100 Greatest Cricketers by Benedict Bermange (Sky Sports)

[Hitman]

Link: http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...reatest-cricketers-and-number-one-is-wg-grace

1: W.G. Grace

2: Donald Bradman

3: Garry Sobers

5-4: Shane Warne (5), Sachin Tendulkar (4)

10-6: Imran Khan (10), Viv Richards (9), Sydney Barnes (8), Jack Hobbs (7), Jacques Kallis (6)

20-11: Kumar Sangakkara (20), Dennis Compton (19), Sunil Gavaskar (18), Adam Gilchrist (17), Wally Hammond (16), Keith Miller (15), Ian Botham (14), Wasim Akram (13), Brian Lara (12), Muttiah Muralitharan (11).

30-21: Geoff Boycott (30), KS Ranjitsinhji (29), Frank Worrell (28), Herbert Sutcliffe (27), Kapil Dev (26), George Headley (25), Wilfred Rhodes (24), Len Hutton (23), Glenn McGrath (22), Richard Hadlee (21).

40-31: Frank Woolley (40), Javed Miandad (39), Alec Bedser (38), Fred Trueman (37), Victor Trumper (36), Dennis Lillee (35), Malcolm Marshall (34), Ricky Ponting (33), Waqar Younis (32), Allan Border (31).

50-41: Everton Weekes (50), George Lohmann (49), Dale Steyn (48), Graham Gooch (47), Fred Spofforth (46), Peter May (45), Virender Sehwag (44), Clarrie Grimmett (43), Hedley Verity (42), Graeme Pollock (41).

60-51: Alfred Mynn (60), Greg Chappell (59), Clyde Walcott (58), Brian Statham (57), 'Tich' Freeman (56), CB Fry (55), Alfred Shaw (54), Zaheer Abbas (53), Richie Benaud (52), George Hirst (51).

70-61: Steve Waugh (70), Ken Barrington (69), Gilbert Jessop (68), Neil Harvey (67), Barry Richards (66), Clive Lloyd (65), Colin Blythe (64), Mike Procter (63), Aubrey Faulkner (62), Les Ames (61).

80-71: Curtly Ambrose (80), Alan Davidson (79), Michael Holding (78), Bill O'Reilly (77), Shaun Pollock (76), Johnny Briggs (75), Vinoo Mankad (74), Jim Laker (73), Ray Lindwall (72), Tom Richardson (71).

90-81: Chris Gayle (90), Bill Ponsford (89), Alan Knott (88), Rahul Dravid (87), Derek Underwood (86), Monty Noble (85), Hanif Mohammad (84), Learie Constantine (83), Allan Donald (82), Anil Kumble (81).

100-91: Tom Goddard (100), Jack Hearne (99), Phil Mead (98), AB de Villiers (97), Charlie Parker (96), Vijay Merchant (95), Patsy Hendren (94), Charlie "The Terror" Turner (93), Maurice Tate (92), Warwick Armstrong (91).

 

[roshanrocks]

Kallis > Imran

 

[silent ischemia]

Kallis > Imran

Imran > Akram

Akram will find his way in most world XIs; more skillful than Khan

 

[Hitman]

Imran > Akram

Akram will find his way in most world XIs; more skillful than Khan

As great of a bowler Akram was, Imran was even better.

 

[silent ischemia]

As great of a bowler Akram was, Imran was even better.

ODIs : Akram >>> Khan; Tests Khan > Akram (only just). Overall : Akram > Khan

 

[silent ischemia]

No Abdul Qadir, Inzamam, YK

 

[ExpressPacer]

ODIs : Akram >>> Khan; Tests Khan > Akram (only just). Overall : Akram > Khan

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Imran Khan wasn't just a skillful bowler but an intimidating one too which is the biggest reason for his success and at the end of the day, it's about who was more successful instead of who has how many wickets.

Also, Imran played ODI's at a time when there were 60 overs and batsmen were extremely careful and played at the pace of a snail, compared to Wasim Akram.

 

[silent ischemia]

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Imran Khan wasn't just a skillful bowler but an intimidating one too which is the biggest reason for his success and at the end of the day, it's about who was more successful instead of who has how many wickets.

Also, Imran played ODI's at a time when there were 60 overs and batsmen were extremely careful and played at the pace of a snail, compared to Wasim Akram.

Akram is arguably the greatest ODI cricketer of all time. Pakistan won the 92 world cup mainly because of his pinch hitting and bowling in the final. In an era where the batsmen would try to score big esp in the beginning and end of the innings to have an economy of less than 4 is amazing.
Even Khan admits that Akram was a more skillful and a better bowler than him

 

[Hitman]

Akram is arguably the greatest ODI cricketer of all time. Pakistan won the 92 world cup mainly because of his pinch hitting and bowling in the final. In an era where the batsmen would try to score big esp in the beginning and end of the innings to have an economy of less than 4 is amazing.
Even Khan admits that Akram was a more skillful and a better bowler than him

Viv Richards is, followed by Sachin. Akram would come next.

 

[Ab Fan]

Did I saw Gayle in that list ahead of any current generation player except Steyn?

 

[silent ischemia]

According to Wisden SRT is the greatest ODI batsman with 1137.3 ranking points followed by Viv with 1132.5 ranking points. Akram is the greatest ODI bowler of all time with 1223.5 ranking points

 

[Hitman]

According to Wisden SRT is the greatest ODI batsman with 1137.3 ranking points followed by Viv with 1132.5 ranking points. Akram is the greatest ODI bowler of all time with 1223.5 ranking points

According to WISDEN, Sachin is the second greatest Test batsman after Bradman and the second greatest ODI batsman after Viv.

 

[silent ischemia]

According to WISDEN, Sachin is the second greatest Test batsman after Bradman and the second greatest ODI batsman after Viv.

Agreed but I am talking specifically about the odis

 

[Hitman]

Agreed but I am talking specifically about the odis

As far as I know, WISDEN rated Sachin the second greatest ODI batsman after Viv, not the best.

 

[in_cutter]

No Abdul Qadir, Inzamam, YK

Inzamam is not a ATG. Qadir I agree should have made that list.

 

[Aman]

Sanga #20
McGrath #22
Ponting #33

) )

 

[Hitman]

How dare anyone place any Asian cricketer ahead of Imran Khan!! It's very obvious that the BCCI paid off this guy.

 

[BD-fan]

If you switch #5 and #11, I have no problem.

 

[Chrish]

Have never understood why McGrath goes missing into such lists.. has to do with higher value placed on aesthetics..

 

[Red Devil]

Any list that rates this dude as the greatest cricketer to ever live can't be taken seriously lmao.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Did I saw Gayle in that list ahead of any current generation player except Steyn?

Yes. And very much justified. Two triples in Tests, a whole lot of tons in ODI's including a 200 (in a WC match) and 2 centuries in t/20's. Also a very capable bowler with 2 5ers, IIRC. God knows how much more he would have achieved in the last 3 years had he not been deprived of his post-prime years when he was still a top batsman. Deserves it.

 

[javiersuka]

Proud of Sachin. Greatest Cricketer ever from Asia.

Dravid at 87.
No Ganguly, No VVS, No Dhoni.

Sehwag, Gavaskar and Kapil other decent ranked Cricketers from India.

Lara at 13. That indicates the massive gap between Sachin and Lara.

 

[Chrish]

Any list that rates this dude as the greatest cricketer to ever live can't be taken seriously lmao.

I don't agree with him being in the list but that photo was taken when he was well past 50 and gained a lot of weight.. I don't have numbers handy but he has dominated FC circuit (test standard those days) for a decade more than Bradman

 

[ExpressPacer]

Any list that rates this dude as the greatest cricketer to ever live can't be taken seriously lmao.

Exactly lmao. An average of 32 isn't too shabby but not GOAT level. I don't understand why these old players get so much importance despite mediocre numbers. Sure, Bradman has Godly, unparalleled stats but the rest of these guys don't fit the bill. Average cricketers.

 

[Ab Fan]

Yes. And very much justified. Two triples in Tests, a whole lot of tons in ODI's including a 200 (in a WC match) and 2 centuries in t/20's. Also a very capable bowler with 2 5ers, IIRC. God knows how much more he would have achieved in the last 3 years had he not been deprived of his post-prime years when he was still a top batsman. Deserves it.

If you look at the list, most of them are from older generation era.Among those who debuted post 2000s, only Sangakkara and Sehwag are there. Now Gayle is a good test batsmen( career AVG of 41) and a very good OdI bat but he won't even make up among top 5 players of his own era.

Would you have Gayle ahead of likes of AB, KP, Clarke, Hayden,Younis, Amla or even Smith/Kohli irrespective of any format?

 

[in_cutter]

Lara at 13. That indicates the massive gap between Sachin and Lara.

No it doesn't. This list is one man's opinion. I rate Lara higher.

 

[Hitman]

No it doesn't. This list is one man's opinion. I rate Lara higher.

Most Pak fans do for obvious reasons.

 

[javiersuka]

Where are the ATG"s Younis Khan and Amla? Lol

 

[ExpressPacer]

If you look at the list, most of them are from older generation era.Among those who debuted post 2000s, only Sangakkara and Sehwag are there. Now Gayle is a good test batsmen( career AVG of 41) and a very good OdI bat but he won't even make up among top 5 players of his own era.

Would you have Gayle ahead of likes of AB, KP, Clarke, Hayden,Younis, Amla or even Smith/Kohli irrespective of any format?

First of all, I would like to correct you, Gayle averages 42 in Tests.

Secondly, Amla just had a very good purple patch and an extended peak. The rest have always dominated one format, other than AB who's been good but not GOAT material. Smith and Kohli are barely the best of their own genaration with the level of competition.

Also, Gayle has big things to show, like I said before. Two triples, a WC 200, most centuries by any batsman in the T20i format and even his style of play. He could've achieved so much more had he not been deprived of these recent years. He'd be recognized as an ATG even on this forum. Unfortunately, we on PP only remember recent events.

Any-who, this list includes people like WG Grace who did not have amazing international careers but mind blowing First Class careers and going by that, Gayle deserves to be on this list solely on the basis of his Twenty20 career because trust me when I say this, Christopher Henry Gayle is LIGHT YEARS and I repeat LIGHT YEARS ahead of his contemporaries in the Twenty20 format.

 

[BA56]

Malcolm Marshall at 34 is a joke.

 

[in_cutter]

Most Pak fans do for obvious reasons.

Typical response from an Indian fan. How dare anyone rate Lara above Sachin.

Let me tell you one thing...I am not biased. My fav Indian batsman ever is Sehwag. I even rate Dravid higher than Sachin. As for Lara...there was no one more classier to watch. Singlehandedy won games for WI's.

 

[dildildalwalla]

So what exactly was the criteria here? I think Benedict should keep to being statistician.

I'll have a look at the list later but if it doesnt include Waqar, Steyn, Smith, YK, Yousuf, Inzy, Dhoni, Dravid, Sehwag then its not a top 100 worth looking at.

 

[dildildalwalla]

Most Pak fans do for obvious reasons.

A number of English fans would do too.

 

[in_cutter]

So what exactly was the criteria here? I think Benedict should keep to being statistician.

I'll have a look at the list later but if it doesnt include Waqar, Steyn, Smith, YK, Yousuf, Inzy, Dhoni, Dravid, Sehwag then its not a top 100 worth looking at.

Inzi was a good batsman. Not ATG. Not sure about YK either.

 

[dildildalwalla]

Inzi was a good batsman. Not ATG. Not sure about YK either.

Inzy was widely considered one of the greats of his gen just below Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. That's the consensus among cricketers, cricket writers and analysts and so on. If Gayle makesi t on, Inzy was a far superior test batsman. YK is even batter from a purely statistical analysis and one of the best in the 21st century when it comes to numbers alone, which is what Benedict seems obsessed with.

So yeah, I can see them not being on the list if players who achieved far less didn't make it on. Since they have, these 2 should be there too.

 

[Ab Fan]

First of all, I would like to correct you, Gayle averages 42 in Tests.

Secondly, Amla just had a very good purple patch and an extended peak. The rest have always dominated one format, other than AB who's been good but not GOAT material. Smith and Kohli are barely the best of their own genaration with the level of competition.

Also, Gayle has big things to show, like I said before. Two triples, a WC 200, most centuries by any batsman in the T20i format and even his style of play. He could've achieved so much more had he not been deprived of these recent years. He'd be recognized as an ATG even on this forum. Unfortunately, we on PP only remember recent events.

Any-who, this list includes people like WG Grace who did not have amazing international careers but mind blowing First Class careers and going by that, Gayle deserves to be on this list solely on the basis of his Twenty20 career because trust me when I say this, Christopher Henry Gayle is LIGHT YEARS and I repeat LIGHT YEARS ahead of his contemporaries in the Twenty20 format.

A WC 200 vs Zimbabwe is good but not something to be proud of. Irrespective of how many triple hundreds he has, he avgs 42 in tests and was pretty inconsistent performer.He is nothing more than just a good test cricketer and a great limited overs cricketer.Calling him ATG is a joke.

And as far as WC Grace is considered, the fact that he is remembered 100 years down the line and was the standout player of his era does mean something. However, anyone rating him at no.1 is just hilarious.And first class cricket requires lot of grit and temperament compared to the t20 format.

It's a joke to think that Gayle would be remembered 100 years down the line as one of the standout player of his era.

 

[Ab Fan]

Inzy was widely considered one of the greats of his gen just below Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. That's the consensus among cricketers, cricket writers and analysts and so on. If Gayle makesi t on, Inzy was a far superior test batsman. YK is even batter from a purely statistical analysis and one of the best in the 21st century when it comes to numbers alone, which is what Benedict seems obsessed with.

So yeah, I can see them not being on the list if players who achieved far less didn't make it on. Since they have, these 2 should be there too.

He has also put 50 other names who missed out from the top 100 list. So don't miss that.Quite a few from modern era are there in the list.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Joke of a list

 

[Protea Fan]

Looking into the list i gotta feel that my cricketing knowledge is harrowing......

I am hearing some names for the first time in ma life

 

[Chrish]

Joke of a list

which part?

 

[Protea Fan]

So what exactly was the criteria here? I think Benedict should keep to being statistician.

I'll have a look at the list later but if it doesnt include Waqar, Steyn, Smith, YK, Yousuf, Inzy, Dhoni, Dravid, Sehwag then its not a top 100 worth looking at.

They are listed

Waqar Younis (32)
Virender Sehwag (44)
Dale Steyn (48)
Rahul Dravid (87)

 

[ExpressPacer]

A WC 200 vs Zimbabwe is good but not something to be proud of. Irrespective of how many triple hundreds he has, he avgs 42 in tests and was pretty inconsistent performer.He is nothing more than just a good test cricketer and a great limited overs cricketer.Calling him ATG is a joke.

And as far as WC Grace is considered, the fact that he is remembered 100 years down the line and was the standout player of his era does mean something. However, anyone rating him at no.1 is just hilarious.And first class cricket requires lot of grit and temperament compared to the t20 format.

It's a joke to think that Gayle would be remembered 100 years down the line as one of the standout player of his era.

Perception then. Everyone has a right to their opinion and in this particular case, the writer thinks Gayle deserves it more than the names you've mentioned. But if you think Amla, AB or even KP deserve to be on list, then you are seriously delusional, my friend.

 

[javiersuka]

Looking into the list i gotta feel that my cricketing knowledge is harrowing......

I am hearing some names for the first time in ma life

Too many ancient English , Aussie and Saffie Cricketers in there.

Just shows how insignificant some Cricketers are in grand scheme of things while they are so over-rated in their own country, for example No Inzy, No Yk, No Anwar.

 

[czar]

The Top Ten List of most Ex-Cricketers , Experts and Writers is filled with same common players.

WG Grace, Bradman, Sobers, SRT, Warne, Imran, VIV, Hobbs, Barnes.

These names are indisputable.

 

[Ab Fan]

Perception then. Everyone has a right to their opinion and in this particular case, the writer thinks Gayle deserves it more than the names you've mentioned. But if you think Amla, AB or even KP deserve to be on list, then you are seriously delusional, my friend.

Of course, everyone has right to opinion but then as readers, we also have right to criticize if we have valid points.

And mate, I would love to know why you think that its delusional to think that Amla,AB or KP doesn't deserve to a list of 100 greatest cricketer?

I mean having them or not is a matter of personal choice but how does it becomes delusional if I or sm1 thinks these guys deserve to be in that list. Btw AB is there. So, there is no delusion w.r.t that.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

No Chanderpaul or Andy Flower or Kevin Pietersen?

Chanderpaul was the backbone of WI lineup for good 10 years post Lara.
Andy Flower was the reason Zimbabwe cricket achieved the heights they did till 2003.
KP has won England more games than ABD has. KP's innings had more impact, classy and usually came when he had very little support.

 

[dildildalwalla]

They are listed

Waqar Younis (32)
Virender Sehwag (44)
Dale Steyn (48)
Rahul Dravid (87)

Like I said, I havent read the full list but Yousuf record breaker, Inzy, YK and Dhoni aren't? Yet lesser names are, some of who played cricket in an age where cricket wasn't even the cricket we see today. Crackedp itches, no tours outside Eng and Aus etc etc. I don't see how they get to be ranked above a number of these players. Then again, in England there is an obsession with the late 19th, early 20th century cricketers because that is the last time England produced genuine greats and the last time cricket was a genuinely empire based game.

 

[dildildalwalla]

He has also put 50 other names who missed out from the top 100 list. So don't miss that.Quite a few from modern era are there in the list.

Fair enough but my point is that lesser players have made it into the top 100.

 

[bleaf27]

No Abdul Qadir, Inzamam, YK

Younis Khan is a decent player ,not even to the levels of Dravid or VVS ....how can you put him on the list ?!

 

[Rayyman]

Bunch of no names.

 

[kingusama92]

Grace over Bradman?

And the best fast bowler of all time is sitting at #34 while lesser guys go ahead of him?

 

[silent ischemia]

Younis Khan is a decent player ,not even to the levels of Dravid or VVS ....how can you put him on the list ?!

Agreed but being a modern day Test great; he is worth a shout

 

[msb314]

Link: http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...reatest-cricketers-and-number-one-is-wg-grace

Hmm I see Chris Gayle, Sehwag, Kumble here but no Ganguly, Laxman, Inzy, Matthew Hayden etc. ?

 

[msb314]

No Yk or MoYo either.

Rubbish list.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

No Hashim Amla ?

 

[silent ischemia]

Hmm I see Chris Gayle, Sehwag, Kumble here but no Ganguly, Laxman, Inzy, Matthew Hayden etc. ?

Sehwag and Kumble deserve to be in the list esp Sehwag

 

[silent ischemia]

Abdul Qadir is a must in top 50 let alone top 100

 

[last_knight]

Courtney Walsh isn't listed. Or am I missing it ?

MSD is markedly underrated.

 

[Bhaijaan]

There is a weird sense karmic justice in seeing Kallis rated above Imran on an all time list as t clean bowls a certain section of fans over playing the troll campaign against Sachin when compared to Kallis, all the more hilarious when SRT in fact happens to outdo both on the same list.

 

[last_knight]

Yes Walsh is not in the list.
And Martin Crowe.

 

[Tusker]

Ahhhh Yes this topic of comparing players from different ERA's we have never done this before on PP and it is in dire need of a discussion

 

[cricketfan11]

Lists always prone to subjective bias. Unfair to compare players who played pre T20 era when things were very different.

Anyhow, Lara should be in top 10, Waqar should be rated higher. If you are talking about impact then Waqar had a lot more impact on cricket than many higher rated players. Before Waqar it was difficult to imagine fast bowling which relied on a combination of searing pace, late swing and yorkers. Prior to that it was more about line and length and bounce.

Kallis, Murali, Sanga probably overrated in the list.

 

[bleaf27]

Typical response from an Indian fan. How dare anyone rate Lara above Sachin.

Let me tell you one thing...I am not biased. My fav Indian batsman ever is Sehwag. I even rate Dravid higher than Sachin. As for Lara...there was no one more classier to watch. Singlehandedy won games for WI's.

Singlehandedly won games for WI ? if this is your reasoning , I guess you must have slept through most of the 90s and 2000s when Sachin was backpacking India through to Finals / Semi's of every world cup 1996,1999,2003 while killing Australia in Sharjah and in Australia .

 

[bleaf27]

Agreed but being a modern day Test great; he is worth a shout

I dont know man, Younis Khan isn't that impressive as a batsman and more so hasn't brought any impact to the game

 

[bleaf27]

I would have put Sachin 1 number on this list and before anyone starts losing their minds I'll explain my reasoning. I see a list like this compulated on the basis of many different factors so if I were to give 50 % importance to skills and 50% to what impact the person has had on the sport - Sachin undoubtedly has put modern Cricket on the World Map like no other. Bradman has not impacted the game on an international level but because he played in a different era with no social media or TV coverage, his legacy remains limited to the Australian's more.
I'd put Sachin combined for his game and bringing the game to the world and being the ambassador of the game. I don't see any other cricketer in this era to garner as much respect from non-cricketing athletes - Federer , Schumacher and his contemporaries.