Other Cricket
-
In comparison here's Wisden's 5 players of the Century.
The Don
Garfield Sobers
Jack Hobbs
Shane Warne
Viv RichardsPretty sure those 5 are locked in, hard to argue with any of those
Dhoni is super laughable, hes lucky to be top 10 Indian player of all time let alone World Top 10.@Virgil said in Other Cricket:
In comparison here's Wisden's 5 players of the Century.
The Don
Garfield Sobers
Jack Hobbs
Shane Warne
Viv RichardsPretty sure those 5 are locked in, hard to argue with any of those
Dhoni is super laughable, hes lucky to be top 10 Indian player of all time let alone World Top 10.Those two had excellent records but others on paper were/are more impressive.
They're there for swagger, impact, charisma etc as much as anything.
-
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
You’re dead to me……..
It's top 10 of all time. It could be there aren't sufficient superlatives to describe a player and he still misses out.
I think I have found where ladsbible got that list from. The BBC did a poll to coincide with the 2019 CWC (shame it was cancelled)
If you look at the list below its a complete lift
Listeners of the Beebs Asian Networkvoted for their favourite from a shortlist of 30 players compiled by a panel of experts, including Radio 1 DJ and co-host of 5 Live’s Tailenders Greg James, former English cricketer Isa Guha, IPL host Shonali Nagrani, and Asian Network’s Noreen Khan.
Hardly surprising then that
-
nearly half come from the subcontinent
-
apart from Bradman and Sobers all played at least some of their career during the last 30 years or so
-
there's three Poms that you could definitely argue against
Well yeah, Cook and Anderson impress with longevity more than anything.
I'm a Beefy fan, his final stats don't do justice to how amazing he was early in his career but it is hard to gauge if he should be there or not.
Dhoni ( previously mentioned ), Kapil Dev, Chris Gayle and Jayawardene are taking the piss.
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Well yeah, Cook and Anderson impress with longevity more than anything.
I'll give you Anderson but Cook played test cricket or 12 and a half years - Smith, Kane and Kohli have already had longer test careers than him. Kane will need to play another decade to pass Cook's total of tests.
-
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Well yeah, Cook and Anderson impress with longevity more than anything.
I'll give you Anderson but Cook played test cricket or 12 and a half years - Smith, Kane and Kohli have already had longer test careers than him. Kane will need to play another decade to pass Cook's total of tests.
@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Well yeah, Cook and Anderson impress with longevity more than anything.
I'll give you Anderson but Cook played test cricket or 12 and a half years - Smith, Kane and Kohli have already had longer test careers than him. Kane will need to play another decade to pass Cook's total of tests.
Good point. His claims are even more tenuous.
From his era or thereabouts I'd rate Hayden, Smith and Sehwag all arguably better than him.
-
For me Gilchrist has to be looked at, we'd never seen a keeper play as a batsmen like him before
Only negative consideration is hes not the best Keeper of all time. Its his batting that made him stand out
He's a big reason why OZ were so good in the early 2000's in both Tests and ODI's -
Anderson was England's Rigor. A limited player who fashioned a very good career through obduracy and making the absolute most of his limitations.
Off the top of my head better English openers would be Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Gooch and Boycott.
Andersons in the second tier with guys like Vaughan, Edrich and Strauss who were of a similar ilk
-
For me Gilchrist has to be looked at, we'd never seen a keeper play as a batsmen like him before
Only negative consideration is hes not the best Keeper of all time. Its his batting that made him stand out
He's a big reason why OZ were so good in the early 2000's in both Tests and ODI's@Virgil said in Other Cricket:
For me Gilchrist has to be looked at, we'd never seen a keeper play as a batsmen like him before
Only negative consideration is hes not the best Keeper of all time. Its his batting that made him stand out
He's a big reason why OZ were so good in the early 2000's in both Tests and ODI'sHard to measure really. He certainly seemed very good from what I remember and I’m sure McGrath and Warne had no complaints.
But people say Ian Healy was better and going a bit earlier apparently Alan Knott was an absolute gun ( handy batting average too ) possibly Rose tinted glasses but I remember our boy Smithy fondly too.
Alec Stewart was a good keeper batsman but Gilly absolutely turned shit on its head.
-
Andy Flower was another excellent keeper batsman who is often forgotten. Playing for Zimbabwe doesn't help boost the stats obviously, so he's particularly impressive given that.
In terms of pure glove work in the past 50 years, besides Alan Knott and Healy as mentioned, Rod Marsh and Smith were also ahead of Gilchrist in my opinion. Dujon and Parore were also handy, as was Mark Boucher. Bob Taylor was even better than Knott with the gloves (Taylor has the FC record for most WK dismissals) but Knott was a somewhat better batsman.
All that said, hard to go past Gilchrist once you add the batting into it.
-
Except that Gilchrist would never get a look in my WorldXI because you wouldn't need his batting so you pick the best keeper. Taylor or Healey IMO.
Wicketkeeping really changed with the demise of uncovered wickets. Whilst still a specialist position it didn't put the same emphasis on tidiness behind the stumps and progressively the keepers batting ability became more and more important.
Godfrey Evan's is apparently the best gloveman ever, but despite ability as a batsman he didn't take it seriously. I wonder how good he would have been if he applied himself. I only remember him in interviews sporting an impressive pair of mutton chop whiskers
Mike Selvey (England bowler) played with Evans in a fun game when Evans was 56 -
"My experience was an education. Late out-swing just whispered into his gloves. I slipped in a full-length in-swinger on leg stump - the most difficult to take - and there he was, down the leg side as if by telepathy, flicking the bails away as the batsman changed feet." Selvey said he had never seen a better display of wicketkeeping.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/godfrey-evans-12543
-
Except that Gilchrist would never get a look in my WorldXI because you wouldn't need his batting so you pick the best keeper. Taylor or Healey IMO.
Wicketkeeping really changed with the demise of uncovered wickets. Whilst still a specialist position it didn't put the same emphasis on tidiness behind the stumps and progressively the keepers batting ability became more and more important.
Godfrey Evan's is apparently the best gloveman ever, but despite ability as a batsman he didn't take it seriously. I wonder how good he would have been if he applied himself. I only remember him in interviews sporting an impressive pair of mutton chop whiskers
Mike Selvey (England bowler) played with Evans in a fun game when Evans was 56 -
"My experience was an education. Late out-swing just whispered into his gloves. I slipped in a full-length in-swinger on leg stump - the most difficult to take - and there he was, down the leg side as if by telepathy, flicking the bails away as the batsman changed feet." Selvey said he had never seen a better display of wicketkeeping.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/godfrey-evans-12543
-
Gilly for me despite those amazing chops. The extra runs are a cherry on the top whatever perceived weakness he may have had as a keeper ( again, no stats for this discipline of the game compared to the other two )
Was thinking about all rounders, touching on what @barbarian said and while an all time team as relatively weak as what NZ would put out would have three ( Cairns, Vettori, Paddles ) there isn't probably room for one in a genuine World XI when you factor in six of the best batsmen ( ideally one or two of whom can bowl a bit just in case ) a keeper and four of the best bowlers ( one or two who can hold a bat pretty well )
-
Gilly for me despite those amazing chops. The extra runs are a cherry on the top whatever perceived weakness he may have had as a keeper ( again, no stats for this discipline of the game compared to the other two )
Was thinking about all rounders, touching on what @barbarian said and while an all time team as relatively weak as what NZ would put out would have three ( Cairns, Vettori, Paddles ) there isn't probably room for one in a genuine World XI when you factor in six of the best batsmen ( ideally one or two of whom can bowl a bit just in case ) a keeper and four of the best bowlers ( one or two who can hold a bat pretty well )
@MN5 you sort of counter your own argument coz Gilly is an all-rounder.
I reckon if you've got the best 6 batsman you don''t need the extra 20 runs Gilchrest will get you in a match so you take a better gloveman who won't concede a couple or put down that crucial catch, miss the stumping. Not that he was a mug behind the stumps but the best batsmen might only give you one chance in an innings so you want the guy who is more likely to snaffle it.
-
it wasnt just the runs Gilchrist scored it was the rate he scored them at and the situation he came into bat.
Even the best top 6 of all time will have a bad day, i recall many times OZ would be 4 or 5 down for fuck all only for Gilly to waltz in, blast 100+ in no time short and haul OZ to a score of 350-400.
Its not like OZ had a terrible top 6 in those days either...
Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Clarke etc.. -
@MN5 you sort of counter your own argument coz Gilly is an all-rounder.
I reckon if you've got the best 6 batsman you don''t need the extra 20 runs Gilchrest will get you in a match so you take a better gloveman who won't concede a couple or put down that crucial catch, miss the stumping. Not that he was a mug behind the stumps but the best batsmen might only give you one chance in an innings so you want the guy who is more likely to snaffle it.
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 you sort of counter your own argument coz Gilly is an all-rounder.
I reckon if you've got the best 6 batsman you don''t need the extra 20 runs Gilchrest will get you in a match so you take a better gloveman who won't concede a couple or put down that crucial catch, miss the stumping. Not that he was a mug behind the stumps but the best batsmen might only give you one chance in an innings so you want the guy who is more likely to snaffle it.
Well it is the fern so I won't back down on my stance
Bowling and batting stats are analysed to death and even then it's sometimes hard to gauge who is better depending on how cherry picked the stats are. Home records/records vs minnows etc can skew these a bit......
Wicket Keepers have a number of catches and stumpings but no clear stats on missed chances/byes etc so who is the "better" keeper is largely anecdotal.
I remember Gilly being a decent keeper from what I saw and of course his runs speak for themselves not even taking into account the very valid point made by @virgil on how quick he scored them. You could put the house on at least a couple of that Australian top seven getting big hundreds in the 2000s every time they batted and the man at seven played a huge part in this.
He gets in my team any day that ends in Y.
-
I think wicket-keepers of yore would turn in their graves at the big lumps who do the job these days. On uncovered pitches and the chance of a wicket turning into a "bunsen burner" your keeper had to be so good to make the grade. Keeping to Warne when he was ripping it was a breeze compared to keeping to Underwood on a drying pitch - he was virtually medium pace and the ball would just take off.
I think Knott was the first to be a real athlete and leap to take catches off the fast bowlers and Marsh was the same but against much faster (and often wilder) bowlers on faster tracks. Knott was my Mum's favourite because he used to be doing stretching exercises the whole day of test cricket.
-
I think wicket-keepers of yore would turn in their graves at the big lumps who do the job these days. On uncovered pitches and the chance of a wicket turning into a "bunsen burner" your keeper had to be so good to make the grade. Keeping to Warne when he was ripping it was a breeze compared to keeping to Underwood on a drying pitch - he was virtually medium pace and the ball would just take off.
I think Knott was the first to be a real athlete and leap to take catches off the fast bowlers and Marsh was the same but against much faster (and often wilder) bowlers on faster tracks. Knott was my Mum's favourite because he used to be doing stretching exercises the whole day of test cricket.
@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
I think wicket-keepers of yore would turn in their graves at the big lumps who do the job these days. On uncovered pitches and the chance of a wicket turning into a "bunsen burner" your keeper had to be so good to make the grade. Keeping to Warne when he was ripping it was a breeze compared to keeping to Underwood on a drying pitch - he was virtually medium pace and the ball would just take off.
I think Knott was the first to be a real athlete and leap to take catches off the fast bowlers and Marsh was the same but against much faster (and often wilder) bowlers on faster tracks. Knott was my Mum's favourite because he used to be doing stretching exercises the whole day of test cricket.
Jeff Dujon must have gone ok too against all those quick bowlers but wouldn't have had much chance to stand up to slow bowlers given they cleaned up like they did.
A batting average over 30 for a keeper in that era was bloody good too.
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
For such a talented player it seemed like he got hit in the head a lot. Technique issue or bad luck?
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
For such a talented player it seemed like he got hit in the head a lot. Technique issue or bad luck?
@Crazy-Horse I'd say one led to the other.
