The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket
@Seechy
exactly.....joe root is there and Shiv isn't as yet.........its absurd. neither is imzimam ul haq or mohammad yosuf, who broke viv's record for the most amount of runs in a calendar year in 2006. and nobody can say shiv's acheivmeents are not a 21st century phenomenon because before the india series of 2002, he was averaging 39, and he got from there to ab average over 50, which is extraordinary consistency
@Seechy
Please stop this. Shiv? Then again, who knows they still haven’t completed the list he may end up being number 1.
@CricSham
you are aware that tiger scored 9034 runs in 115 innings between 2002, the last year his average was under 40 to 2015 when he retired.....that is an average of 79. he more than deserves to be on this list, especially when there are similarly defensive test players like rahul dravid, who fully deserves to be there on the list. I also stated that mohammad yosuf, who averages over 50(which is more than virenda sehwag's average) and has the current record for the most test runs in a calendar year fully deserves to be on this list. i not fighting cricinfo's right to be biased....that is their right especially as cricket is a diminishing market in almost every territory save India. what i am saying is there are players who prospered in the 21st century who rightfully deserve to be on this list.......mitchell starc averages 26, which for a fast bowler in cricket's classical era would have been unacceptable........courtney walsh was considered the least penetrative of all the great west indian quicks and his 500 plus wickets come at 24 a piece(and marshall, ambrose, garner, imran, wasim, waqar, white lightning, mcgrath all average under 24) so how he made this list is beyond me, but to each his own. joe root, after four visits to australia just managed to eke out one hundred, but is 10th on this list, even above steve smith, who i revile, but who has a superior average.
@Jumpstart
My friend, I agree there is a case for Shiv.to have been included previously. This thread is about the remaining top six not who were not selected. I just don’t see Shiv there.
Anyway my focus right now is Neymar and Brazil and I know you are a fan. My brother, I can’t make up my mind if Neymar is a Primadonna or just injury prone. Don’t they have obeah man in Brazil… one of them need to take him seaside and duck he so and so in de river. Jeez, i’m tired of this guy, but would love to see him put on a show in uncle Sam.
@CricSham
So. Lara didn’t make the top 5 nor the top 25!😜
@StumpCam
the top 6 haven't been decided homres, before you start salivating . i would put him and shiv 1 and 2 because they average. as i stated lara and shiv's runs came in losing teams, where they both average over 50(53 and 79 respectively)....in a losing team. shiv's returns between 2002 and 2015 came at an average of over 70. tendulkar, for context , with sehwag, dravid, ganguly and laxman as cover, only averaged 47 between 2000 and 2006(lara's last year as a test cricketer)
@CricSham
Shambolic! So Lara could not make the top 25? He retired in 2007. Chanderpaul should be there too.
@sgtdjones
list is an absolute joke. no shane warne, no lara, no glenn mcgrath(who all retired in 2007), no shiv, no mohamad yosuf(who averages over 50 and broke Viv's cumulative record for runs in a calendar year in 2006). None of the bowlers they both played against have this opinion so.
my issue is that other than runs scored and being from the biggest cricket market in the world, there is no metric by which tendulkar features on an all time xi.......he does not have one entry on Cricinfo's top performances of the past 50 years of test cricket, not one....lara had four innings on that list(could have been five or six) with three of those performances being in the top 15, one being in the top 5 and 3 of those four being in the 21st century. his highest ICC Batting ranking does not even cross 9000, whereas virtually every very good to great batsman since him has crossed that..........pietersen, lara, williamson, kohli, smith,sangakara, ponting, ab, kallis, yosuf....and even the great batsmen before him passed that marker...gavaskar, viv, sobers, doug walters. but i expected this. the blatant omissions of those three was genuinely surprising though
they said that White Lightening Allan Donald and Ian Bishop were part of the selection panel...allan donald recently said on Wisden weekly podcast that Brian Lara was the best player of fast bowling he bowled to in international cricket. So i am not sure how much input they would have had
Chris gayle is on the list as well. fully deserves to be there but his stats are nowhere compared to lara and shiv in the 2000s.
@Jumpstart
Steve Smith was suspended for 12 months for his role in the 2018 ball-tampering scandal, commonly known as "Sandpapergate"
It just doesn't make sense ; then again its an Indian publication.😡
@sgtdjones
clearly lara, shiv and yosuf offended somebody. More than half of glen mcgrath's wickets were taken in the 2000s and he can't find a place on this list.....totally absurd. maybe rage baiting is its purpose, because it look like a list compiled by Jake Paul
@Jumpstart
I was at our club peeping the league final. I am a PSG supporter…was glad to see Marquinhos lift the silver again😀
About the list as you know whenever the “best” is selected, they’ll always be players that didn’t make it. But when I saw Lara and Warne missing I thought to myself there is no way on this planet that could be possible. My first thought was selection bias, but the panel is very.broad based. It is just not possible so many of them
ruling out two of the greatest. So what could be the reason? I wondered if the fact they retired from international cricket very early in the time period they were not considered??
i’ll ask Bish.
@CricSham
honestly i think its rage baiting. cricinfo looking to pump of the views and comments because the world going to be distracted by football for the two months.
and i thought the fact that the three of them retired in 2007 possibly was it, but they all played lots of matches after 2000. Lara played 66 tests, which is more than half of the tests he played in total, mcgrath played 66 of his 124 tests after 2000, warne played 65 tests after 2000, yosuf played less than ten tests before 2000. if you're arguing ODIs played a role in the list, mcgrath was player of the tournament in the 2007 world cup and took 21 wickets, the third highest in the 03 edition. the man who scored the most runs in the 2003 edition is there, Tendulkar. Mcgrath is nowhere to be found. Lara beat muralitharan to a pulp in 2001 on his own turf and murali is ranked as the best bowler of the 2000s, while lara can't find a place. as i said, its absurd and lots of people are commenting about it, but i think that was cricinfo's intention the whole time. we all know what we saw, so a list does not change anything.