been excellent at bashing poor-quality seamers, but has never been any good against good-quality ones. From 2001/02 to 2007/08, such bowling was pretty rare, and as such he was only exposed relatively infrequently. Before then, however, he was exposed every single time he stepped into Test cricket.

Nope, that's wrong. The only seam-bowler, hell the only bowler period who had it over Hayden was Curtly Ambrose. He hammered Pollock when he was at his peak, he hammered Shoaib Akhtar when he was at his peak and he always made runs against Glenn McGrath whenever he played against him in state cricket. McGrath even went as far as to say that he'd pick Hayden in any team that he the honour of choosing. Hayden averaged over 50 against 2 of the 3 leading wicket takers in the history of Test Cricket -- Murali and Kumble. Most would say that he ulimately struggled against Matthew Hoggard but yet he managed to score 4 tons against him. Staticially, he struggled against Dale Steyn, but if you watched Hayden bat to him then it's almost inevitably that he didn't. At most stages, he made Steyn's bowling look mediocre before smashing one straight to short cover.

Hayden's good records against quality pacemen
Makhaya Ntini: 1041 runs @ 45.26, 4 hundreds
Matthew Hoggard: 1038 runs @ 49.42, 4 hundreds
Andrew Flintoff: 919 runs @ 48.36, 3 hundreds
Shaun Pollock: 904 runs @ 53.17, 5 hundreds
Andy Caddick: 700 runs @ 50.00, 3 hundreds
Chaminda Vaas: 614 runs @ 55.81, 3 hundreds
Heath Streak: 501 runs @ 250.00, 2 hundreds
Allan Donald: 473 runs @ 47.30, 3 hundreds
Ishant Sharma: 473 runs @ 47.30, 2 hundreds
Waqar Younis: 246 runs @ 61.50, 1 hundreds

Hayden's good records against quality spinners
Harbhajan Singh: 1442 runs @ 60.08, 5 hundreds
Anil Kumble: 1081 runs @ 51.47, 4 hundreds
Muttiah Muralitharan: 564 runs @ 51.27, 2 hundreds
Saqlain Mushtaq: 246 runs @ 61.50, 1 hundreds

 

[The Sean]

All rounders
Sir Garfield Sobers
Richie Benuad
Jacques Kallis
Imran Khan

No fifth all-rounder?

 

[The Sean]

Based on the trends to date – and we’ve got a good size sample now – I thought I’d see, on a 5-4-3-2-1 basis, what the overall results are. For the openers, this is the top 5 (I will update as and when more votes come through):

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Herbert Sutcliffe
4. Len Hutton
5. Matthew Hayden

Barry Richards and WG Grace are next in line, while there are numerous others with the odd vote here and there.

Our collective choice of Sutcliffe above Hutton is surprising, for as great as Herbert undoubtedly was, the general consensus of cricket players, writers and experts would tend clearly the other way. I would be interested to know the reasoning of our voters to place Sutcliffe ahead – is it simply a case of 60.73 > 56.67 or is there more to it?

I’ll proceed with the other categories.

 

[The Sean]

For the middle-order batsmen, our overall voting results to date are:

1. Don Bradman
2. Vivian Richards
3. Sachin Tendulkar
4. Garry Sobers
5. Walter Hammond

Actually, D.Aylight should be listed in second place, such is Bradman’s supremacy. Following Hammond just outside the top 5 are Ponting, Pollock and Lara – in that order.

 

[The Sean]

As a group, we seem to have a very solid idea of who the top 5 all-rounders of all time are:

1. Garry Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Keith Miller
4. Jacques Kallis
5. Ian Botham

These five players are streets ahead of the rest – Grace and Procter head the chasing pack but they are a long, long way behind. My biggest surprise here is that Kapil Dev has won a grand total of just two votes.

 

[gwo]

Best 5 allrounders of all time
1. Lion of Lahore
=2. Sobers/Miller
4. Kallis



5. Botham

 

[The Sean]

Moving on to the pace bowlers, where our voting to date has given us an overall top 5 of:

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Richard Hadlee
4. Dennis Lillee
5. Curtley Ambrose

Macko is out on his own, but it’s very close from 2nd to 5th. There’s then a big gap to the also-rans, led by the great Pakistani duo of Wasim and Imran.

 

[The Sean]

On to the spinners, and we see an overall top 5 of:

1. Shane Warne
2. Muttiah Muralitharan
3. Bill O’Reilly
4. Jim Laker
5. Clarrie Grimmett

The top two are predictably well ahead and the Tiger is a clear 3rd. Laker and Grimmett are very close though, and are in turn just barely keeping Kumble out of the top 5 in sixth place.

 

[SJS]

Just off the cuff ....

Opening Batsmen

• Hobbs
• Sutcliffe
• Trumper
• Grace
• Hutton

Middle Order

• Bradman
• Hammond
• Headley George
• Sobers
• Richards Viv

All Rounders

• Sobers
• Miller
• Faulkner
• Goddard
• Imran

Fast Bowlers

• Spofforth
• Larwood
• Lindwall
• Lillee
• Roberts

Medium Pacers

• Barnes
• Tate
• Bedser
• Hadlee
• McGrath

Leg Spinners

• Grimmett
• O'rielly
• Gupte
• Warne
• Kumble

Off Spinners

• Murali
• Laker
• Prasanna
• Gibbs
• Trumble

Left arm spinners

• Verity
• Rhodes
• Bedi
• Peel
• Blythe

 

[Richard]

I love how we hear that Atherton et al debuted to early or retired too late...but poor Hayden with his 7 tests in the 90s can't catch a break.

Try looking at the right watershed date, as I've told you about a million-and-one times.

Repeat after me:
First
of
September
Two
thousand
and
one
not
first
of
January
two
thousand

 

[Ikki]

You've still not explained the reason for this arbitrary date. From 01 jan 2000 to 01 sep 2001 he averages 48 and against the weaker sides it is where he fails. Hardly a case of him failing because it was "tough". He goes on to rectify and fix his record in the coming years, against pretty much the same teams and beats to the dirt even better teams.

But of course, we'd still like the explanation for your arbitrary date.

 

[The Sean]

I might as well do one more of these, seeing as they’ve generated such interest and discussion.

Finally, the overall votes as they stand for the greatest cricketer of all time:

1. Don Bradman
2. Garry Sobers
3=. Vivian Richards
3=. Shane Warne
5. WG Grace

CW lining up quite closely with Wisden and ESPN at the moment.

Bradman is a clear first and Sobers an even clearer second, but there’s virtually nothing between 3rd-4th-5th with Imran, Hobbs and Miller then close behind. Two things that stood out for me: Tendulkar has just one solitary vote, while Marshall – who is our overwhelming choice as the greatest ever fast bowler – has none at all.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. The likes of Slater, Taylor and Elliot all got the chance to establish themselves against weaker opposition before tackling the West Indies whilst Hayden was thrown into the deep end straight away. Hayden still outperofrmed Taylor, who at the time would've been rated the best batsman out of that trio. After Hayden was established at International level, he went onto prove himself against the best in the world. It's similar to how Gavaskar's career panned out, where he murdered weak West Indies attacks of the early 1970's before going onto acchieve bigger things.

Taylor was the best of nothing in 1996/97, as I've said before. He was completely out-of-nick and how someone performed in relation to him is 100% irrelevant. Elliott certainly didn't get the chance to establish himself against weaker opposition, he debuted that same series Hayden played in (Hayden only played because Elliott had gotten injured). Taylor and Slater did, playing England in 1989 and 1993 as their first series', but that's really unimportant. Good attacks will find you out if you're not up to it, regardless of whether you've gorged yourself against weaker ones beforehand, and you'll cope with good attacks if you've got the ability, regardless of whether you've never pumelled a weak one beforehand.

If it was so flat then why did Steve Waugh suggest that it was difficult to bat on?

Possibly because he himself was totally out-of-nick around that time so thus did find it difficult. It didn't do a lot though, as you can see by watching some footage from the game.

Nope, that's wrong. The only seam-bowler, hell the only bowler period who had it over Hayden was Curtly Ambrose. He hammered Pollock when he was at his peak, he hammered Shoaib Akhtar when he was at his peak and he always made runs against Glenn McGrath whenever he played against him in state cricket. McGrath even went as far as to say that he'd pick Hayden in any team that he the honour of choosing. Hayden averaged over 50 against 2 of the 3 leading wicket takers in the history of Test Cricket -- Murali and Kumble. Most would say that he ulimately struggled against Matthew Hoggard but yet he managed to score 4 tons against him. Staticially, he struggled against Dale Steyn, but if you watched Hayden bat to him then it's almost inevitably that he didn't. At most stages, he made Steyn's bowling look mediocre before smashing one straight to short cover.

Hayden's good records against quality pacemen
Makhaya Ntini: 1041 runs @ 45.26, 4 hundreds
Matthew Hoggard: 1038 runs @ 49.42, 4 hundreds
Andrew Flintoff: 919 runs @ 48.36, 3 hundreds
Shaun Pollock: 904 runs @ 53.17, 5 hundreds
Andy Caddick: 700 runs @ 50.00, 3 hundreds
Chaminda Vaas: 614 runs @ 55.81, 3 hundreds
Heath Streak: 501 runs @ 250.00, 2 hundreds
Allan Donald: 473 runs @ 47.30, 3 hundreds
Ishant Sharma: 473 runs @ 47.30, 2 hundreds
Waqar Younis: 246 runs @ 61.50, 1 hundreds

OK, all of that is of complete irrelevance. None of these bowlers were much good at the time Hayden faced them. Contrary to some beliefs, cricketers do not remain the same all career, and every single one of those bowlers was either poor or very poor indeed when Hayden faced them:
Ntini's never been that good
Hoggard's good period - 2004-2007/08 (in which time Hayden scored one century and absolutely nothing else against England apart from another century where Hoggard twice had him lbw before he'd reached 13)
Flintoff's good period - 2003/04-2006 (Hayden faced him once and came-off spectacularly second-best)
Pollock's good period - 1995/96-2001 (as of 2001/02 he was only capable on seaming decks and not on the flat ones which were always the sort he faced Hayden on)
Caddick's good period - 1999-2001 (in which Hayden never faced him)
Vaas is constantly hot and cold and you never know which one is going to turn-up.
Donald's good period - 1992-2001 (in which time he had the wood over Hayden every single time)
Ishant Sharma's good period - well, it appears to have started in 2008/09, in which time Hayden hardly did a lot, did he?
Waqar Younis's good period - 1990/91-1994/95, in which time Hayden never faced him.

You can try to blur the issue with names and you can convince some people who are unaware of the truths of the matter, but the above is the truth. Hayden failed against all good seam-bowling he faced, and could only conquer the poor-quality ones who could not get the ball to deviate much if at all.

Hayden's good records against quality spinners
Harbhajan Singh: 1442 runs @ 60.08, 5 hundreds
Anil Kumble: 1081 runs @ 51.47, 4 hundreds
Muttiah Muralitharan: 564 runs @ 51.27, 2 hundreds
Saqlain Mushtaq: 246 runs @ 61.50, 1 hundreds

Completely irrelevant. No-one is or ever has questioned Hayden's ability against spin, it's quality seam that found him out.

 

[Richard]

You've still not explained the reason for this arbitrary date.

I have, any number of times. That was the date when pitches, ALMOST EVERYWHERE ON THE PLANET, flattened-out and seam-bowling stocks went from riches to rags, either because bowlers had retired or because they'd declined drastically and would retire shortly afterwards.

In any case, even if I had never explained it, no-one has ever suggested any reason why 1 January 2000 is a date of the remotest significance, so your constantly trying to use it to prove anything is completely and totally pointless.

 

[Ikki]

I have, any number of times. That was the date when pitches, ALMOST EVERYWHERE ON THE PLANET, flattened-out and seam-bowling stocks went from riches to rags, either because bowlers had retired or because they'd declined drastically and would retire shortly afterwards.

In any case, even if I had never explained it, no-one has ever suggested any reason why 1 January 2000 is a date of the remotest significance, so your constantly trying to use it to prove anything is completely and totally pointless.

There isn't a remote significance at all. Neither is there for 1998 or 1989 other than people tend to look at eras in terms of decades.

You seem to suggest pitches went flat on the stroke of midnight September 2001? Did the curators ring you and give you this knowledge?

Your reasoning is arbitrary. I say pitches were getting flat in 2000. Prove me wrong.

I could care less that some of the players were retiring. When Hayden met S.Africa for example, he met 2 (Pollock, Kallis) of the bowlers in their best forms, Donald in his downslope (still better than most bowlerS) and Ntini as a newb and averaged 100+ for the series. That doesn't "just" happen. That attack is better than most of the 90s.

Players don't go from averaging in the mid-30s to 50s because 2-3 bowlers retired and pitches got slightly flatter. Your continuous contention is nonsensical.

 

[The Sean]

Contrary to some beliefs, cricketers do not remain the same all career

Except Hayden, apparently.