Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?
Pages: [1]   Go Down

AuthorTopic: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI  (Read 864 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

RicePlateReddy

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,728
  • Money: 947879.00
  • Chamat song
Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« on: April 19, 2006, 04:58:07 AM »
Benaud's Greatest XI

1 Jack Hobbs, 2 Sunil Gavaskar, 3 Don Bradman, 4 Sachin Tendulkar, 5 Viv Richards, 6 Imran Khan, 7 Garfield Sobers, 8 Adam Gilchrist, 9 Shane Warne, 10 Sydney Barnes, 11 Dennis Lillee.

(see http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/135375.html)

Can't argue much with this team (he announced it in 2004).

Question is, updated to 2006, who does Ponting come in place of? I would drop an opener (don't know enough about Hobbs, so can't choose) and play Ponting as an opener. And I would play Murali instead of Warne. And then I think this team is perfect.

The next 2 or 3 years will show us whether we should really draft Dravid instead of Tendulkar or stick with Tendulkar. If Dravid performs like Ponting, there is no denying him. Viv Richards is as untouchable as the Don, IMO.

Logged
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. - (thanks, Hugh Gallagher)

tombaan

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
  • Money: 1000.00
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2006, 05:01:52 AM »
benaud as a purist will never pick murli......as for ponting a touch call at this point it would be sachin.....
Logged

fineleg

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,358
  • Money: 35374.00
  • she is the IPL Winnah!
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2006, 05:12:36 AM »
Benaud's Greatest XI

1 Jack Hobbs, 2 Sunil Gavaskar, 3 Don Bradman, 4 Sachin Tendulkar, 5 Viv Richards, 6 Imran Khan, 7 Garfield Sobers, 8 Adam Gilchrist, 9 Shane Warne, 10 Sydney Barnes, 11 Dennis Lillee.

(see http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/135375.html)

Can't argue much with this team (he announced it in 2004).

Question is, updated to 2006, who does Ponting come in place of? I would drop an opener (don't know enough about Hobbs, so can't choose) and play Ponting as an opener. And I would play Murali instead of Warne. And then I think this team is perfect.

The next 2 or 3 years will show us whether we should really draft Dravid instead of Tendulkar or stick with Tendulkar. If Dravid performs like Ponting, there is no denying him. Viv Richards is as untouchable as the Don, IMO.




Can someone educate me on Hobbs and Sydney Barnes? Who were the Messrs. - their greatness, style of play.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
  • Money: 1000.00
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2006, 05:23:18 AM »
KOP, at this rate, u'll need to keep altering every few years. Players will always hit purple patches and what not. But there are really only 5 batting positions.. you have to make a subjective call based on a player's entire career and Benaud made his. Maybe after Ponting retires, he may reconsider his team. But I think its fraught with danger to constantly take every purple patch into account.
For ex, take a look at Hayden's record.... sooooo many runs in such a short period of time.. why not have him in too?
Logged

pieterSAN

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,429
  • Money: 182991.00
  • Helwe
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2006, 05:31:39 AM »
Ponting averages 58 in Tests for his career. He is also a better fielder (hold those chappals back please!)

It is a marginal decision really. But this side by Benaud is really unbelievable. Sobers at 7 and Gilchrist at 8 is scary. Also Shane Warne over Murali for me....no...not because I am purist but  because Warne is a better fielder.
Logged
"...that is me offering you an olive basket... ...and that is you spitting in my face."

Scott Caan as Turk Malloy

RicePlateReddy

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,728
  • Money: 947879.00
  • Chamat song
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2006, 05:45:35 AM »
fineleg, Syd Barnes is arguably the greatest bowler to have played the game. Interestingly, his birthday is today! Check this out: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/139130.html

senthil, I am not simply reacting to Ponting's really purple patch at the moment. His improvement has been phenomenal over the last 3 years, and it wasn't like he was unworthy of greatness before that. There is more than even chance, given his age, that he would overtake SRT with centuries. And then his average is creeping steadily towards 60. His WC final knock that knocked us down was a watershed moment. And he dominates in Aussie wins which is also huge. He may not be able to sustain this unbelievable run he is on, but even if he falls back, there is a very good chance he will still perform better than SRT and Dravid for the rest of their careers. If he plays till 36 and plays well, he belongs in the list, not just because of a purple patch over the last 2 seasons. I think Benaud would also put him on the list right now (he put SRT and Warne who both were playing in 2004).

With Dravid too, there are all indications he can sustain his greatness. Not as brilliant as Tendulkar at his fiery best, but if he can continue to rack up huge scores consistently while dominating the attack, he too becomes a candidate. If Tendulkar never makes it back to his pristine self and consistency, he will fall a bit in overall reckoning and I think it is not outrageous to think that both Dravid and Ponting could compete with him on the greatness list. He may suffer for the same reason there is no mention of Lara. More mortal players made a case with prolonged consistency at the higest level, that was too hard to ignore. In any case, as I mentioned, I think the opener(s) should yield to them if at all, not SRT.

Logged
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. - (thanks, Hugh Gallagher)

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,074
  • Money: 1714880.00
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2006, 06:31:08 AM »
fineleg, Syd Barnes is arguably the greatest bowler to have played the game. Interestingly, his birthday is today! Check this out: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/139130.html

senthil, I am not simply reacting to Ponting's really purple patch at the moment. His improvement has been phenomenal over the last 3 years, and it wasn't like he was unworthy of greatness before that. There is more than even chance, given his age, that he would overtake SRT with centuries. And then his average is creeping steadily towards 60. His WC final knock that knocked us down was a watershed moment. And he dominates in Aussie wins which is also huge. He may not be able to sustain this unbelievable run he is on, but even if he falls back, there is a very good chance he will still perform better than SRT and Dravid for the rest of their careers. If he plays till 36 and plays well, he belongs in the list, not just because of a purple patch over the last 2 seasons. I think Benaud would also put him on the list right now (he put SRT and Warne who both were playing in 2004).

With Dravid too, there are all indications he can sustain his greatness. Not as brilliant as Tendulkar at his fiery best, but if he can continue to rack up huge scores consistently while dominating the attack, he too becomes a candidate. If Tendulkar never makes it back to his pristine self and consistency, he will fall a bit in overall reckoning and I think it is not outrageous to think that both Dravid and Ponting could compete with him on the greatness list. He may suffer for the same reason there is no mention of Lara. More mortal players made a case with prolonged consistency at the higest level, that was too hard to ignore. In any case, as I mentioned, I think the opener(s) should yield to them if at all, not SRT.



king, the issue with just extrapolating current form into what could happen four to five years hence is that the inherent assumption is that current form will continue. If one had done the same with SRT a few years back, we would have been at an average of 65+ and 40-45 centuries (at least) by now. This is what is happening with Ponting now. If Ponting plays till 36, he may actually end up with a lower average than he has now - this is as likely (in fact more likely) than assuming that the average will keep moving up.

The key is to compare two players at their respective peaks (provided the peaks are not very short lived) and decide who deserves to be in - and not overall averages at the end of their career or how they seem to be doing currently. For instance, when Benaud drew up his list, I am sure Wasim Akram or Glenn Mcgrath or Shaun Pollock may have had a better bowling average than Dennis Lillee in the bowling department - there may be any number of reasons for the same. But at their respective peaks, Benaud probably rates Lillee higher than any of these other greats.

In that context, I think SRT or even SMG (I am not sure about Jack Hobbs - I do not know much about him) are more complete players vis-a-vis a Ricky Ponting - both of them can attack and dominate pace and spin alike, while RP still does have a weakness against good spin bowling on slightly helpful tracks. SRT's dominance may have gone down now, but it was significant when he was at his peak. RP may be doing no wrong now, but there is no way to figure out whether he would not go the same way as SRT over time. Another example is Hayden, who looked invincible around 3 years ago, but has come off considerably over time.
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

achutank

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,565
  • Money: 335749.00
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2006, 07:39:38 AM »
i dont think this is really about forms and averages.

he wanted to pick a team that will be legendary. i mean look at imran khan. would you take imran or kapil or hadlee or botham, heck in my books what about fred truman, micheal holding or malcom marshall? you already have two allrounders  - sobers and gilchirst, so why imran? because he is inspirational, he is special, he is one of a kind. all these guys if you see they do not fall into any bracket. they are who they are. a dravid or ponting or waugh can never be a tendulkar or lara. these guys are the stuff of legends, the myths and the mytology of cricket. they are all gods.they have done special things in their cricketing lives, they are too unique.

for example (just to illustrate my point) why not a cowdrey instead of jack hobbs, the first man to take 100 catches and one of the all time english greats, averages and scores much better than hobbs.so why hobbs? because he is defining. all these guys defined their era of cricket either for their country or the world stage. look at the sobriquets for them

king khan
king richards
the don
the little masters
sir garfield


i mean dravid will always be jammie and ponting will be punter if you get my drift. this is the round table of the knights. this camelot.even the great do not have entry here. :)
Logged
there is more than meets the i

dhruvdeepak

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,640
  • Money: 1552944.00
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2006, 08:49:05 AM »
i dont think this is really about forms and averages.

he wanted to pick a team that will be legendary. i mean look at imran khan. would you take imran or kapil or hadlee or botham, heck in my books what about fred truman, micheal holding or malcom marshall? you already have two allrounders  - sobers and gilchirst, so why imran? because he is inspirational, he is special, he is one of a kind. all these guys if you see they do not fall into any bracket. they are who they are. a dravid or ponting or waugh can never be a tendulkar or lara. these guys are the stuff of legends, the myths and the mytology of cricket. they are all gods.they have done special things in their cricketing lives, they are too unique.

for example (just to illustrate my point) why not a cowdrey instead of jack hobbs, the first man to take 100 catches and one of the all time english greats, averages and scores much better than hobbs.so why hobbs? because he is defining. all these guys defined their era of cricket either for their country or the world stage. look at the sobriquets for them

king khan
king richards
the don
the little masters
sir garfield


i mean dravid will always be jammie and ponting will be punter if you get my drift. this is the round table of the knights. this camelot.even the great do not have entry here. :)
wel said
Logged
In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth.
-- Mohandas K *hi

dhruvdeepak

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,640
  • Money: 1552944.00
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2006, 09:22:16 AM »
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/8996.html

Wisden obituary
Born at Smethwick, Staffordshire, April 19, 1873

Died at Chadsmoor, Staffordshire, December 26, 1967

Sydney Francis Barnes was the second son of five children of Richard Barnes who spent nearly all his life in Staffordshire and worked for a Birmingham firm for 63 years. The father played only a little cricket and Sydney Barnes averred that he never had more than three hours' coaching, but he practised assiduously to perfect the leg-break after learning the off-break from the Smethwick professional, Billy Ward of Warwickshire.

Most cricketers and students of the game belonging to the period in which S.F. Barnes played were agreed that he was the bowler of the century. Australians as well as English voted him unanimously the greatest. Clem Hill, the famous Australian left-handed batsman, who in successive Test innings scored 99, 98, 97, v. A.C. MacLaren's England team of 1901-02, told me that on a perfect wicket Barnes could swing the new ball in and out "very late", could spin from the ground, pitch on the leg stump and miss the off. At Melbourne, in December 1911, Barnes in five overs overwhelmed Kelleway, Bardsley, Hill and Armstrong for a single.

Hill was clean bowled by him. "The ball pitched outside my leg-stump, safe to the push off my pads, I thought. Before I could `pick up' my bat, my off-stump was knocked silly."


Barnes was creative, one of the first bowlers really to use the seam of a new ball and combine swing so subtly with spin that few batsmen could distinguish one from the other.


He made a name before a new ball was available to an attack every so many runs or overs. He entered first-class cricket at a time when one ball had to suffice for the whole duration of the batting side's innings.

He was professional in the Lancashire League when A.C. MacLaren, hearing of his skill, invited him to the nets at Old Trafford. "He thumped me on the left thigh. He hit my gloves from a length. He actually said, `Sorry, sir!' and I said, `Don't be sorry, Barnes. You're coming to Australia with me.'"

MacLaren on the strength of a net practice with Barnes chose him for his England team in Australia of 1901-02. In the first Test of that rubber, Barnes took five for 65 in 35.1 overs, and one for 74 in 16 overs. In the second Test he took six for 42 and seven for 121 and he bowled 80 six-ball overs in this game.

He broke down, leg strain, in the third Test and could bowl no more for MacLaren, who winning the first Test, lost the next four of the rubber.

Barnes bowled regularly for Lancashire in 1902, taking more than a hundred wickets in the season, averaging around 20. Wisden actually found fault with his attack this year, stating that he needed to cultivate an "off-break". In the late nineties he had appeared almost anonymously in the Warwickshire XI.

Throughout his career he remained mysteriously aloof, appearing in the full sky of first-class cricket like a meteor -- declaring the death of the most princely of batsmen! He preferred the reward and comparative indolence of Saturday league matches to the daily toil of the county tourney.

Here is one of the reasons of his absence from the England XI between 1902 and 1907. He didn't go to Australia as one of P.F. Warner's team of 1903-04 and took no part of the 1905 England v. Australia rubber. The future historian of cricket may well gape and wonder why, in the crucial Test of 1902, Barnes didn't play for England at Manchester, where the rubber went to Australia by three runs only.

Barnes had bowled for England at Sheffield in the third and previous Test, taking six for 49 and one for 50. It is as likely as conjecture about cricket ever can be likely that had Barnes taken part in the famous Manchester Test of 1902 England wouldn't have lost the rubber by a hair's breadth.

He was in those days not an easy man to handle on the field of play. There was a Mephistophelian aspect about him. He didn't play cricket out of any green field starry-eyed idealism. He rightly considered that his talents were worth estimating in cash values. In his old age he mellowed, yet remained humorously cynical.

Sir Donald Bradman argued that W.J. O'Reilly must have been a greater bowler than Barnes because he commanded every ball developed in Barnes's day -- plus the googly. I told Barnes of Bradman's remark. "It's quite true," he said, "I never bowled the `googly.'" Then with a glint in his eye, he added, "I never needed it."


Against Australia he took 106 wickets, average 21.58. Only Trumble and Peel have improved on these figures in Tests between England and Australia (I won't count Turner's 101 wickets at 16.53 because he bowled in conditions not known to Barnes and Trumble).

Barnes had no opportunities to pick up easy victims. He played only against Australia and South Africa and, in all Test matches, his haul was 189 at 16.43 each.

On matting in South Africa when South Africa's batsmanship, at its greatest, was represented by H.W. Taylor, A.D. Nourse, L.J. Tancred, J.W. Zulch, in 1913-14, he was unplayable, with 49 wickets in four Tests at 10.93 each. It was said he refused to play in the fifth match because he contended the South Africans had not carried out their promise of special reward if he took part in the tour.

In the second Test at Johannesburg, Barnes took 17 wickets for 159, a record which stood until 1956 when Laker laid low Australia at Old Trafford with his unique figures of 19 for 90.

Yet against Barnes's fantastically swinging, bouncing, late-turning attack on that 1913-14 tour, Herbie Taylor scored 508 runs, average 50.80, perhaps the most skilful of all Test performances by a batsman.

Barnes was a man of character. At Sydney on the 1911-12 tour, J.W.H.T. Douglas opened the England attack using the new ball with Frank Foster. Barnes was furious. He sulked as he sent down 35 overs for three wickets and 107 runs (in the match he took only four for 179). England lost by 146 runs.

At Melbourne, Australia batted first and Barnes this time had the new ball. We all know with what results. Australia suffered defeat -- and also in the ensuing three games. The destruction wreaked by Barnes, and on all his great days, was mostly done by the ball which, bowled from a splendid height, seemed to swing in to the leg stump then spin away from the pitch, threatening the off-stump. Barnes assured me that he actually turned the ball by finger twist.

The wonder of his career is that he took 77 of his 106 Australian Test wickets on the wickets of Australia when they were flawless and the scourge of all ordinarily good bowlers. He clean bowled Victor Trumper for 0 at Sydney in the 1907-08 rubber; then Fielder and J.N. Crawford in the following Test dismissed Trumper for a pair, so Trumper was out for 0 in three successive Test innings.

Barnes remained a deadly bowler long after he went out of first-class cricket. So shrewdly did he conserve his energy that in 1928 when he was in his mid-fifties, the West Indies team of that year faced him in a club match and unanimously agreed he was the best they had encountered in the season.

For Staffordshire, in his fifty-sixth year, he took 76 wickets at 8.21 each. Round about this period a young player, later to become famous in international company, was one of the Lancashire Second XI playing against Staffordshire.

His captain won the toss and two Lancashire lads went forth to open the innings against Barnes. As this colt was number six in the batting order he put on his blazer and was about to leave the pavilion to watch Barnes from behind. But his captain told him to go back to the dressing room and get on his pads. "But," said the colt, "I'm not in until number six and I'd like to look at Barnes." His captain insisted. The young colt returned to the dressing room. And there, he said "there were four of us all padded up waiting. And we were all out in the middle and back again in half an hour."

Barnes had a splendid upright action, right arm straight over. He ran on easy strides, not a penn'orth of energy wasted. He fingered a cricket ball sensitively, like a violinist his fiddle. He always attacked. "Why do these bowlers today send down so many balls the batsman needn't play?" he asked while watching a Test match many years ago. "I didn't. I never gave'em any rest."

His hatchet face and his suggestion of physical and mental leanness and keenness were part of Barnes's cricket and outlook on the game. He was relentless, a chill wind of antagonism blew from him on the sunniest day. As I say, he mellowed in full age and retirement.

He came to Lord's and other grounds for Test matches, even in his ninety-fifth year, leading blind Wilfred Rhodes about. And to the end of his life he worked for his living, drawing up legal and other documents for Staffordshire County Council in the most beautiful copperplate writing he learned as a boy.

As we think of the unsmiling destroyer of all the batsmen that came his way, let us also remember Barnes immortalised in that lovely verse of Alan Ross:

Then, elbows linked, but straight as sailors

On a tilting deck, they move. One, square-shouldered as a tailor's

Model, leans over whispering in the other's ear:

`Go easy, Steps here. This end bowling'.Turning, I watch Barnes guide Rhodes into fresher air,

As if to continue an innings, though Rhodes may only play by ear.

--------

Nice obituary. The stats of Sydney Barnes has always befuddled me, but I never ventured to read this obituary. His bowling average being 16, he is a statistical anomaly, something like the bowler's Bradman. A strike rate of 41 would support this.
From his obituary, I gather one of the reasons he was so successful was that he seems to be the inventor of the off-cutter and leg-cutter? But the obituary specifically says that he used some sort of "finger-twist". The obituary makes him out to be some sort of fast bowler who spun the ball as well. Very strange indeed. What we can be sure of is that he invented some strange method of bowling which:
a) Nobody had seen till then
b) Nobody else could imitate at the time

What is your take?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2006, 09:24:28 AM by dhruvdeepak »
Logged
In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth.
-- Mohandas K *hi

achutank

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,565
  • Money: 335749.00
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2006, 10:28:47 AM »
he sounds like kumble actually:

kumble always comes at the batsmen
kumble bowls fast leg-tweaks with a googly thats almost an off break, and he has his fast flipper, and the yorker

kumble started as a medium pacer

in fact in abu dhabi he would be a better bet to open the attack than slower than fast pathan
Logged
there is more than meets the i

RicePlateReddy

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,728
  • Money: 947879.00
  • Chamat song
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2006, 04:03:15 PM »
i dont think this is really about forms and averages.

Agreed.

he wanted to pick a team that will be legendary. i mean look at imran khan. would you take imran or kapil or hadlee or botham, heck in my books what about fred truman, micheal holding or malcom marshall? you already have two allrounders  - sobers and gilchirst, so why imran? because he is inspirational, he is special, he is one of a kind. all these guys if you see they do not fall into any bracket. they are who they are. a dravid or ponting or waugh can never be a tendulkar or lara. these guys are the stuff of legends, the myths and the mytology of cricket. they are all gods.they have done special things in their cricketing lives, they are too unique.

Excellent point - perhaps you are right, that is where he is coming from. Yet I still feel that the 'legend' or 'aura' surrounding a batsman should not be the sole evaluation criteria for admission into a Great XI. In my book, a mortal who reached the dizzy heights the hard way and has stratospheric stats is equally great, Of course, this is all my opinion, not Benaud's.

It also becomes very challenging to compare people across generations. So when choosing someone, perhaps Benaud thought they should have stood head and shoulders above their peers and be hailed by their peer group as the greatest (ever?). This explains Hobbs.

I am intrigued by Benaud's holding Imran in such high esteem. And while there is no doubt that Gilchrist's batting is the best there has been for wicket keepers, I don't think his wicketkeeping is of the same untouchable calibre. Yet his batting brilliance overcomes the tiny limitations in keeping, so that was a good choice.

But I thought it is interesting to see if his XI should be updated now, 2 years after he announced it. I will still maintain my Ponting for SMG or Hobbs, and Murali for Warne for his list to seem 'perfect' in my mind.
Logged
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. - (thanks, Hugh Gallagher)

RicePlateReddy

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,728
  • Money: 947879.00
  • Chamat song
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2006, 04:24:23 PM »
Dhruv,

It sounds like Barnes was a hybrid of McGrath (accuracy and forcing the batsman to play every ball) and Kumble (spin but delivered at good pace). The line in his orbit that you've posted that stood out for me:

So shrewdly did he conserve his energy that in 1928 when he was in his mid-fifties, the West Indies team of that year faced him in a club match and unanimously agreed he was the best they had encountered in the season.

England had Harold Larwood and Maurice Tate (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/21462.html) playing for them at the time. And according to the WI, in his mid fifties, Barnes bested them! Now that, for a fast bowler, is the ultimate complement.
Logged
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. - (thanks, Hugh Gallagher)

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
  • Money: 1000.00
Re: Richie Benaud's all time greatest XI
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2006, 10:35:31 PM »
fineleg, Syd Barnes is arguably the greatest bowler to have played the game. Interestingly, his birthday is today! Check this out: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/139130.html

senthil, I am not simply reacting to Ponting's really purple patch at the moment. His improvement has been phenomenal over the last 3 years, and it wasn't like he was unworthy of greatness before that. There is more than even chance, given his age, that he would overtake SRT with centuries. And then his average is creeping steadily towards 60. His WC final knock that knocked us down was a watershed moment. And he dominates in Aussie wins which is also huge. He may not be able to sustain this unbelievable run he is on, but even if he falls back, there is a very good chance he will still perform better than SRT and Dravid for the rest of their careers. If he plays till 36 and plays well, he belongs in the list, not just because of a purple patch over the last 2 seasons. I think Benaud would also put him on the list right now (he put SRT and Warne who both were playing in 2004).

With Dravid too, there are all indications he can sustain his greatness. Not as brilliant as Tendulkar at his fiery best, but if he can continue to rack up huge scores consistently while dominating the attack, he too becomes a candidate. If Tendulkar never makes it back to his pristine self and consistency, he will fall a bit in overall reckoning and I think it is not outrageous to think that both Dravid and Ponting could compete with him on the greatness list. He may suffer for the same reason there is no mention of Lara. More mortal players made a case with prolonged consistency at the higest level, that was too hard to ignore. In any case, as I mentioned, I think the opener(s) should yield to them if at all, not SRT.



king, the issue with just extrapolating current form into what could happen four to five years hence is that the inherent assumption is that current form will continue. If one had done the same with SRT a few years back, we would have been at an average of 65+ and 40-45 centuries (at least) by now. This is what is happening with Ponting now. If Ponting plays till 36, he may actually end up with a lower average than he has now - this is as likely (in fact more likely) than assuming that the average will keep moving up.

The key is to compare two players at their respective peaks (provided the peaks are not very short lived) and decide who deserves to be in - and not overall averages at the end of their career or how they seem to be doing currently. For instance, when Benaud drew up his list, I am sure Wasim Akram or Glenn Mcgrath or Shaun Pollock may have had a better bowling average than Dennis Lillee in the bowling department - there may be any number of reasons for the same. But at their respective peaks, Benaud probably rates Lillee higher than any of these other greats.

In that context, I think SRT or even SMG (I am not sure about Jack Hobbs - I do not know much about him) are more complete players vis-a-vis a Ricky Ponting - both of them can attack and dominate pace and spin alike, while RP still does have a weakness against good spin bowling on slightly helpful tracks. SRT's dominance may have gone down now, but it was significant when he was at his peak. RP may be doing no wrong now, but there is no way to figure out whether he would not go the same way as SRT over time. Another example is Hayden, who looked invincible around 3 years ago, but has come off considerably over time.


very well said. precisely what I had in mind.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up