Mohammad Azharuddin. One of the most wristy and elegant batsmen the game has ever seen. Was Indias stand out batsmen for 5 years in the early 90s. He spanked some of the very best in the world to all parts. His 121 against England at lords was a sight to behold. He had his weaknesses against short bowling especially outside India.He fell just short of greatness though, just like his highest test score 199 and the number of test caps he got 99. You just feel if he could have applied himself bettter, coupled with his natural class Azhar would have gone down as a true great. However instead he will probably get rememembered for his match fixing rather than his sublime batting. Hats off to you Azhar

My seven year old son, watching cricket for the first time (we lived outside India till then), saw Freddie Flintoff on the screen after a while. He let out a spontaneous "Vow, Cool" - I was pleasantly surprised by it, Freddie being my favorite cricketer beyond Sachin. How do I say it - he just kind of emanates strength. Is he "considered" great by folks? Quite an immaterially intellectual thingy - just go and watch his over to Langer and Ponting on youtube.

One of the names that springs to mind in this category is VVS Laxman. A purveyor of sublime strokeplay and magical innings, but forever skirting the peripheries of greatness.

What do 3 out of the 4 "Lost Greats" that you mentioned have in common. They are fast bowlers (and in the case of Flintoff, a fast-bowling all-rounder). The modern international cricket schedule will eventually kill the fast bowling great, at least in Test matches. Perhaps fast bowling greats will be confined to Twenty20, because of the money on offer and less strain on their bodies.

so according to you who is a great of the modern lot................ to me in all honesty flintoff has just sealed his status with the display at lords.......... he has got you guys arguingthis very point.. and that is pretty impressive....... also how do you rate Brian Lara

The criteria for joining the GPCC is not a fixed bar, but a relative one that fluctuates with the times. Flintoff could've been a great in another era, albeit one with a lot less cricket than now!

- Vikram

How about Sanath Jayasuriya, VVS Laxman, Saqlain Mushtaq, Steve Harmison, Chanderpaul, Chris Cairns, etc...All of them bring the same element of magic as the 4 players mentioned here. Well, everyone except Chanders but then again, he often leaves people wondering how someone so tiny with such a shabby technique has managed to defy some of the greatest bowlers of this decade. Chanders is all about mental toughness and rising above expectations. A la Collingwood but the British man needs more innings of steel to come anywhere near Chanders!

A few of the nominations are...(though they are based on their performance over at least 10 years and cant be called great but cant be ignored either for nominations)...
Darren Gough, Laxman, Langer,Darryl Cullinan,MikeAtherton,MWaugh.....

Adding to the list of "apartheid bans": Clive Rice and Vincent Van Der Bijl. Two players who would have been counted among the all-time greats without a shadow of doubt. Also one from pre-war India: L. Amar Singh who died, tragically young, at 29. Wally Hammond said that his delivery "Came of the pitch like the crack of doom". I also recall reading Dom Moraes' book in which he described Kapil Dev as "the new Amar Singh". Now that's a clear indicator of what might have been!

How about these: Ganguly, Pollock, Langer, VVS Laxman, mark waugh and damien martyn.

Saeed Anwar
Mark Waugh

The reason no English cricket player can be considered great is because no English team of recent memory can be considered great. A handful of stand-out performances have been delivered yes but overall this English team lacks greatness unlike their Australian, Indian or South African counterparts. Besides the Ashes win in 05 what else has English team done thats "remarkable". This is the legacy that players like Strauss, Broad, Bell, Pietersen and company will fall in as well until the English are a force to be reckoned with. This might sound harsh but I've been reading the euphora surrounding the first two Ashes tests and "bloody hell" you havent won the world cup. Lucky to survive the first test and playing against a mediocre team in both. I realise i am giving some harsh criticism and i look forward to any response that may be forth coming. I am a South African supporter btw.

The article makes interesting reading, there were lot of players who could have become 'Great' but didn't reach there due to one reason or other. One of the most elegant batsman ever to play for Australia, Damien Martyn could only play 67 tests in a test career that spans for 14 years, had he played continously over that period he should have notched up around 25-30 test centuries and surely would have called a 'Great'. Another man coming to mind is Ian Bishop, the kind of start he had to his career prior to the injury that virtually stopped the free flowing Bishop was exceptional.

hiii mike, you are very correct at your words.
Surely, if he hadn't suffered with injuries, he might be in the list of GREATS. Also his dedication, committment towards the game shouldn't be forgotten. eventhough he falls short of greatness, he should deserve the words, " ONE OF THE FELLOWS WHO ENRICHED THE GAME". What do you say mike...

Afridi and Ganguly. True, Ganguly will be remembred as the man who changed the way India played cricket, but never as a great player..

www.ashtung.blogspot.com

Vinod Kambli might just scrape into this list.

Vinod Kambli

Vinod Kambli. So much promise... it's a pity.

well,I do agree with samir in this regard and your lost greats theory.The only problem that arises out of branding someone like freddie 'great' is that we are being unfair to say Ambrose and Walsh in this regard..Do bursts of greatness mean that a player is great?.I dont think so..Its about sustaining your greatness for a considerably long period of time and in all possible conditions..The narrow mindedness of the british media and the aussie players has made freddie 'great'..He is good,occasionally magnificient but still a mercurail genius and nothing more

VVS Laxman

[Mike: I have to admit that I wasn't really thinking of people like VVS and Mark Waugh. They weren't prevented from being recognised as greats because they were kept out of Test cricket by injury or something else - eg having to queue up behind Warne or being South African during apartheid - but because they didn't, in the end, reach the standard. We *know* they weren't greats, and I was really looking for those we *don't* know.]

Stuart MacGill, if he hadn't have had Warne in his way. Chris Cairns was definitely a guy whose statistics belied his awesome impact on a game - he did bat at 5 and open the bowling. Too many injuries in his prime.

flintoff is no way near to those great bowlers of all time ,,Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Wasim Akram. how can he be a great when he doest have any outstanding record. Ian bottam got sir title, but my question is why did he got that? and after some year flintoff will get one as well.....he is a fine fine cricketer but im sorry for me he is not a great.

I think more than the technique what truly makes a player great is consistency. Ganguly, who said he did not have the class and aura that surrounds a player who possesses the capability of ruining the opposition with classy shotmaking. But sadly, very often the fame and adulation or maybe overconfidence supersedes the humble nature that instilled the dedication to succeed at the international level. And the 'king of off side' was lost.
Freddie Flintoff was on the brink of greatness but faltered a little too many times and had to limp out of the game finally.

It takes more than being able to smash the ball with the willow to be Sachin Tendulkar.

Simon Jones is someone who could have gone on to greater things if he didn't have a fragile body. Chris Cairns and Shane Watson fall under the same category.

Why does everyone seem to forget that his "dismantling" of Kallis was helped somewhat by the fact that the batsmen were struggling to see the ball due to a dodgy sight-screen?

Simon Jones - granted I never saw too much of him, but his performance in the 2005 ashes was, IMO, better than Flintoff and behind only Warne. Shame he never played again.

Sid Barnes (http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/4098.html) should be the president of this club.

Also, Flintoff and Vaughan played in excess of 75 tests; Akhthar close to 50. If they did not achieve greatness till then, then that means only one thing - they were just not great cricketers, period. Shane Bond is a different case, though. He could have certainly ended his career alongside the Donalds and Holdings even if he didn't reach the heights of Lillee, Hadlee and Marshall.

Michael Bevan was an incredibly talented player, but surely wasn't given enough opportunities to prove he could make the same impact in Test cricket as he made in ODI's.

Well I think you've got to include Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash in the list: their problem being their mental fragility rather than any physical fragility. There are, however, current England players who'd give their right arm for Hick or Ramprakash's stats though!

Fascinating how Test-centric the comments are. Seems you can't be seen as great unless you shone in Tests, though I'd rate ODIs separately. Bevan and Jayasuriya are genuine greats of ODI cricket. They filled their roles so effectively they became archetypes, role-definers: a true sign of greatness. In ODIs, many certified Test greats wouldn't have done so well as either of them.

In terms of Test greatness, Jayasuriya is clearly just a very good also-ran. Bevan probably wouldn't have cut it, but just maybe he'd have mastered the short ball if selectors had persevered - there's tantalising evidence his chinamen could have taken off too.

Did anyone miss out due to coming from a non-Test nation? I doubt Steve Tikolo would have been a Test great, but he could clearly have been very good.

Ilikena Lasarusa Talebulamainavaleniveivakabulaimainakulalakebalau (I.L. Bula to the scorers!) is a candidate, a Fijian Gilbert Jessop. Don't write him off on stats alone - the way he played was amazing.

[Mike: It's commonly accepted, not least by the players themselves, that Test cricket is the ultimate physical, technical and mental challenge. When they get into mine's-bigger-than-yours arguments, it's their Test acheivements that they bandy around. You can make arguments for those who were not great successes in Tests, but it's a lot harder to convince a lot of people.]

How come no-one's mentioned Carl Hooper yet? In his prime he could be really elegant. And he did get a whole bunch of wickets with his off-spinners.

Also, perhaps Andy Flower. He got a whole heap of runs, and with a better team could have achieved more. Not to mention that he was a good 'keeper.

[Mike: I'd class Flower as a great, actually. And if he makes a success of coaching England, he'll be that rare thing, a great player who's also a good coach, since most of them are terrible coaches.]

Lawrence Rowe!! Only person with a double century and century on test debut....more talented than Viv Richards. He would have been great if not for some freakish injuries and allergies, and, South Africa.

all you guys who are mentioning the name of mark waugh must know that MARK WAUGH IS ALREADY CONSIDERED A GREAT BATSMAN , but because of his comparison with one of the greatest steve waugh that he comes a bit down , but still mark is great

Rohan kanhai? Completely overshadowed by a legitimate great Sobers all his life.

Sachin Tendulkar and Inzamam-ul-Haq

[Mike: A truly bizarre comment.]

I feel that that Mark waugh, Sidath Wettimuny,and Vinod Kambli need to come into this category.
They had class in abundance and such time to play the ball.Aravinda Desilva nearly came into this category but after 1995, came a new order of responsibility.
wilson

Bowlers live less by their average and more about their threat on a certain day.

Brett Lee - some amazing spells but he will never have the full accolade.

Matthew Hoggard anyone? (never ranked as highly as Harmison, Steyn or Johnson but more threatening and successful)

We bandy about the word "great" too easily. Flintoff isn't a great. He's a "very good". Warne, Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting and Muralitharan are greats. Kallis, Dravid and McGrath are greats.

Flintoff's career can be divided into three sections. The middle section was his purple patch circa 2005, where he was an excellent bowler and a very good batsman. Prior to that, he was a reasonable batsman and a middling bowler, and after that, he was a bowler who could occasionally bat a bit.

He's no great. He's not even the greatest all-rounder of his era - that title goes to Jacques Kallis or Chris Cairns.

And as for lost greats, you forgot about Archie Jackson. The man who may have been better than Bradman.

He tragically died of tuberculosis at age 23, but managed to have a massive effect on cricket in his short life. One of the most elegant cricketers to have ever played the game.

[Mike: Read the piece again. Of course I mentioned him.]

Vinod Kambli was thrown away way too quickly. He had temperament problems and perceived technical flaws but plenty of batsmen have come back from that. He was a victim of India's constant paradigm of letting go of talents who have faltered (which is much to do with the constant influx of new unfulfilled talent from the U19 level). Kambli played his last test before he was 24, many have made careers beyond that age. No-one can forget those first ten innings of his:

16
18*
59
224
227
125
4
120
5
82
Avg: 97.78

Then he had a lean trot and there ended his career. Very disappointing.

Would also like to mention a point on Tendulkar (who is probably a great). He has also had many injuries flatten his career, preventing him from becoming greater than all of his contemporaries. Tendulkar averages about 59 before his injuries began hitting him, and in the process he went down to about 52/51 before rebounding in recent years. Just a thought.

Ian Bishop, Stuart McGill

Had Chris Cairns been born in England, I'm sure you'd have rued his loss as much as you do Flintoff's. I thought he was an allrounder capable of great deeds and did have considerable success in the one-day arena, especially against India (famously the final of Champions Trophy which NZ won). But his career is a litany of 'what ifs'.

My sincerest apologies. You did indeed mention Archie Jackson, but I didn't notice.

Such a sad story, and a player who deserves to be remembered far more than he is.

Some players mentioned on this blog I would imagine as being classified as 'greats' already. I thought the article focussed on players who ordinarily would have had a larger impact if it were not for circumstances like injury/illness/lack of application etc.
So, for 'lost greats' I would argue:

Shahid Afridi (great bowler and handy batsman who can't seem to grab a place in the test team)
Jeff Thomson (one of the scariest bowlers but ACB didn't like him much either)
Dean Jones (double hundred in India said alot about what he was capable of - ACB didn't like him speaking out much)
Terry Alderman (did perform brilliantly - eg 41 wickets on '89 Ashes but never held his spot automatically like McGrath, Warne etc did)

On the topic of careers lost to Apartheid, surely Basil D'Oliveira qualifies?

... and what's with England and its litany of 'near greats'... Hick, Ramps, Vaughan, Trescothick(?)? Maybe it's just better for the Daily Mail to realize that they are just merely good, with a few one-off great performances.

One should not forget the great Waqar Younis...

Cricket, more so than a lot of any other sports, defines it's heroes and legends by statistics. If we are to be subjective then we must not let emotions cloud our judgement. Rather, let the cold harsh factual light of statistics hold court. In this regard one can not consider Flintoff a great.

Batting ave 0f 31 and a bowling average of 32

These figures do not highlight a legend of the game. A NZ sports writer wrote it best when he penned - Flintoff is not a great player, merely a good one capable of great deeds.

Greatness means established consistency, longevity of career and results against all comers.

I love watching Flintoff play but cannot in all good faith, label him a great

If we're discounting players like VVS, D.Martyn, Afridi and others who never realised what their talent suggested they could, and relying on those that 'missed' for other reasons:
Bruce Reid
Simon Jones
Marcus Trescothick
Taitendu Taibu
Stuart Macgill
Kim Hughes
Andy Flower
Fanni de Villiers
Keppler Wessels
Matthew Elliot

Dean Jones and Ian Bishop, who someone else mentioned above, are also great shouts.

Unfortunately a hell of a lot of players can qualify for this accolade. Mark Waugh was certainly one of the most outrageously talented batsmen I've ever seen, but just didn't have the same application to match his talent (a la David Gower). Waqar would be damn close to greatness ikon, although his late career injuries and lack of success against the strongest teams of his era may count against him (I'm not 100% certain on that though, feel free to porve me wrong). I must say Freddie has been highly glorified for his deeds during 2005, and even then I still think Simon Jones was the decisive English player of that series. Jacques Kallis is the best allrounder in the world and one of the best of the past 15 years. He is a genuine great.

A lot of players can command respect, but never quite have the same aura (If you can call it that) of someone who towers over the game like a Tendulkar or a Lara.

rahul dravid anil kumble are lost greats

dont forget sid barnes

Do perennial underachievers like Ramps and Hick qualify for near greats? Maybe they had the talent, but woeful records must suggest there was something missing. If they can be included, perhaps I can include myself: cruelly denied by technical deficiencies, mental fragility, and selectoral bias that never gave me the chance to shine beyond the neglected theatre of village thirds. But for those minor short-comings I could have been better than them all.

What about Darryl Cullinan? A batsman of great skill and elegance - until he met Shane Warne, when he became a rabbit in the headlights.

Gibbs, capable of chasing down a target of over 400 in 50 overs, one can only feel that he should have produced more innings of such quality, but has failed more times than he succedded, and therefore, could have been, but never will be, a great, i fear Ashraful might follow the same path, both batsmen, awesome to watch, but sadly, hardly deliver.

If Flintoff is considered great, then even Ishanth Sharma has to be considered great because of his spell in the Perth test 2008

Greatness lies squarely in longevity. We can real off lists upon lists of people who have touched greatness but weren't able, due to injury or loss of form, to grasp it for long periods of time.

No Freddie isn't a great of the game, like many have said, he is very good and on his day can tear a batting side to pieces however great bowlers were/are able to do it in all conditions, under all pressures and through the pain barrier, through pain barriers that have left mere mortals sidelined.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to pad up against Freddie at his best, but sooner him than Roberts, Garner, Lilley, Walsh, Marshall, Thompson, Akram, Holding, McGrath and friends, all true greats

Flintoff = a very good player who had great moments. Stats help to define the "greats": batting average over 50, wickets approaching 5 per test. These guys qualified as "great" more because of their consistency at top level. The Lost Greats never achieved the same consistency. Clearly injuries had the biggest effect on whether someone reached the "great" level. In some cases eg Hadlee, McGrath, one of their secrets was a bowling action so smooth that it minimised the chance of injury. They played more, & as a result achieved more. Of course, it's very hard to achieve "great" stats as an all rounder, usually these guys are outstanding at one aspect & merely good at the others.

im a little surprised dat basit ali's name didn't crop up here... hailed as the next javed miandad when he arrived, his decline was of d vinod kambli proportions...
n i dont understand how some people dont see the greatness that mark waugh possessed... just because he didn't make full use of his potential, it dusn't mean that he wasn't great...

Abdul Qadir. I don’t remember any other leg-spinner having the impact Qadir had during the 80’s though his name always seems to slip from the list of ‘greats’. Of course Warne took it to another level, but prior to Warne’s arrival on the scene Qadir was the only leg-spinner of substantial repute who kept the art of leg-spinning alive.
Saleem Malik. Controversy aside, the guy had immense talent.
David Boon. Tenacity and grit personified. Yet the tag ‘great’ missing.

@Shahid Saeed - I would consider Qadir a great, not a 'top 5' like Warney is, but certainly a great. You don't have to be the best to be great (we can all argue about who is better from Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting - but in the end, they're all great batsmen; none good captains).

As the author mentioned, I think players that squandered natural talent, or didn't reach their potential even though they had ample opportunity should be the subject of a separate list.

The Waugh brothers are interesting. M.Waugh is clearly the more natural, sublime, talented, elegant cricketer. S.Waugh wasn't that talented, and ugly to watch. Yet S.Waugh's grit, determination and resolve was second to none.

Who would you go to watch - M.Waugh; who do you want batting for your team - S.Waugh. S.Waugh overachieved, which puts him in the pantheon.

My nearly greats XI to beat any greatest ever XI
S Anwar, V Sehwag, R Kanhai, A De Silva, VVS Laxman, K Sangakkara (wk), A Flintoff, S Jones, S Akhtar, S Ramadhin, Mushtaq Ahmed

The key criteria for greatness is consistant performances over an extended period of time, taking into account the quality of the opposition and the conditions.

Lots have players have great years eg Vaughan when he was ranked 1 in the world or Harmison. But they were not consistant! Those purple patches were exceptions rather than the norm.

The greats eg, Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Border, Lara, Ambrose, McGrath, Warne etc, were dominant for >10 years.

As Michael Atherton summerised Flintoff was a good cricketer who had a great series in 2005.

Unfortunately for Flintoff the Injuries have always dirupted his flow. At his best he is as good as anyone but unfortunately its all been too rare to be judged as a great.

Well i don't ever for a moment think that Flintoff should be in the great list because he simply isn't that great is he. He is good,but not great. You cant judge a player by a one off performances. He has a bowling Avg of more than 32 and a batting Avg of 31. That's not great is it? he is an average batsman and a good bowler, thats all. That spell to Ponting in 2005 and the spell at Lords in 2009 are only his note worthy performances with the ball.(Kallis couldn't really see the ball because of the awkward sight screens) and he hasn't scored a century for 4 years. I cant even imagine that he is mentioned in this article, simply because he is not "Great" material. And as far as his test match span goes, if he cant establish himself as a great in 77 tests, do you really think playing a 100 can?? Its just the English press who has hyped up this "Good" cricketer.

I think some people are getting confused with the question. We are not talking about players who had a lot of potential but didn't fulfill it. Eg Chris Lewis, Vinod Kambli, Simon Jones, Graeme Hick. We are talking about very good cricketers who had very good international careers but couldn't quite make it from the grade of very good to great.
One cricketer that comes to mind is Darren Gough. Dazzler had some great attributes as a fast bowler and was Englands main weapon for a large part of the 1990s . Who can forget his hat trick against the Aussies. However he didn't take the wickets consistently enough or run through sides often enough as an Ambrose or Akram. Therefore he will be remebered as a very good bowler but falls short of greatness. Seems like a smashing bloke though.

The thing that frustrates me is how many people compare out and out bowlers with Flintoff. Freddie is an all rounder!! The only great all rounder of the modern day is probably Jacques Kallis, bearing in mind how injury and stupidity have robbed any Australians of the accolade. Form alone seems to take it away from Afridi, Pollock wasn't ever a good enough batsman for my liking.

Real all rounders like KD, Imran and Botham are greats

Where would you put Terry Alderman? My first memories of cricket involved hiding behind my hands watching his dobbers tear England to shreds. Javagal Srinath was a nearly too

the interesting thing is people are mentioning players that just seemed to fall short of expectations rather than were actually hindered.

Laxman never became a great because in the end, he just never played like one enough.

As for Dravid, what more could he have done with his career? he's not a great simply because he never quite had the qualities.

Azharuddin I do think falls into the lost great category. Something not quite right about his personality meant that we never really got to see a sustained assault on the cricketing world but at his best was sublime.

Stuart MacGill for obvious reasons.
Marcus Trescothic - depression is an illness.
...and from Left field:
Simon Katich would be one of Australia's great all-rounders if only he'd bowl!

I agree completely with the argument that Flintoff should not be regarded as "great".

I don't know how today's media would cope if they had an English all-rounder who took a five-for roughly every third match for the best part of a decade, and scored 14 hundreds (some from number 7) for good measure!

Let alone averaged about 20-25 more with bat than ball (Kallis, Sobers), or 15 more (Imran, Keith Miller).

I loved Lord's for what it was (a very good Test) and what it meant in the context of the Ashes. The subsequent lionising of Flintoff by the English media was almost as bad as the annual, year-long hype that accompanies our Premier League football.

Here is my lost greats eleven. Players who had much more promise and much more to offer than they did or had the opportunity of doing.Many of them being players from England in the past 20 years.

Barry Richards (unlucky-8000+ test runs material)
Marcus Trescothic (100+test match material)
Michael Vaughan(100+test match material)
Mark waugh (didnt do justice to his greatness. should and could have averaged more than 50 in tests)
Graeme Hick ( Too talented to have played so less in the International platform.His 1st class record speaks for his talent)
Andrew Flower (Unlucky to have not played 100+ tests)
Andrew Flintoff (100+ tests material and 400 test wickets atleast)
Saqlain mushtaq ( could have played much more (tests) for Pak and taken more wickets in tests)
Waqar younis ( could have played more test cricket and taken more test wickets)
Darren Gough(could have played more test cricket and taken more test wickets)
Shane bond could have played much much more

It is a little unfair to say collingwood is not great. He is probably the greatest fielder England ever had. And some of his one-day innings were great (remember the finals against aus trali). He still has 3-4 years - and he can be greater than Flintoff.
The reason why Flintoff is not a great is not because of his injuries, but because he has not performed well enough against certain strong teams and in certain conditions. And you have to do that to be considered great. Greatness is not about what one could have achieved! In that case, as some people have pointed out - hick, ramprakash were great.
I understand that the English like Flintoff (but the reasons are not only cricket, it is because he is a showman - similar to the way Beckham was worshipped). Is he a hero - yes; great? no; nearly great? no.

I would think that players whose careers were cut short due to injury or illness or other factors such as not representing a Test-playing nation, would qualify. Definitely not players such as Azharuddin or Aravinda De Silva or Jayasuriya who all had full careers. These 3 are good examples of players who failed to grab the opportunity and go on and become great. They all averaged less than 50 in tests and in any arguments during their playing days never figured in 'great' conversations.

I'm not sure why some people include Dravid and Kumble in this list. Dravid is one of the three greatest match-winning batsmen that India has produced and Kumble is the biggest match winner from India. There are no arguments with these two just as there are no arguments in the cases of Ponting, Steve Waugh, Ambrose, Akram etc.

Someone said Steve Tikolo and that's a legitimate name.

Inzamamul Haq.
How about this ex-cricketer from Pakistan? Test batting average of below 50. Only Pak player to have featured in all WC defeats V India, with hardly any runs to show. One who cowardly used to pull out of Series V Warne and McGrath complaining of a backache which only used to surface when those two great bowlers had him in sight.
A great or just a minnow-basher who had amazingly just a single century V Australia and SA combined in more than 150 Test and ODI outings? Yet to some Paks, he is not just a great, he is a "legend"!! Sentimental fools can arrogate to him such stature but to those who are not of the same nation, Inzamam was not even a true great. His manner of departure also left that stamp as he selfishly lobbied to play the Final Test V SA and merely extinguished his team's wining fortunes just as a a stunning series-levelling victory was on the horizon. Boycott amongst some mocked at the use of the word "great" about him by few Paks when Inzamam was retired.

That 'lost greats' would be more applicable to players who were denied greatness by circumstances and the presence of players more gifted than them.Barry Richards is one who readily comes to mind, there was Clive Rice,Taylor(Derbyshire wicketkeeper...the perfect keeper in living memory)Gary Gilmour etc...Flintoff is ,sorry, not realy great but occassionaly so.Ian Botham was truly great so was Imran Khan and Kapil Dev.Flintoff is never in the same class.A great or the 'lost great' is a match-winner.I wonder why the pundits forget Andersen's first innings effort at Lord's.That to my mind was the deciding factor not Flintoff.Sorry English fans!But you are getting carried away because your 'hero' is retiring.Andersen has been the best English bowler so far.

Clive Rice! Clive Rice! He was possibly the finest cricket captain SA has ever produced -- a great leader of men, a top performer, a shrewd commercial operator and a natural strategist. His career basically started the day after the apartheid ban started, and ended the day after the apartheid ban ended. His 1st class stats are amazing if you take into consideration when and where he played (much better than Ian Botham's or Kapil Dev's!). The test career that he missed is one of the great and neccessary sporting tradegies of apartheid!

For me its Basit Ali,An extremely gifted batsmen, the best Pakistan had after Javed and Salim Malik, but his career was cut short when he sided with Rashid Latif in match fixing allegations against Wasim and Co.

Going back just a bit in time, from the Indian batsmen, I would throw up:
GR Viswanath and Dilip Sardesai
and from the bowlers, EAS Prasanna and Subhash Gupte.

@ Sorcerer ... You are partially right about Inziman-ul-Haq, but dont forget that one of the measure of "greatness" is performing under pressure and Inzimam has won more matches for Pakistan playing in 4th innings than even Tendulkar.

Freddie Flintoff is quite simply the most admirable and charismatic English player since Botham and Gower. His ability to impose his will and personality on a game makes him one of the very few marquee players of this generation of players. However, his stats do not allow him to be rated in the "great" category but what enjoyment he has brought to fans all around the world (I am a West Indian). When Brian Lara retired he asked the Press and the audience "Did I entertain you?". As with Lara, the answer for Freddie is a resounding "YES!" and with style.

Ahhh...why's everyone bagging VVS. Who the hell cares about greatness or the definition of it if one can play like VVS even once in life. Only the perverse might label him as not great....his stats will get only better now that he plays only tests. Players like Hooper/Marto definitely qualify they never had a sustained period of excellence....may be Marto had for about year n half. Gundappa and Azhar also come readily to mind....It's heartbreaking to admit that Azhar was nearly man and not the whole thing...anyone who remembers Calcutta/Capetown wouldn't really be bothered about where he fits in the lists of greats or not so greats.

@Anil
Tendulkar (who is probably great)!! u gotta be kidding me... what kind a loser are u?

GREAT? Many, many players can and have played 'great' cricket. The ones that consistently do this are called 'great players'.
I think there is a huge difference between Great players and Legends of the game. Bradman, Sobers, Hutton, Warne, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar... go beyond great. Ponting, Marshall, Ambrose,Sunny, McGrath, Botham, Lillie, Khan, Murali, etc are GREAT players. Flintoff has played great cricket but not consistantly enough to be called a GREAT cricketer. He follows a long line of talented players never to make it to great...Hooper, Bishop, Kambli...etc
regards
Eddy

Stephen Fleming and Dion Nash and Nathan Astle. One was burdened with captaincy the other with injuries. There was nothing better than seeing Nash's follow through, he was almost parallel to the pitch.
Tatenda Taibu, Andy Flower and Neil Johnson
Justin Kemp and Lance Klusner( u cant forget him)
Vinod Kambli and Robin Singh
Azhar Mahmood and Saqlain Mushtaq
Romesh Kaluwitharana
There are so many more. They all would have hit greatness but for politics or unfortunate circumstances

Shahid afridi, just looking at his test statistics, why doesn't he get more opporunities ! I feel he would have been best suited to test cricket, rather than one day or 20/20, call me crazy, but i really hope he gets a chance to prove this.
Saeed Anwar, again due to a lack of opportunities in test cricket.
Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmad.
Rashid Latif, one of the best wicketkeepers ever, if only moin khan a much inferior keeper had not robbed him.
I saw waqar younis being mentioned, surely waqar is a great !? 300+ wickets at low 20s average and one of the best strike rates(low 40s) ever.

I find a few suggestions above quite bizarre. Why would waqar younis, kumble, azharuddin, arvinda de silva not be considered greats !?

Usman 55,The story of Inzamam's winning tons and fourth innings efforts unravels lopsidedly when you consider against which oppositions overall did he rack up those figures. The true measures of performing at the crunch are WC matches and secondly in Tests against the two toughest bowling lineups amongst opposition - SA and Australia. And Inzamam fails miserably on both counts. He was a very good batsman who had the potential to become a great but his love for petty politics, waving the religion flag, sloth and lack of professionalism (never respected the art of batting as he was not into the drudgery of doing long hours at nets, unlike Tendulkar etc.), love for oily and unhealthy food compounded to deprive Pak of a very high performer. In the end, it seems apt that the "stand" that was named after him in Gaddhafi Stadium is the tiniest one there which can seat hardly two hundred odd individuals, overshadowed by major ones named after the true greats of Pak cricket - Imran, Miandad etc

Eddy

Imran was not just a great - he was a true legend. One of the greatest ever skippers and bowlers, and a Test standard batsman - all rolled into one. How many cricketers in entire history can you name who were all-time greats in one discipline and of Test standard in the second? Only a handful at most. Imran though is an all-time great in two disciplines (bowling, captaincy) and of Test standard in the third (batting). Trailblazer in the art of genuine fast bowling in sub-continent and the protege of probably the finest fast bowling pair ever (Two Ws), Imran was even the team spokesman and the defacto coach! His bowling pre-eminence is well-known to everyone, but the fact that he held for a number of years the record of the highest batting average for a number 6 batsman in history - 62, until it has broken by Chanderpaul, is a fact which indicates what a genuine all-rounder Khan was.

Just wondering....can anyone justify how Victor Trumper with his mediocre batting stats can be termed a great? I find it hard to believe he could swing the bat more violently than Shahid Afridi if the pure joy of watching leather being thrashed around, albeit with inconsistency, is to be a yardstick. Mind you, Afridi is quite a decent bowler too.

Many of you have bashed flintoff's stats and labelled him good but not great, yes his stats are remotely near greatness, but look at the impact he has on the team, people label dhoni great, because he brings the best out of the team, flintoff is your guy to get the best out the team, to take the teams adrenalin to another level, he might not have scored a century for over 4 years, but look the champion bowler e been over this period, he has troubled batsmen even in India, the graveyard of all hit the deck bowlers, he has set up his partner at the other end for innumerable wickets, with constantly harassing spells. Somebody mentioned that dravid was not simply great, look at his stats, they almost parallel sachin's, just he was not the entertainer that sachin is, but friends fredie is an entertainer and a great too

hey there was this guy from zimbawe called Neil Johnson, potential to be real great, just faced wrath of disorder in zimbawe

Lets not forget Saeed Anwer, he got derailed by the untimely death of his young daughter and found refuge in religion. I don't think anyone could ever forget his 196, the highest score in a one day ever, and the three sixes in an over to another great Anil Kumble in that same innings.

The best way to term the cricketers as great is through segregating them through different eras or decades that is probably the way to identify the greats. Some these would be greats would find themself in either of the criterias. Such as Flintoff seems a great player however his fitness has dogged him throughout his career. Vinod Kambli and Azharuddin would have found the place in the 90's. Some of the greats would have been termed as great for a brief specific period such as some greats did not start off well but did very well in the long run and some did the opposite.

How can someone with a test match batting average of 31 and a bowling average of 34 be considered great?? Flintoff must be the most over rated cricketer around, well def. in the top 10 anyway.

Surely statistics means it all? or does it... Many South Africans were denied the chance to be 'great'. If Flintoff is the greatest allrounder around then Kallis and Pollock must be the greatest that ever lived. It's like comparing the Rolling Stones and the Beatles to the bloody Spice Girls!!!

Just a thought ... if a nearly great is someone who was prevented from reaching his full potential by injury or political isolation, then what do you make of a Lillee, who was knocked out of the game for both reasons - first time because of a debilitating back injury, and second time because of World Series Cricket. He had to reinvent his bowling action to survive beyond his injury, and yet became an even better bowler. Is there therefore an extra dimension to greatness (ie, the ability not to avoid misfortune, but to excel in the face of it) that separates a Lillee from a Flintoff?

Haven't looked through the whole blog it seems that the concensus is that Flintoff clearly just missus on greatness, whereas Botham clearly is great. However IB only averaged 33.54 with the Bat to AF's 31.71. And with the Ball 28.40 to AF's 32.17. Not so far apart? Is time a factor here, will the passing of time increase his value? I disagree with a number of posts that consistency and stats only tell the story and ultimately this makes a 'great'. Don't greats inspire? Don't greats make the next generation pick up a bat? How many obviously 'great' people in the world have never neccesarily been consistent but have done a few things that have inspired the world and moved people forward. I'm not saying Flintoff is one of these. But great cannot be judged by maths, but by their overall affect which can't be measured by a spreadsheet.
Van Gough's stats where aweful, sold one painting before he died. Churchill was inconsistant, great in wartime, not so good peace time, both great.

Laxman Sivaramakrishnan, Sadanand Vishwanath, Irfan Pathan (might be too early to write him off)

Hansie Cronje..a fantastic captain and great batsman..if only he had not taken the money from the bookie his career would not have been pre maturely ended.
Peter Kirsten is another who rubs shoulders with Clive Rice.

@Pirate
Bowling averages of 28.40 (Botham) and 32.17 (Flintoff) are quite different. Usually bowling average of under 30 is considered good for a longish career whereas 30+ is average. The batting average is less so (being separated by only 2). But if you probe little deeper and take a look at two career stats when these two player can be compared; at the age of 31 Botham's superiority shows significantly. I am taking the averages till last test match played by Botham in 1986 (He was then 31 and played 88 test matches, Botham's stats were even better at the end of 77th test). Till then he avegared 27.04 with ball and 35.36 with bat. That is an excess of difference of 5 with ball and close to 4 with bat. Point is, Botham's records worsened towards end so would have Flintoff's. So, Botham makes the grade as a great and Flintoff doesn't.

Flintoffy cant take wickets against right-handers and could not cut it when bowling in Australia. The wickets suit him in the uk so I rate him as a flake.

Pirate: totally agree with you there. And Simir, you've put the debate in the right context here.
Greatness is an indelible quality which some have and watching them you just know they have.
Who are the greatest judges of Greatness?
The Greats.
What do the Greats say?
That Flintoff, at his best, is Great.
Again, that does not mean that his career is Great. However, when he's been at his best, he's Great.
What is watching cricket about? Is it sitting there with a calculator working out what this test innings or that bowling spell will do for his averages and where it will put him in the books?
Statistics and records are a part, and there's pleasure in that for a lover of the game and it's history. But is it the reason we watch?
I have to say no. It is for the great battles, the epics,the great tests and series, the innings or spells which turn a great test and series. And the way it's done - that's the indelible quality and the seal of this standard for me.

Marcus Trescothic - On his way to being better than Gooch (who's many people's opener in all-time England XI). His fitness problem has probably hurt England more than Vaughan's knee.

Mike Procter, a lost great. Had he played a full complement of Tests would have secured his place in cricket history as an all-rounder and possible leader.

From the distant past, another 'lost great' would have to be Aubrey Faulkner. So 'lost' was he that he was not even mentioned in a Cricinfo competition some years ago on All-rounders, even after averages of 40 plus with bat and 26 plus with ball, quite good for a LBG AR.

Vinod Kambli?

Umm why is everyone here speaking as if greatness is some barrier a player must cross and this Great Players Cricket Club ? Greatness is in the eye of the beholder ! The same thing that quantifies something as beautiful to one person may be ugly to another. A Great player doesn't have to get top stats and be lauded around the world, he has to have achieved something significant enough that he has gained the adulation of a very large group. He may not be universally considered great but Flintoff has achieved greatness to quite a number of people even though this narrow minded writer doesn't think so. To each his own I guess.

Its easier for a paleface to enter the kingdom of greatness than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Barry Richards, that four tests at home wonder, was the greatest OK.

Aravinda de Silva and Arjuna Ranatunga. Though both were exceptional players they are not talked about when you talk about greats. Maybe because they came in an era when Sri Lanka were not a top class team, but hey then these guys did make Sri Lanka a great team. So for me both are greats. The other name I would say is of Saeed Anwar. As far as batting goes the four names that comes to mind are Aravinda, Inzy, Saeed and Mark Waugh. Though these guys are as good or even better than some of the greats they dont have the numbers.

Among bowlers I feel Ian Bishop, Javagal Srinath, Abdul Qadir all missed out.

The first lost Great that comes to mind, if any is Md. Azharuddin. He certainly was and still remians the best, aesthetically speaking, batsmen I've ever seen in my lifetime. Although one could argue that he did reach great proportions, over 9,000 ODI runs and 6000+ Test runs at over 45, but given his immense talent, one can sure conclude that he fell short og his full potential. The two others that come to mind instantly from previous generations are the South Africans, Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock. Their records speak for themselves. Others on my list probably include, Michael Holding and Stuart MacGill.

Stuart McGill will be in this group. He was probably the 2nd best wrist spinner in the world for over a decade and took 200 hundread test wickets. But he was unfortunate enough to play his best cricket in the same time and place as Shane Warne.

team wise 'the would have been greats'

Australia: Damien Martyn
New zealand: Shane Bond
West Indies: Ian bishop
England: Marcus Treschothik/Simon jones
India: Javagal Srinath
Pakistan: Saeed Anwar

John Snow would be on my list. He was destructive and exciting to watch on his day, but played far less test cricket than he should have, partly due to problems with the establishment. I'd have loved to have seen him if he had gone to Australia in 1974/5, and he might have achieved 350 to 400 wickets with a full career.
Lawrence Rowe was regarded as supremely talented, but his grass allergy amongst other things curtailed what should have been a great career stats wise.
Colin Milburn could have been very good if he had not had the unfortunate car accident.
Jeff Thomson was not quite the ferocious bowler he had been after his shoulder injury in 1975 I think - imagine the results of a few more years of him at 1974 pace!
I agree with including Barry Richards and Mike Proctor, add Eddie Barlow, the Pollocks, Clive Rice and Vincent Van de Bijl to that list.
Trescothick I believe should be there too. Simon Jones was great in 2005 - would he have continued that form if injury free?

Vinod Kambli
Ajit Agarkar(ridiculously gifted with both bat and bowl. One he was Unlucky - i read a article in cricinfo that he needed to beat the batsman 17 times to get a wicket - the highest of all bowlers. Secondly because of the country he played in. Cricketers or for that matter any one else do not get any assistance in terms of fitness,technique etc. He was bandied about as the saviour of Indian cricket in 2000 and chastised the next)
Ian Bishop(injury)
Geoff Allot(injury)
Murray Goodwin(political turmoil)
Neil Johnson(political turmoil)

Greatness is bandied about too often especially in cricket.Taking for example football, which is a larger world than that of cricket, there's Pele and Maradona over a century.
In cricket though we fail to seperate the greatness from being able to play elegantly or having a good average.What makes Tendulkar and Lara great is they redefined batting, overcame injuries and playing in a weak team(Tendulkar carried the batting for most of the 90s).Ponting might have a very good record but he has not played a single innings that is going to be written about 10-20 years from now and he neither possesses the aura or elegance prerequisite to greatness.