Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

yuppie wrote:

Gingerfinch wrote:Not sure Bradman played in India?

Over rated as well. Didn't even play T20

He did score a 20 odd ball hundred once.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Gingerfinch wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Botham is about 40 places too high, and while I'm not saying KP should be in, having him not in, but Boycott at 30 seems odd. Sensible list. Of the 50 that miss out, Joel Garner is the one that should be in there. His Test record is astonishing.

As is Garner's ODI record.

There you go, if you include ODIs, Garner is a no-brainer.

Garner should be a no brainer anyway.

It does seem that pace bowlers are not as highly regarded as batsman.

Surprised Boycott is higher than Border.

Did think that re: bowlers v. batters.

Found Dravid was quite low in comparison to similar era players.

Grace would feel high in the top 5. He has this glamourised history.

Sachin in the top five, and Dravid at 87. Some think Dravid was the better test player. Sachin is arguably the best ODI batsman ever, plus has a mountain of runs, so a definite top 10 for me.

It's all a bit confusing really.

Warne v Murali feels slightly controversial.

Gingerfinch wrote:Sachin in the top five, and Dravid at 87. Some think Dravid was the better test player. Sachin is arguably the best ODI batsman ever, plus has a mountain of runs, so a definite top 10 for me.

Yes, you can only justify that if you are allowing for ODIs, but then, as was said, many haven't played ODIs. Better name the best Test players, or the best ODI players.

Gingerfinch wrote:Sachin in the top five, and Dravid at 87. Some think Dravid was the better test player. Sachin is arguably the best ODI batsman ever, plus has a mountain of runs, so a definite top 10 for me.

Yeah Dravid at 87 is ludicrous.

Gingerfinch wrote:Sachin in the top five, and Dravid at 87. Some think Dravid was the better test player. Sachin is arguably the best ODI batsman ever, plus has a mountain of runs, so a definite top 10 for me.

no way was Dravid a better test player.
He struggled against top attacks or bowlers that can bowl all day at the right length and line.
Lara rated low as well.
Said many times but Tendulkar is weirdly underrated as a player because his 90s exploits were not seen on tv worldwide and india didn't really play many games either abroad.

Quite funny how many people think Tendulkar wasn't a great test player because of how he batted from 2007-2012.

Although do agree that the list was crazy but it does seem like a list you will see from a cricket stat geek.
a lot of past players that he picked out on stats or what people wrote in Wisden.

Don't mind it really since he did give reason or some nice stats or trivea on each player.

i thought rob quiney would be on the list, he made the best 9 you will ever see according to the ch9 team

bhaveshgor wrote:

Gingerfinch wrote:Sachin in the top five, and Dravid at 87. Some think Dravid was the better test player. Sachin is arguably the best ODI batsman ever, plus has a mountain of runs, so a definite top 10 for me.

no way was Dravid a better test player.
He struggled against top attacks or bowlers that can bowl all day at the right length and line.
Lara rated low as well.
Said many times but Tendulkar is weirdly underrated as a player because his 90s exploits were not seen on tv worldwide and india didn't really play many games either abroad.

Quite funny how many people think Tendulkar wasn't a great test player because of how he batted from 2007-2012.

Dravid from memory played well against all attacks. He scored quite a few against, and including in Australia, plus England in our conditions.

TBH only scored in one series against Australia in Australia and failed the other 3 times and failed in SA.
plus England suited is game perfectly.
Dravid Stats look good but did struggle against top attacks.
Still a great player though but not in the top 20 or 30 ever greatest cricketers.

Didn't realise he had such a bad record in South Africa. I'd have him top 50, as next to his test record, his ODI record isn't to shabby.

Sydney Barnes is the best fast bowler of all time, having only played in two countries, on disasterous batting pitches with teams full of amateurs, and with a record of 8 runs per wicket against a team that didnt win a test series for 35 years. Against Australia he maintained an average of 22, which is excellent, but no means qualifies him to be the best ever when his career was so short.

I am sure Glenn McGrath playing half his matches against Namibia might have also had some ridiculously low average.

Just to give the batting in his era context....

Australias top run scorer in his era had an average of 39
South Africa had one player average 41, one (who only played 10 tests in his career) in the mid 30s, then the next best had an average of 27.....

Jack Hobbs record in this time (average of 57) makes him look absolutely ridiculous for his era, and does in fact support him being so high. If 60,000 FC runs and 1 short of 200 FC 100s wasnt enough anyway!