What's new

David Gower's 50 Greatest Cricketers of All Time

You can view the list even by clicking that Amazon link, and clicking on the book cover.
 
1. Don Bradman
2. Garry Sobers
3. Sachin Tendulkar
4. Shane Warne
5. Viv Richards
6. Brian Lara
7. Jack Hobbs
8. Wally Hammond
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. W.G. Grace
11. Imran Khan
12. Ian Botham
13. Sydney Barnes
14. Jacques Kallis
15. Barry Richards
16. Dennis Lillee
17. Len Hutton
18. Wilfred Rhodes
19. Richie Benaud
20. Denis Compton
21. Keith Miller
22. Bill O' Reilly
23. Andy Roberts
24. Richard Hadlee
25. Graeme Pollock
26. Sunil Gavaskar
27. Wasim Akram
28. Allan Border
29. Glenn McGrath
30. Muttiah Muralitharan
31. George Headley
32. Curtley Ambrose
33. Javed Miandad
34. Ricky Ponting
35. Frank Worrell
36. Herbert Sutcliffe
37. Greg Chappell
38. Fred Truman
39. AB De Villiers
40. Dale Steyn
41. Kumar Sangakkara
42. Adam Gilchrist
43. Ray Lindwall
44. Harold Larwood
45. Joel Garner
46. Virender Sehwag
47. Kevin Pietersen
48. Kapil Dev
49. Jeff Thomson
50. Alan Knott
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Order of these lists are always subjective but a solid list of 50 cricketers by him. Some are missing but it will always happen in such lists.
 
By nationality, he names:

Australia - Thomson, Lindwall, Gilchrist, G. Chappell, Ponting, McGrath, Border, O'Reilly, Miller, Benaud, Lillee, Warne, Bradman
England - Knott, Pietersen, Larwood, Trueman, Sutcliffe, Compton, Rhodes, Hutton, Barnes, Botham, WG Grace, Hammond, Hobbs
India - Kapil Dev, Sehwag, Gavaskar, Tendulkar
Pakistan - Miandad, Wasim, Imran
New Zealand - Hadlee
South Africa - Steyn, de Villiers, G. Pollock, B. Richards, Kallis
Sri Lanka - Sangakkara, Muralitharan
West Indies - Garner, Worrell, Ambrose, Headley, Roberts, Marshall, Lara, Richards, Sobers
 
Last edited:
One interesting things stood out to me - He has placed 3 all rounders( IK, Botham & Kallis) at 11-14. So close to each other.

I think IK is there due to mainly bowling, Kallis is there mainly for batting and Botham is there due to all rounder and off course being from Eng helps.
 
Some notable omissions are Waugh, Holding, Waqar, Dravid, Hayden, Greenidge,Lloyd,Donald, Walsh etc. His contemporaries like Gooch, Willis etc (except Botham) did not make it too.
 
I liked Martin Crowe's list more. Some great names misses in this one.

Grimmet, Walcott, Barrington, Laker, Dravid, Donald, Waqar. Perhaps Kumble as well.

Though its difficult to cross any names in such lists to adjust others.


Its his opinion of course.
But if I were to make few changes, I will do this

-) Trumper for Thomson
-) Weekes for Sehwag
-) Laker for Larwood

and would try to pick Holding in somehow (can't figure out in place of whom).
 
These lists would make more sense if they only included players they have either seen, played with or against.
 
Buffet said:
It seems looong only because it's all time list. Ponting was was not that far behind in reality.
Click to expand...

True.

Look at the way Gower has structured this list. All rounders appear heavily towards the top end. As you would expect from a 'best cricketers' list, rather than a 'best batsmen' or 'best bowlers' list. So, if you are a specialist batsman, you need to have some truly amazing impact to get ahead of a top quality allrounder as a better cricketer. Lara and Sachin, along with Viv and Bradman, are the four highest rated specialist batsmen. Because Ponting is nowhere near them, does it mean that he did not have the same impact as any of those four?

I think the reason Ponting lacks 'impact', in this sense, is because he played in a team that was so good it didn't matter if he failed or not most of the time. And during his best years where he averaged 70+, Australia would have still won most of those matches if he had only averaged 50 during that period. Whereas with Bradman and Viv, they entered the team when it was merely good/decent, and left it when the team was brilliant, i.e. they built a dynasty over the course of their career. Ponting inherited Waugh's team and saw it crumble towards the end of his career. With Sachin and Lara, they have more impact because they played for weaker teams.
 
So the greatest all-rounder cricketer, aka Kaptaan doesn't even make it into the top 10.

The ranking is clearly dodgy - W. G. Grace is definitely among the top 10 bullies to play this sport, but as a top 10 cricketer, not sure at all.

Similarly, the greatest wicket-keeper batsman of all time at 42 at a top 5 pacer in McGrath at 29 is a complete disgrace.

Top 5 is okay - best three batsmen, best all-rounder and best bowler of all time, but at that point is where he loses the script.
 
The all-rounders are ranked a little two low. If he only considered their best skill (e.g. bowling for Imran) then they are ranked fine but it is a "cricketer" list.
 
I do think he got Ponting pegged right - an elite player, no doubt, but a long way behind those specialist batsmen who really transcended their roles. There are only ten specialist bats in the top twenty, as compared with six all rounders and four bowlers. But he has gotten this wrong, there should be more all rounders in there and fewer batsmen. I can't imagine the likes of Wally Hammond or Jack Hobbs being good enough to keep out Imran, Grace, Botham and Kallis from the top 10.
 
So Sehwag makes his list but there is no place for Waqar, Holding, Waugh, Donald, Dravid or Walsh. :facepalm:
 
Stallion__ said:
I liked Martin Crowe's list more. Some great names misses in this one.

Grimmet, Walcott, Barrington, Laker, Dravid, Donald, Waqar. Perhaps Kumble as well.

Though its difficult to cross any names in such lists to adjust others.


Its his opinion of course.
But if I were to make few changes, I will do this

-) Trumper for Thomson
-) Weekes for Sehwag
-) Laker for Larwood

and would try to pick Holding in somehow (can't figure out in place of whom).
Click to expand...

Too many doubts about Grimmet..
 
Rubbish list.. No way in hell McGrath would rank that low IMO
 
Chrish said:
Too many doubts about Grimmet..
Click to expand...

Don't think so.

He by many is considered as second greatest New Zealand cricket ever.

Was born in NZ when cricket wasn't a popular sport there. Kept trying to play for Australia and eventually got his chance at the age of 34. Still managed to pick over 200 wickets in less than 40 matches. I think it was him who pioneered flipper. Troubled Bradman in domestic cricket as well.

Very much doubtless for me.
 
Pantani said:
True.

Look at the way Gower has structured this list. All rounders appear heavily towards the top end. As you would expect from a 'best cricketers' list, rather than a 'best batsmen' or 'best bowlers' list. So, if you are a specialist batsman, you need to have some truly amazing impact to get ahead of a top quality allrounder as a better cricketer. Lara and Sachin, along with Viv and Bradman, are the four highest rated specialist batsmen. Because Ponting is nowhere near them, does it mean that he did not have the same impact as any of those four?

I think the reason Ponting lacks 'impact', in this sense, is because he played in a team that was so good it didn't matter if he failed or not most of the time. And during his best years where he averaged 70+, Australia would have still won most of those matches if he had only averaged 50 during that period. Whereas with Bradman and Viv, they entered the team when it was merely good/decent, and left it when the team was brilliant, i.e. they built a dynasty over the course of their career. Ponting inherited Waugh's team and saw it crumble towards the end of his career. With Sachin and Lara, they have more impact because they played for weaker teams.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's about impact. I can't comment on entire list but I have seen the full career of SRT, Lara and Ponting. SRT and Lara were a notch above Ponting but gap wasn't that huge. Now when making a list of all time , he had to put many names and he simply plugged them between Ponting and Lara. That make it look like Ponting was far behind but that's not true.

Anyway, it's his list based on players impression in his mind.
 
Bewal Express said:
These lists would make more sense if they only included players they have either seen, played with or against.
Click to expand...

We can always take this list, count only players Gower may have seen and ignore older era players. Then you will get the list you want.
 
Glad to know he rates Sachin so highly. Such a shame for his haters that he finds a place in almost every 'World XI' and gets a place in top 10 of almost every 'Greatest Cricketers' list :)
 
Pantani said:
I do think he got Ponting pegged right - an elite player, no doubt, but a long way behind those specialist batsmen who really transcended their roles. There are only ten specialist bats in the top twenty, as compared with six all rounders and four bowlers. But he has gotten this wrong, there should be more all rounders in there and fewer batsmen. I can't imagine the likes of Wally Hammond or Jack Hobbs being good enough to keep out Imran, Grace, Botham and Kallis from the top 10.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Gower was a batsman. He is more likely to rate batsmen higher ;)
 
Hitman said:
1. Don Bradman
2. Garry Sobers
3. Sachin Tendulkar
4. Shane Warne
5. Viv Richards
6. Brian Lara
7. Jack Hobbs
8. Wally Hammond
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. W.G. Grace
11. Imran Khan
12. Ian Botham
13. Sydney Barnes
14. Jacques Kallis
15. Barry Richards
16. Dennis Lillee
17. Len Hutton
18. Wilfred Rhodes
19. Richie Benaud
20. Denis Compton
21. Keith Miller
22. Bill O' Reilly
23. Andy Roberts
24. Richard Hadlee
25. Graeme Pollock
26. Sunil Gavaskar
27. Wasim Akram
28. Allan Border
29. Glenn McGrath
30. Muttiah Muralitharan
31. George Headley
32. Curtley Ambrose
33. Javed Miandad
34. Ricky Ponting
35. Frank Worrell
36. Herbert Sutcliffe
37. Greg Chappell
38. Fred Tru,an
39. AB De Villiers
40. Dale Steyn
41. Kumar Sangakkara
42. Adam Gilchrist
43. Ray Lindwall
44. Harold Larwood
45. Joel Harner
46. Virender Sehwag
47. Kevin Pietersen
48. Kapil Dev
49. Jeff Thomson
50. Alan Knott
Click to expand...

Everyone agrees on Bradman and Sobers as the best of all, Gower then puts Sachin ahead of every other test cricketer ever... That's very high praise....as high as it can get....
 
Chrish said:
Rubbish list.. No way in hell McGrath would rank that low IMO
Click to expand...

No top 50 list is going to be appreciated by every one. This is obviously a "batsman heavy" list. A bowler of the stature of Holding did not figure in that list at all. Top 50 is actually highly selective for an all time list - five players on average per decade of cricket. I think it does not mean much if you don't find your favourites in that privileged band. These lists ought to be called 50 favourites list rather than a 50 greatest list.
 
Hitman said:
Really? :20:
Click to expand...

http://www.impactindexcricket.com/100-hcf-Inzamam-ul-haq.php


j1bUVod.png



aCvoaf2.png


:trollface​
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
Then why does he never makes it to 'World XI' teams or in lists of 'All Time Greatest Cricketers' list? Are all non Pakistani cricketers or cricket pundits blind to his achievements?

Can you please name me any 'World XI' or 'All Time Greatest Cricketers' list where he features high?
Click to expand...

We are talking about 50 players, not 11 :srt
 
IndianWillow said:
No top 50 list is going to be appreciated by every one. This is obviously a "batsman heavy" list. A bowler of the stature of Holding did not figure in that list at all. Top 50 is actually highly selective for an all time list - five players on average per decade of cricket. I think it does not mean much if you don't find your favourites in that privileged band. These lists ought to be called 50 favourites list rather than a 50 greatest list.
Click to expand...

Certain things in life are subjective, while this isn't one of them

Any ways, that's the reason why I take polls, all time xi, or opinions of cricket "experts" with a pinch of salt
 
Stallion__ said:
Don't think so.

He by many is considered as second greatest New Zealand cricket ever.

Was born in NZ when cricket wasn't a popular sport there. Kept trying to play for Australia and eventually got his chance at the age of 34. Still managed to pick over 200 wickets in less than 40 matches. I think it was him who pioneered flipper. Troubled Bradman in domestic cricket as well.

Very much doubtless for me.
Click to expand...

Let's go one by one.. His record in international cricket is inflated by perfomence against SA. His record against strongest team of his time is not impressive with the average of 30 while Tiger averaged 25 from memory. You can argue about the sample size for both of the players. So it's only fair to compare them by their FC performance

The difference is staggering.. Grimett 22 vs Tiger only 16!

Tiger wins by a mile.. Makes me think Grimett was highly overrated at times
 
Hitman said:
Well then kindly show us any list of 'Top 50' or 'Top 100' cricketers where he features high.

Another list made by the highly respected, the late Christopher Martin-Jenkins in 2009. Once again he went missing that too in his list of bloody 100 cricketers - http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...keters-of-All-Time-Christopher-Martin-Jenkins
Click to expand...


Lets agree on that list then.

Miandad > Dravid
Abdul Qadir > Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith
Gooch > Ponting

Kallis, Ambrose, Holding not even in top 50.

Kanhai, Chappell (Ian), Roberts not even top 100.


Fair enough :steyn
 
Stallion__ said:
Lets agree on that list then.

Miandad > Dravid
Abdul Qadir > Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith
Gooch > Ponting

Kallis, Ambrose, Holding not even in top 50.

Kanhai, Chappell (Ian), Roberts not even top 100.


Fair enough :steyn
Click to expand...

What an answer sir ji :))
 
Chrish said:
Let's go one by one.. His record in international cricket is inflated by perfomence against SA. His record against strongest team of his time is not impressive with the average of 30 while Tiger averaged 25 from memory. You can argue about the sample size for both of the players. So it's only fair to compare them by their FC performance

The difference is staggering.. Grimett 22 vs Tiger only 16!

Tiger wins by a mile.. Makes me think Grimett was highly overrated at times
Click to expand...


Tiger was a better bowler no doubt.

There was famous myth regarding someone teasing him that Grimmett used to bowl flipper, but Tiger can't bowl that.

He replied 'I never needed to'.


But if you look at support bowlers Grimmett got during that period, they all have much poor record as compared to him. The most reliable support he has was from Tim Wall, he to averages 40.

Besides, Grimmett has to bowl a very strong English batting line-up, when top 3 were, Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond, three of the greatest players of all time. Imagine him bowling them with no decent support bowlers.

Plus certain player's greatness is not in their numbers. Its about how they developed a particular art and carried it to next generation.

Grimmett did that and O'Reilly learnt a lot from him (according to himself). Had their been no Grimmett, O'Reilly might not have been the same bowler and leg spin may not be the same as we see it now.

Plus add all those factors I mentioned in earlier post. I personally have a huge respect for him.
 
Stallion__ said:
Lets agree on that list then.

Miandad > Dravid
Abdul Qadir > Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith
Gooch > Ponting

Kallis, Ambrose, Holding not even in top 50.

Kanhai, Chappell (Ian), Roberts not even top 100.


Fair enough :steyn
Click to expand...

My point is that Inzamam couldn't even make it among 100 damn cricketers. Such a remarkable cricketer according to Pakistanis, yet he couldn't make it among 100 cricketers?
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
My point is that Inzamam couldn't even make it among 100 damn cricketers. Such a remarkable cricketer according to Pakistanis, yet he couldn't make it among 100 cricketers?
Click to expand...

Inzamam is a superior version of Mahela - a great for his country and lauded by his fans, but simply not great enough to make the cut when neutrals talk about the greatest cricketers of all time or even batsmen etc.

Apart from Miandad, no Pakistani batsmen has had such an impact, and thus none of them are all-time greats. Younis however, has the potential to get himself placed alongside Sangakkara in Tests if he scores some big hundreds in Australia and England next year.
 
Mamoon said:
Inzamam is a superior version of Mahela - a great for his country and lauded by his fans, but simply not great enough to make the cut when neutrals talk about the greatest cricketers of all time or even batsmen etc.

Apart from Miandad, no Pakistani batsmen has had such an impact, and thus none of them are all-time greats. Younis however, has the potential to get himself placed alongside Sangakkara in Tests if he scores some big hundreds in Australia and England next year.
Click to expand...

Inzamam was much better than Mahela.
 
Hitman said:
My point is that Inzamam couldn't even make it among 100 damn cricketers. Such a remarkable cricketer according to Pakistanis, yet he couldn't make it among 100 cricketers?
Click to expand...

How many top 100 lists have you seen?

Do you know the same Wisden you keep referring to as a proof of Sachin's greatness don't have a single innings of him in their top 100 list, despite Sachin scoring 50+ hundreds.

You even know that same Wisden rates Murali the best test bowler ever when he has only played 72 test matches, same Murali who you keep disregarding as a chucker.

And there were two other guys who thoroughly researched test cricket and came up with their top 100 innings list, none of Sachin's innings could even make that list.


So are you willing to believe all this stuff? If you are, I don't have any issues with you not rating Inzi.


Truth is, these top 11, 50 lists are all subjective. One player can make it to top XI of one expert or analyst while he won't be included in another expert's list.

Even I won't pick Inzi in my top 50 list but that doesn't mean that every time you hear his name, you start scratching your head as if filled head-louse.
 
Stallion__ said:
Lets agree on that list then.

Miandad > Dravid
Abdul Qadir > Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith
Gooch > Ponting

Kallis, Ambrose, Holding not even in top 50.

Kanhai, Chappell (Ian), Roberts not even top 100.


Fair enough :steyn
Click to expand...

:)):))
 
Stallion__ said:
Lets agree on that list then.

Miandad > Dravid
Abdul Qadir > Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith
Gooch > Ponting

Kallis, Ambrose, Holding not even in top 50.

Kanhai, Chappell (Ian), Roberts not even top 100.


Fair enough :steyn
Click to expand...

Got him
 
Hitman said:
Well then kindly show us any list of 'Top 50' or 'Top 100' cricketers where he features high.

Another list made by the highly respected, the late Christopher Martin-Jenkins in 2009. Once again he went missing that too in his list of bloody 100 cricketers - http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...keters-of-All-Time-Christopher-Martin-Jenkins
Click to expand...
You are asking again and again about top 100. Check this out
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?185143-The-100-Greatest-Cricketers-Geoff-Armstrong
:steyn
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
Glad to know he rates Sachin so highly. Such a shame for his haters that he finds a place in almost every 'World XI' and gets a place in top 10 of almost every 'Greatest Cricketers' list :)
Click to expand...

well to be fair no one (barring one or 2 maybe) doubts Sachins place in even the top 5 list ever. But Sachinistas claim he is the greatest EVER so from that perspective this list is not good for Sachin
 
Stallion__ said:
How many top 100 lists have you seen?

Do you know the same Wisden you keep referring to as a proof of Sachin's greatness don't have a single innings of him in their top 100 list, despite Sachin scoring 50+ hundreds.

You even know that same Wisden rates Murali the best test bowler ever when he has only played 72 test matches, same Murali who you keep disregarding as a chucker.

And there were two other guys who thoroughly researched test cricket and came up with their top 100 innings list, none of Sachin's innings could even make that list.


So are you willing to believe all this stuff? If you are, I don't have any issues with you not rating Inzi.


Truth is, these top 11, 50 lists are all subjective. One player can make it to top XI of one expert or analyst while he won't be included in another expert's list.

Even I won't pick Inzi in my top 50 list but that doesn't mean that every time you hear his name, you start scratching your head as if filled head-louse.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=138483]Stallion__[/MENTION]
once used to be very cool headed member, today he is V2.0 angry one.
 
Hitman - I implore you please dont make this into a Sachin thread :facepalm:

Lets discuss the list and all the players in it
 
Perfect for Pakistan

One batsman, One bowler and One All rounder

All round representation :akhtar
 
Slog said:
well to be fair no one (barring one or 2 maybe) doubts Sachins place in even the top 5 list ever. But Sachinistas claim he is the greatest EVER so from that perspective this list is not good for Sachin
Click to expand...

Nicely put.
 
Hitman said:
Well then kindly show us any list of 'Top 50' or 'Top 100' cricketers where he features high.

Another list made by the highly respected, the late Christopher Martin-Jenkins in 2009. Once again he went missing that too in his list of bloody 100 cricketers - http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...keters-of-All-Time-Christopher-Martin-Jenkins
Click to expand...

Then let's agree when Ian Chappel opted Lara leaving behind Ponting and Sachin, let's agree with ICC player career ratings in which Sanga, ponting, kallis, lara , dravid are ahead of Sachin.
 
Stallion__ said:
Lets agree on that list then.

Miandad > Dravid
Abdul Qadir > Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith
Gooch > Ponting

Kallis, Ambrose, Holding not even in top 50.

Kanhai, Chappell (Ian), Roberts not even top 100.


Fair enough :steyn
Click to expand...

Alhamdulillah, he had it coming. :amla
 
Slog said:
Hitman - I implore you please dont make this into a Sachin thread :facepalm:

Lets discuss the list and all the players in it
Click to expand...

I would suggest to delete the meaningless threads like "did Sachin underachieve" ., has been discussed to death before and absolutely serves zero purpose
 
Hitman said:
Inzamam was much better than Mahela.
Click to expand...

Much better, but from the same ilk - did not do justice to his talent, but did more than enough to be classified as a great for his country, but ultimately not good enough to get mentioned among the best cricketers ever.
 
Stallion__ said:
How many top 100 lists have you seen?

Do you know the same Wisden you keep referring to as a proof of Sachin's greatness don't have a single innings of him in their top 100 list, despite Sachin scoring 50+ hundreds.

You even know that same Wisden rates Murali the best test bowler ever when he has only played 72 test matches, same Murali who you keep disregarding as a chucker.

And there were two other guys who thoroughly researched test cricket and came up with their top 100 innings list, none of Sachin's innings could even make that list.


So are you willing to believe all this stuff? If you are, I don't have any issues with you not rating Inzi.


Truth is, these top 11, 50 lists are all subjective. One player can make it to top XI of one expert or analyst while he won't be included in another expert's list.

Even I won't pick Inzi in my top 50 list but that doesn't mean that every time you hear his name, you start scratching your head as if filled head-louse.
Click to expand...

First of all, that list was made in 2002, when Sachin didn't have 52 Test tons. Second, the same WISDEN rated him the 2nd greatest Test and ODI batsman of all time in 2002.
 
#GreenRoars said:
Then let's agree when Ian Chappel opted Lara leaving behind Ponting and Sachin, let's agree with ICC player career ratings in which Sanga, ponting, kallis, lara , dravid are ahead of Sachin.
Click to expand...

Yea, Ian Chappell rates Lara better than Sachin and Ponting. And I have no problem with his opinion.
 
Hitman said:
First of all, that list was made in 2002, when Sachin didn't have 52 Test tons. Second, the same WISDEN rated him the 2nd greatest Test and ODI batsman of all time in 2002.
Click to expand...

So you are telling us till 2002 Sachin hadn't played even 1 great innings to get in that list after playing 12-13 years of cricket?
 
Hitman said:
Made it to the 9th XI, such a thing to brag about :))

BTW, Sachin made it in the 1st XI of that list.
Click to expand...

Don't run away now you said give me a list of top 100 and how when you see Inzi there you are finding excuses? poor fella
 
Hitman said:
Made it to the 9th XI, such a thing to brag about :))

BTW, Sachin made it in the 1st XI of that list.
Click to expand...

You asked about 100, and he is in 100. Fulfilled your requirements, so now it is obvious who is bragging?
 
Strike Rate said:
So you are telling us till 2002 Sachin hadn't played even 1 great innings to get in that list after playing 12-13 years of cricket?
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't as per WISDEN's liking, that's why none of his innings made it.
 
#GreenRoars said:
You asked about 100, and he is in 100. Fulfilled your requirements, so now it is obvious who is bragging?
Click to expand...

Here's what I said -

Hitman said:
Then why does he never makes it to 'World XI' teams or in lists of 'All Time Greatest Cricketers' list? Are all non Pakistani cricketers or cricket pundits blind to his achievements? Or maybe are they all envious of the genius Pakistani batsman?

Can you please name me any 'World XI' or 'All Time Greatest Cricketers' list where he features high?
Click to expand...

Hitman said:
Well then kindly show us any list of 'Top 50' or 'Top 100' cricketers where he features high.

Another list made by the highly respected, the late Christopher Martin-Jenkins in 2009. Once again he went missing that too in his list of bloody 100 cricketers - http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...keters-of-All-Time-Christopher-Martin-Jenkins
Click to expand...
 
#GreenRoars said:
Then why asked for Tp 50 or 100 list if you are interested in where he features high? :steyn
Click to expand...

lol he is going round and round just to defend his early post :)) if you need to check if someone features high why you need a top 100 or top 50 post? top 5 and top 10 is the one you are looking for.
[MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] looks drunk to me again. [MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION] please confirm you know him better than us :))
 
So another expert rates Imran way above Kapil while some Indians keep talking about how Kapil is equal or even better than Imran:))
 
Yet another respected cricket analyst puts Tendulkar in the top 3, highest among his contemporaries when PP's resident noble laureates do not see him fit to be top 20. Either these experts are stupid in our game or some self proclaimed cricket historians on this site are delusional and bitter about Tendulkar.


Like i keep saying,

Tendulkar

daylight

Lara
Ponting

day light

as far as modern day batsmanship is concerned.


Tendulkar, Bradman, Sobers, Richards etc top batsmen all time.
 
Professor said:
So another expert rates Imran way above Kapil while some Indians keep talking about how Kapil is equal or even better than Imran:))
Click to expand...

More like, another expert rates Tendulkar way higher than Imran. Tells you much about how overrated all round liabilities are when it comes to rating talent. Pretty much all purists rate cricketers separately in batting and bowling. Specialist batsmen and bowlers are superior than all rounders with lesser stats in their respective areas.
 
Kallios #14
Sangakkara #41


:))) :)))


They're basically enantiomeric cricketers. How could you rate them so differently. Both run machines who never dominated any bowling attacks. Did he just rate them based on skin colour?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Review of David Gower's 50 greatest cricketers book - How great and fair a book?
Replies
54
Views
3K
satheesh
S
H
Where does Inzamam-ul-Haq rank amongst the greatest batsmen of all-time?
Replies
58
Views
3K
Statpadder Inc
S
Pakistanian
How the Kashmiri language assimilated in Punjab
Replies
0
Views
595
Pakistanian
Pakistanian
H
A tribute to Brian Lara - Where did he rank overall? Most gifted of all players?
2 3
Replies
195
Views
9K
TheSultan
T
H
My 50 best cricketers of the last 40 years
Replies
41
Views
3K
Tusker
T
Back
Top