How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

by Zat Fri 14 Aug 2009, 08:26

Just been leafing through Christoper Martin-Jenkins's new book 'Top 100 Cricketers Of All Time'.

In the profile on SRT it says:

He refused every invitation to cover-drive Warne throughout an innings of 241 not out at Sydney in 2003-04.

by The One Fri 14 Aug 2009, 08:29

macgill = warne?

by Zat Fri 14 Aug 2009, 08:30

Warne > MacGill.

A pretty basic error to make.

by skully Fri 14 Aug 2009, 08:35

Deary me.

by Zat Fri 14 Aug 2009, 09:15

There's a few other minor errors in the book, but when you get one like that in the top 10, it's pretty ordinary.

by Bradman Fri 14 Aug 2009, 09:30

Does he get Bradman's average wrong?

by Zat Fri 14 Aug 2009, 09:35

Much as I'd love to say yes, he doesn't.

by Bradman Fri 14 Aug 2009, 09:44

I'd love to see the list. Got a link. Understand if you don't.

You know MacGill was under-rated. (Waits to be flamed off).

by The One Fri 14 Aug 2009, 09:51

1 Don Bradman

2 W.G. Grace

3 Garry Sobers

4 Shane Warne

5 Jack Hobbs

6 Viv Richards

7 S.F. Barnes

8 Walter Hammond

9 Sachin Tendulkar

10 Adam Gilchrist

11 Malcolm Marshall (West Indies)

12 Glenn McGrath (Australia)

13 Muttiah Muralitharan (Sri Lanka)

14 Imran Khan (Pakistan)

15 Wilfred Rhodes (England)

16 Keith Miller (Australia)

17 Len Hutton (England)

18 Ian Botham (England)

19 Dennis Lillee (Australia)

20 George Headley (West Indies)

21 Denis Compton (England)

22 Fred Trueman (England)

23 Bill O'Reilly (Australia)

24 Brian Lara (West Indies)

25 Richard Hadlee (New Zealand)

26 Sunil Gavaskar (India)

27 F.R. Spofforth (Australia)

28 Barry Richards (South Africa)

29 Alec Bedser (England)

30 Victor Trumper (Australia)

31 Ray Lindwall (Australia)

32 Everton Weekes (West Indies)

33 Jim Laker (England)

34 Wasim Akram (Pakistan)

35 K.S. Ranjitsinhji (England)

36 Waqar Younis (Pakistan)

37 Graeme Pollock (South Africa)

38 Greg Chappell (Australia)

39 Frank Worrell (West Indies)

40 Frank Woolley (England)

41 Richie Benaud (Australia)

42 Peter May (England)

43 Herbert Sutcliffe (England)

44 Graham Gooch (England)

45 Clyde Walcott (West Indies)

46 Ken Barrington (England)

47 Ricky Ponting (Australia)

48 Kapil Dev (India)

49 Harold Larwood (England)

50 George Lohmann (England)

51 Curtly Ambrose (West Indies)

52 Jacques Kallis (South Africa)

53 Geoffrey Boycott (England)

54 Clarrie Grimmett (Australia)

55 Allan Border (Australia)

56 Learie Constantine (West Indies)

57 Javed Miandad (Pakistan)

58 Kumar Sangakkara (Sri Lanka)

59 Hedley Verity (England)

60 Kevin Pietersen (England)

61 Arthur Shrewsbury (England)

62 Bishan Bedi (India)

63 Steve Waugh (Australia)

64 Les Ames (England)

65 Stan McCabe (Australia)

66 John Snow (England)

67 Sanath Jayasuriya (Sri Lanka)

68 Warwick Armstrong (Australia)

69 Alan Knott (England)

70 David Gower (England)

71 Jack Gregory (Australia)

72 Clive Lloyd (West Indies)

73 Martin Donnelly (New Zealand)

74 Rahul Dravid (India)

75 Ted Dexter (England)

76 Andy Flower (Zimbabwe)

77 Maurice Tate (England)

78 Colin Cowdrey (England)

79 Mahela Jayawardena (Sri Lanka)

80 C.B. Fry (England)

81 Bill Ponsford (Australia)

82 Andrew Flintoff (England)

83 Allan Donald (South Africa)

84 Gilbert Jessop (England)

85 Michael Holding (West Indies)

86 Zaheer Abbas (Pakistan)

87 Neil Harvey (Australia)

88 Abdul Qadir (Pakistan)

89 Brian Statham (England)

90 Lance Gibbs (West Indies)

91 Ian Healy (Australia)

92 Courtney Walsh (West Indies)

93 Graeme Smith (South Africa)

94 Bhagwat Chandrasekhar (India)

95 C.T.B. Turner (Australia)

96 Vijay Merchant (India)

97 Shaun Pollock (South Africa)

98 Gordon Greenidge (West Indies)

99 Vinoo Mankad (India)

100 Charlie Macartney (Australia)

by The One Fri 14 Aug 2009, 09:53

doesnt seem to rate current cricketers too highly. ponting is the highest rated post-1995 cricketer at 47

by The One Fri 14 Aug 2009, 09:57

kp above waugh and dravid

flintoff above donald, holding and pollock

qadir above walsh

Shocked

by DJ_Smerk Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:03

Interesting that CMJ didn't know which country Bradman played for.

by Bradman Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:06

I have no problem with that list apart from two and ten in the top ten. Plus Murali shouldn't be on anything that doesn't include the word Cooperstown. And the fact AB isn't Numero Uno.

Other than that It's not bad.

by DJ_Smerk Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:07

I agree AB at 55 is slightly laughable.

by Bradman Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:17

Is he on the list? I tried to find him but obviously didn't look hard enough.

Had another look. Clarrie Grimmett at 54. Were the Editors at a Xmax party when they proof read this?

by JKLever Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:26

The problem with lists like this is that the older generation of cricketers somehow aquire legendary status that isn't afforded to modern day greats.

by Guest Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:29

SRT at 9? LOL.

by The One Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:32

agreed. much too low, esp with viv and warne ahead

by Bradman Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:33

You're not knocking Clarrie's legendary status are you? Bradman was his bunny FFS!.

by The One Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:35

and grace, seriously? great innovator and invented much of modern cricket, but was he really that good a cricketer in modern terms? where is bosanquet?

by taipan Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:36

It's a personal choice FFS

by The One Fri 14 Aug 2009, 10:37

of course it is. but its made for public consumption and hence open to debate

by Shoeshine Fri 14 Aug 2009, 11:06

The One wrote:and grace, seriously? great innovator and invented much of modern cricket, but was he really that good a cricketer in modern terms? where is bosanquet?

Yes he probably was. Don't forget his career was so long, and his stats (for what they're worth) depressed by that. The man was THE colossus of mid nineteenth century cricket, and is justly famous for so being. If you're the best player in the world for 20 years, that's worthy of respect.

In more general terms, I remember listening to CMJ talking about this book in an interview. To be fair to him, he was more than comfortable with people thinking he was a complete idiot in his judgements, saying that after all, that's what lists are all about.

He did a fantastic book 20 years or so ago, the Complete Who's Who of Test cricketers. I wish he'd update that one, even though it'd be even bigger now.

by ten years after Fri 14 Aug 2009, 11:16

The One wrote:doesnt seem to rate current cricketers too highly. ponting is the highest rated post-1995 cricketer at 47

Look again. 3 of the top 10 played all or most of their test cricket since 1995.

As with all such lists there are heaps of selections that I find strange. One serious issue is that no-one is included in the top 100 on the basis of their wicket keeping ability.

by Guest Fri 14 Aug 2009, 11:19

ten years after wrote:
The One wrote:doesnt seem to rate current cricketers too highly. ponting is the highest rated post-1995 cricketer at 47

Look again. 3 of the top 10 played all or most of their test cricket since 1995.

As with all such lists there are heaps of selections that I find strange. One serious issue is that no-one is included in the top 100 on the basis of their wicket keeping ability.

You think Healy was in there for his batting?

by Sponsored content

How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

Re: How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.