Cricket
2. A. W. Greig
3. B. L. D'Oliveira
Fact.
2. Gooch
3. A Cook
OK I get it. That is funny!
So
I will see your 3 with
Gubby Allen
Pelham Warner
Colin Cowdrey
and raise you
K S Ranjitsinhji
Nawab of Pataudi Snr
Albert Trott
For those of you not taking drugs or crack in particular
W G Grace
Jack Hobbs
S F Barnes
Supps I think you need to change your supplier. If you tell me what is your pleasure I will try and get you something decent
!
Salvia
mixed with DMT, peyote and ketamine.
that's the only explanation for picking cook.
Ian Ward?
Pietersen had many more important innings. Much in the same way Tendulkar never came close to equaling any of Lara's most important and influential innings, Cook has very little that comes close to KP's runs in Colombo (2012), the Oval (2005), Headingley (2012) and Mumbai (2012)
DMT is dimethyltryptamine. (google machine elves
)
!
Nov 4, 2016 -- 9:06PM, DStyle wrote:
Cook's concentration is peerless, but he's merely statistically great. He has cashed in heavily in a period which will be remembered for its paucity of great bowlers. His contributions rarely come in isolation (i.e. his large scores are often accompanied by other large scores from other batsmen).Pietersen had many more important innings. Much in the same way Tendulkar never came close to equaling any of Lara's most important and influential innings, Cook has very little that comes close to KP's runs in Colombo (2012), the Oval (2005), Headingley (2012) and Mumbai (2012)
Interesting thoughts on Cook but surely if he's scoring heavily and putting the team in a great position then it makes it easier for others to bat, so he's less likely to score his runs in isolation.
Isn't that the role of the opener? To set the game up for others to cash in?
Nov 4, 2016 -- 5:54PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
Great topic wonby but ruined it by using the word Fact.OK I get it. That is funny!SoI will see your 3 withGubby AllenPelham WarnerColin Cowdreyand raise youK S RanjitsinhjiNawab of Pataudi SnrAlbert TrottFor those of you not taking drugs or crack in particularW G GraceJack HobbsS F BarnesSupps I think you need to change your supplier. If you tell me what is your pleasure I will try and get you something decent!
Jack Hobbs never played in the sub continent and most of the bowlers he faced were probably 60mph tops!
SF Barnes? That's a joke right! He only played 27 matches!
W G Grace? How can you say how good he was?!
tomtimtum
05 Nov 16 10:31
Interesting thoughts on Cook but surely if he's scoring heavily and putting the team in a great position then it makes it easier for others to bat, so he's less likely to score his runs in isolation.
Isn't that the role of the opener? To set the game up for others to cash in?
You stupid boy!
We are talking about all time greats! I could name half a dozen or more better English openers than him! Do your homework like I told you!
Would you rather have Cook or Jack Hobbs (who didnt even play a test in India)
That Pakistan series in 2010 gave a glimpse of what his career would have looked like in another era.
I believe comparing players in cricket is useless. You cant even compare two players of the same era as they play on different surfaces most of the times. And they can only be as good as their fellow teammates and opposite players allow them to be.
I think you can get some sort of quasi-quantitative measure. The Wisden Top 100 innings was a great piece of work.
I also think after you get to about 6000 test runs, stats become less meaningful and it's more about the number of match transforming innings.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16337.html
Nov 5, 2016 -- 12:11PM, Fatslogger wrote:
In the spirit of the thread, why are none of you morons talking about G Lohmann? Quite apart from the stats, the man played test cricket despite being sick with consumption. Best test bowler ever? Quite possibly. http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16337.html
"On the matting wickets of South Africa he was devastating - in 1896-96 he took 35 wickets in three Tests at 5.80"
WD will be replacing S F Barnes with this guy after reading this 
Nov 5, 2016 -- 1:13PM, detraveller wrote:
Bob, when you do a 9 hour shift 5 times a week, you are obviously likely to spot more talent than at a game that lasts 7 hours a day for 5 days. Weren;t you at mcdonalds by the way? Did you switch jobs?
so you admit it! there is more talent walking through the checkout in a supermarket than on the pitch
owned yourself there mate
Cook really? Listen Padowan, I suggest you joing slogger and do some research
6 Openers better than Cook off the top of my head
Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, WG Grace, Boycott,Gooch ( and yes I did see WG Grace bat! before you ask! )
http://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/jack-hobbs-and-herbert-sutcliffe-the-greatest-opening-pair-in-test-history-3197
Bit that caught me eye;
England rung the changes, drafting in Percy Chapman – in place of the unfortunate Arthur Carr - as skipper, the 49 year old Wilfred Rhodes and the young tearaway Nottinghamshire fast bowler Harold Larwood. An expectant nation waited with bated breath.
49 year old players! Shows how strong Test Cricket was back then!
Cook would have averaged 200+ if he faced those bowlers!
So what about Hobbs and Sutcliffe?
Do you still think Cook could hold a carrot to any of them. Big heavy bats, shorter boundaries these days. No great West Indian fast bowlers around, Not many decent Aussie quicks, The great Pakistani's retired. Nowadays they chip a toe nail and they are sick noted off for 3 months!
You're getting buried here WD
be quiet now. I just named you 6 better opening batsmen and the thread is about the three grestest English cricketers of all time. He doesn't make the top 6 and so doesn't make the top 3!
The fact is that the standard of all sports improve over the years so all the players playing today will be better than those of 20-30 years ago, nevermind those from 100+ years ago
Supps 06 Nov 16 09:55
I must of also forgotten Cooks 235* at the Gabba to save the first test! GOAT
wicket turned into a road in the middle of day 3.
everyone got runs. a studied exercise in massive score compilation in good conditions which is the best you can say about most of his scores.
there plenty to argue that it's not enough to place him in the top 10, let alone the top 3.
again, as an addendum to the wisden 100: http://www.alloutcricket.com/greatest-innings-of-the-century
As for top 3. You have to pick Barnes.
Then probably Hobbs.
Third place is harder. I would like to pick Botham because at his best, few matched his impact when he fired.
True greatness in sport, for me, is about being able to raise your intensity and performance to exceptional levels when the situation demands it.
Nov 6, 2016 -- 8:32AM, jucel69 wrote:
I think it's impossible to compare batsmen from different generations, especially when you are comparing 2/3 generations.
It's clearly difficult but I think impossible is a bit strong. You can look at how batsmen did against their contemporaries and then cross compare, which has some validity, as long as it's they're reasonably big data sets. It's reasonably consistent in the remotely modern era that 50 is an exceptionally good batting average and there are reasons why very few players indeed have averaged 60 over a reasonable time. The ICC rankings have historical functions too, which have some additional correction features, although the sceptic might argue that they give a veneer of scientific method to uncertainty.
Nov 5, 2016 -- 5:05PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
Now you are peeing me off young man!So what about Hobbs and Sutcliffe?Do you still think Cook could hold a carrot to any of them. Big heavy bats, shorter boundaries these days. No great West Indian fast bowlers around, Not many decent Aussie quicks, The great Pakistani's retired. Nowadays they chip a toe nail and they are sick noted off for 3 months!
WD, when you think about how many people have played cricket for England it must be an amazing coincidence that we had 2 of our greatest ever batsmen opening together in the same team!
Nov 6, 2016 -- 11:18AM, Fatslogger wrote:
Nov 6, 2016 -- 8:32AM, jucel69 wrote:I think it's impossible to compare batsmen from different generations, especially when you are comparing 2/3 generations.It's clearly difficult but I think impossible is a bit strong. You can look at how batsmen did against their contemporaries and then cross compare, which has some validity, as long as it's they're reasonably big data sets. It's reasonably consistent in the remotely modern era that 50 is an exceptionally good batting average and there are reasons why very few players indeed have averaged 60 over a reasonable time. The ICC rankings have historical functions too, which have some additional correction features, although the sceptic might argue that they give a veneer of scientific method to uncertainty.
Comparing them to their contemporaries is probably the most valid way to assess a players "greatness"
There was a guy averaging 100 odd during Hobbs/Sutcliffes time and with only 3 teams playing Tests there weren't too many others to compare them to!
Nov 6, 2016 -- 1:06PM, GRANTCKING wrote:
havent read the posts yet but the 3 greatest england batsman ive seen are KP, root and buttler
I was staying away from this thread because of my lack of knowledge but you certainly show me how to contribute when one doesn't have a clue!
P.R.O. 
K P Pietersen
A W Greig
B L D'Oliveira
although to be fair I am enjoying the conversation about Englands three greatest cricketers and Alastair Cook!
Nov 6, 2016 -- 8:37PM, Cardinal Scott wrote:
To be considered the best you have to have delivered against the best...Botham, Gower both failed on that count v Windies Gooch did not.
I said that I'm not sure Gooch would be a better pick than any of Thorpe, Pietersen and Root since, let alone any number of earlier batsmen. Wouldn't be near my list, which after a bit of thought is:
G Lohmann
SF Barnes
F Trueman
As Charlie says, bowlers are more valuable than batsmen.
How can a bowler or batter be judged "the greatest" if he didn't excel in all conditions? Bowling seam in England is obviously far different than India. Same goes for Batsmen.
Trueman had a great record but played 2/3 of his matches in England which obviously skewed his statistics and his teammates - Bedser, Laker, Lock, Statham all had bowling averages in the low 20s, so he wasn't really a standout performer if he's compared to his contemporaries and conditions must have been favourable for all of them.
tomtimtum
06 Nov 16 22:53
the standard was so poor and participation was limited to 2-3 countries.
How can a bowler or batter be judged "the greatest" if he didn't excel in all conditions? Bowling seam in England is obviously far different than India. Same goes for Batsmen.
Trueman had a great record but played 2/3 of his matches in England which obviously skewed his statistics and his teammates - Bedser, Laker, Lock, Statham all had bowling averages in the low 20s, so he wasn't really a standout performer if he's compared to his contemporaries and conditions must have been favourable for all of them.
Good to see you have started doing some research Padawan, not before time!
But you are still a stupid boy!
Can't see how anyone can pick a player who played before 1940s,
Really...Sir Donald Bradman?
Back to school young man! look up what WG Grace did too!
WD, would you concede that when you have more than one person in the team with a remarkably high batting or low bowling average it detracts from their status as a true great?
Hammond - 58
Hutton - 57
Payner - 59
They played in the same team, it would be hard for me accept that they are all true greats
Same with Hobbs + Sutcliffe
Which one of Warne and McGrath was not great?
The Windies of the 70's and 80's
TBH I didn't know much about Eddie Paynter except for the Bodyline match when he was ill. He didn't play as much as Hammond and Hutton who I do consider greats of the game.
I don't know what you have against the older players. They could play and score on uncovered pitches and our current England team can't play against spin. The bats they used were almost half the weight of current bats.
Nov 7, 2016 -- 8:02PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
No!Which one of Warne and McGrath was not great?The Windies of the 70's and 80'sTBH I didn't know much about Eddie Paynter except for the Bodyline match when he was ill. He didn't play as much as Hammond and Hutton who I do consider greats of the game.I don't know what you have against the older players. They could play and score on uncovered pitches and our current England team can't play against spin. The bats they used were almost half the weight of current bats.
It does detract from Warne/Mcgrath's greatness for me. They're obviously 2 amazing bowlers but if they're in the same side then they're obviously going to get a huge benefit from playing with each other.
Look at Brett Lee / Jason Gillespie / Craig Mcdermott, do you think that playing with Warne+McGrath was good for their stats or bad?
Look at the batsmen who played with Warne + McGrath - Hayden, Hussey, Ponting, Steve Waugh all averaging 50+, lots of other batters averaging 45+
Playing in a strong side boosts everyones stats.
None of those older players played in the subcontinent so nobody has any idea about their true ability vs spin!
Nov 8, 2016 -- 5:43AM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
Look at Natt Hayden's average when the great fast bowlers were around! read and learn padawan! The great bowlers were largely missing when Aus were in their pomp! As has been pointed out here bowlers win matches! Aus had the two best, no wonder their batsmen made hay!
That was my point WD!
Have spent lots of time looking at stats and reading and so far have to come to one conclusion only.
I T Botham was the greatest cricketer to play for England!
There hasn't been an English all rounder before or since who was close to him and he was the best in his era.
He's an a different level to his teammates and clearly the best batsman in the world
Just need to find the best bowler to complete my top 3 of All rounder/Batsman/Bowler
