Sport Today

by **Prakash Melwan** » Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:54:59

David Frith, who was the founder of Wisden Cricket Monthly and editor from
1979-96 has rubbished Wisden's listing of 100 best batting and bowling
performances released on July 26, calling it an"ignorant compilation".

Frith who is widely regarded as an authority on cricket when asked for his
reaction to the Wisden list said in an e-mail that, " Sachin Tendulkar's
total omission cannot be justified; He is second only to Bradman in the
perception of many.

Who is responsible for wasting so many people's time with this ignorant
compilation?"

Tendulkar's omission from the list of 100 best batting performances has
shocked many cricket fans around the world and has resulted in outrage in
the Indian media.

"Who cares if he is not there in top 100 list of best innings. He tops the
top 10 list of making this game interesting," a cricket fan Alok Morwale
said in a mail to go4cricket.com.

Frith has listed McCabe's 187 not out in the Bodyline series, Hammond's 240
at Lord's in 1938, Turner's 259 at Georgetown among the notable omissions by
Wisden.

The author of books like Pageant of cricket, The Fast Men also says that
Jessop's 1902 century ranked at no 36 in the Wisden list was carefully
evaluated about 20 years ago and was ranked at the top.

Among the list of Indian players in the Wisden list is VVS Laxman's 281
against Australia early this year and Anil Kumble's 10 wickets against
Pakistan in 1998-9 season.

The analysis was done using a system of indices based on pitch conditions,
strength of the opposition, conditions under which the game or innings was
played and other such factors.

As the debate rages it is quite likely that the methodology used by Wisden
will be questioned.

There are various methods of ratings being used worldwide to assess the real
calibre of innings.

A ratings system by Price Waterhouse has Tendulkar has been ranked first.
The Wisden ratings differs in the sense that it looks at individual innings
and not at the corpus of a work put in by a batsman or bowler.

by **Rocky Raccoo** » Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:53:59

Quote:

> Who is responsible for wasting so many people's time with this ignorant
> compilation?"

Ananth Narayanan.

by **Ravi Krish** » Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:08:12

Quote:

>The author of books like Pageant of cricket, The Fast Men also says that

The Fast Men is a terrific book. It talks about fast bowlers
from the first cricket test match and ending with Michael Holding
in 1976 (since that edition of the book was published in 1976).

The chapter on Indian fast bowlers is very interesting. After a brief
introduction of Amar Singh and Modh Nissar it says

"Is is indeed fortunate that, India after such a promising start
had a virtual drought of fast bowlers. After Amar Singh and Mohd. Nissar
the country had the misfortune to see the likes of Tiny Ramakant Desai
and Phadkar, slow Surti and Abid Ali and these days Madan Lal. All of
them an apology for fast bowlers and were primarily taken to take
the shine off the ball, or for their batting skills".

{ I am quoting this off the hat. Read that book 20 yrs ago }

RK-

by **Jan Buxto** » Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:07:38

Quote:

> Frith has listed McCabe's 187 not out in the Bodyline series,
Hammond's 240
> at Lord's in 1938, Turner's 259 at Georgetown among the notable
omissions by
> Wisden.

Athers 185* as well and I believe there is only one Swaugh inning.
Seeing Saeed Anwar in there a couple of times and Azhar/Botham quite
high there is maybe too much emphasis on the rate of scoring in whatever
formula was used. This is just a hypothesis and no doubt somebody on
here could disprove it.

--
Jan

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:15:35

Quote:

> David Frith, who was the founder of Wisden Cricket Monthly and editor from
> 1979-96 has rubbished Wisden's listing of 100 best batting and bowling
> performances released on July 26, calling it an"ignorant compilation".

> Frith who is widely regarded as an authority on cricket when asked for his
> reaction to the Wisden list said in an e-mail that, " Sachin Tendulkar's
> total omission cannot be justified; He is second only to Bradman in the
> perception of many.

> Who is responsible for wasting so many people's time with this ignorant
> compilation?"

> Tendulkar's omission from the list of 100 best batting performances has
> shocked many cricket fans around the world and has resulted in outrage in
> the Indian media.
> "Who cares if he is not there in top 100 list of best innings. He tops the
> top 10 list of making this game interesting," a cricket fan Alok Morwale
> said in a mail to go4cricket.com.

> Frith has listed McCabe's 187 not out in the Bodyline series, Hammond's
240
> at Lord's in 1938, Turner's 259 at Georgetown among the notable omissions
by
> Wisden.

Although I didn't see Turner's innings, a grand total of ten wickets fell in
443 overs in that match. Throughout the series two very moderate bowling
attacks were unable to make much impression on very easy batting pitches.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> The author of books like Pageant of cricket, The Fast Men also says that
> Jessop's 1902 century ranked at no 36 in the Wisden list was carefully
> evaluated about 20 years ago and was ranked at the top.

> Among the list of Indian players in the Wisden list is VVS Laxman's 281
> against Australia early this year and Anil Kumble's 10 wickets against
> Pakistan in 1998-9 season.

> The analysis was done using a system of indices based on pitch conditions,
> strength of the opposition, conditions under which the game or innings was
> played and other such factors.

> As the debate rages it is quite likely that the methodology used by Wisden
> will be questioned.

> There are various methods of ratings being used worldwide to assess the
real
> calibre of innings.

> A ratings system by Price Waterhouse has Tendulkar has been ranked first.
> The Wisden ratings differs in the sense that it looks at individual
innings
> and not at the corpus of a work put in by a batsman or bowler.

There are several references here as to why Tendulkar should be in the
Wisden list, yet you don't give a single example of a great innings which
should be included

The main question the Wisden list raises in my mind is why people seem to be
unable to understand the difference between a list of greatest innings and a
list of greatest players. I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith
selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material you
have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
either, which I can't imagine is the case.

Andrew

by **Moby** » Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:30:33

On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Prakash Melwani submitted to the Inquisition's torture...:

Quote:

> David Frith, who was the founder of Wisden Cricket Monthly and editor from
> 1979-96 has rubbished Wisden's listing of 100 best batting and bowling
> performances released on July 26, calling it an"ignorant compilation".

> Frith who is widely regarded as an authority on cricket when asked for his
> reaction to the Wisden list said in an e-mail that, " Sachin Tendulkar's
> total omission cannot be justified; He is second only to Bradman in the
> perception of many.

<snip>

Quote:

> Frith has listed McCabe's 187 not out in the Bodyline series, Hammond's 240
> at Lord's in 1938, Turner's 259 at Georgetown among the notable omissions by
> Wisden.

Ah.. So which ones does Mr Frith feel should be removed?

The problem with lists of 10 or 100 is that there are only 10 or 100
places.

Moby.

by **samarth harish sha** » Tue, 31 Jul 2001 14:35:53

<snip>

Quote:

> There are several references here as to why Tendulkar should be in the
> Wisden list, yet you don't give a single example of a great innings which
> should be included

I don't think there is any. There are a couple that might qualify as being
among the top 10 of the 1990s. Perhaps one that might qualify as being
among the top 10 of the 1980s, although you'd have to be a biased Indian
fan to think so. But, I can think of 10 or even 20 innings better than his
best. (Don't know abt 100 - my cricketing knowledge is not that vast.)

Quote:

> The main question the Wisden list raises in my mind is why people seem to be
> unable to understand the difference between a list of greatest innings and a
> list of greatest players.

Agreed. I'm not sure, though, that the two things are completely
unrelated. Because, I wonder if Tendulkar is the only all-time great
batsman to *not* figure on that list. I wonder if Tendulkar is an all-time
great batsman, even. Does the absence of an all-time great knock affect
his claim to all-time greatness?

I'd like to take a look at the list, in any case. I wonder how many
batsmen with an average of over 50 or 55 *don't* have their names on that
list. I wonder if SMG, the only Indian to be a very likely candidate in an
all-time world XI, appears on the list.

Clearly, because VVS Laxman appears on the list, it doesn't make him a
great batsman. But does the fact that Tendulkar *not* appear on the list
make him any less great than he would otherwise be, considering his record
otherwise, his 55+ average, the dozens of very good though not great
innigns he's played, etc.?

-Samarth.

I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith

Quote:

> selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material you
> have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
> either, which I can't imagine is the case.

> Andrew

by **Raj** » Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:13:29

Quote:

> <snip>

> > There are several references here as to why Tendulkar should be in the
> > Wisden list, yet you don't give a single example of a great innings
which
> > should be included

> I don't think there is any. There are a couple that might qualify as being
> among the top 10 of the 1990s. Perhaps one that might qualify as being
> among the top 10 of the 1980s, although you'd have to be a biased Indian
> fan to think so. But, I can think of 10 or even 20 innings better than his
> best. (Don't know abt 100 - my cricketing knowledge is not that vast.)

> > The main question the Wisden list raises in my mind is why people seem
to be
> > unable to understand the difference between a list of greatest innings
and a
> > list of greatest players.

> Agreed. I'm not sure, though, that the two things are completely
> unrelated. Because, I wonder if Tendulkar is the only all-time great
> batsman to *not* figure on that list. I wonder if Tendulkar is an all-time
> great batsman, even. Does the absence of an all-time great knock affect
> his claim to all-time greatness?

> I'd like to take a look at the list, in any case. I wonder how many
> batsmen with an average of over 50 or 55 *don't* have their names on that
> list. I wonder if SMG, the only Indian to be a very likely candidate in an
> all-time world XI, appears on the list.

I read somewhere that SMG does appear twice in the list (for his 220+ at The
Oval ,1979 and
230+ against the Windies (Madras 1983). Kapil has one, GRV has one too.

Quote:

> Clearly, because VVS Laxman appears on the list, it doesn't make him a
> great batsman. But does the fact that Tendulkar *not* appear on the list
> make him any less great than he would otherwise be, considering his record
> otherwise, his 55+ average, the dozens of very good though not great
> innigns he's played, etc.?

Not necessarily. At least for the reason that his career is not over yet. He
another 7-8 years left and who knows
he may finally produce one. I personally don't care if any of his innings is
in top 100 or not. They are worth watching for the way he plays his shots.

Raj

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> -Samarth.

> I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith
> > selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material
you
> > have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
> > either, which I can't imagine is the case.

> > Andrew

by **Govand** » Wed, 01 Aug 2001 07:40:20

harish shah says...

Quote:

><snip>

>> There are several references here as to why Tendulkar should be in the
>> Wisden list, yet you don't give a single example of a great innings which
>> should be included

>I don't think there is any. There are a couple that might qualify as being
>among the top 10 of the 1990s. Perhaps one that might qualify as being
>among the top 10 of the 1980s, although you'd have to be a biased Indian
>fan to think so. But, I can think of 10 or even 20 innings better than his
>best. (Don't know abt 100 - my cricketing knowledge is not that vast.)

>> The main question the Wisden list raises in my mind is why people seem to be
>> unable to understand the difference between a list of greatest innings and a
>> list of greatest players.

>Agreed. I'm not sure, though, that the two things are completely
>unrelated. Because, I wonder if Tendulkar is the only all-time great
>batsman to *not* figure on that list. I wonder if Tendulkar is an all-time
>great batsman, even. Does the absence of an all-time great knock affect
>his claim to all-time greatness?

>I'd like to take a look at the list, in any case. I wonder how many
>batsmen with an average of over 50 or 55 *don't* have their names on that
>list. I wonder if SMG, the only Indian to be a very likely candidate in an
>all-time world XI, appears on the list.

Here are those batsmen with 50+ averages (great?) who missed out on the list.

H Sutcliffe
E Paynter
KF Barrington
ED Weekes
SR Tendulkar
JB Hobbs
CL Walcott
GE Tyldesley
CL Davis
Vinod Ganpat Kambli
AC Gilchrist
J Miandad
A Flower
MS Sinclair
DCS Compton

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>Clearly, because VVS Laxman appears on the list, it doesn't make him a
>great batsman. But does the fact that Tendulkar *not* appear on the list
>make him any less great than he would otherwise be, considering his record
>otherwise, his 55+ average, the dozens of very good though not great
>innigns he's played, etc.?

>-Samarth.

>I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith
>> selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material you
>> have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
>> either, which I can't imagine is the case.

>> Andrew

by **samarth harish sha** » Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:01:27

<snip>

Quote:

> >I'd like to take a look at the list, in any case. I wonder how many
> >batsmen with an average of over 50 or 55 *don't* have their names on that
> >list. I wonder if SMG, the only Indian to be a very likely candidate in an
> >all-time world XI, appears on the list.

> Here are those batsmen with 50+ averages (great?) who missed out on the list.

Thanks a heap. Very interesting list. There's no doubt in my mind that the
likes of Sutcliffe, Barrington, Weekes, Hobbs, Walcott, Compton and
Miandad qualify as great. So, Tendulkar is in very good company.

I am surprised not one of Gilchrist's 3 test 100s has found a place in the
top 100. I don't claim to know everything abt all the innings ever played,
but I think Gilchrist should count himself even more unlucky than
Tendulkar to not be on the list.

I have heard a lot about Sir Jack Hobbs' 100 vs Australia at Headingley in
1926, BTW, so I'm also surprised that innings doesn't figure in the list.

I would assume thus that not having played one of the great knocks of all
time doesn't preclude one from being one of the greatest batsmen of all
time. Otherwise, The Master himself wouldn't qualify, what to say of
Tendulkar!

-Samarth.

Quote:

> H Sutcliffe
> E Paynter
> KF Barrington
> ED Weekes
> SR Tendulkar
> JB Hobbs
> CL Walcott
> GE Tyldesley
> CL Davis
> Vinod Ganpat Kambli
> AC Gilchrist
> J Miandad
> A Flower
> MS Sinclair
> DCS Compton

> >Clearly, because VVS Laxman appears on the list, it doesn't make him a
> >great batsman. But does the fact that Tendulkar *not* appear on the list
> >make him any less great than he would otherwise be, considering his record
> >otherwise, his 55+ average, the dozens of very good though not great
> >innigns he's played, etc.?

> >-Samarth.

> >I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith
> >> selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material you
> >> have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
> >> either, which I can't imagine is the case.

> >> Andrew

by **Govand** » Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:37:05

harish shah says...

Quote:

><snip>

>> >I'd like to take a look at the list, in any case. I wonder how many
>> >batsmen with an average of over 50 or 55 *don't* have their names on that
>> >list. I wonder if SMG, the only Indian to be a very likely candidate in an
>> >all-time world XI, appears on the list.

>> Here are those batsmen with 50+ averages (great?) who missed out on the list.

>Thanks a heap. Very interesting list. There's no doubt in my mind that the
>likes of Sutcliffe, Barrington, Weekes, Hobbs, Walcott, Compton and
>Miandad qualify as great. So, Tendulkar is in very good company.

Tendulkar and Barrington seem to be in the same mould, workmanlike consistency.
BTW, just checking records of Weekes and Walcott. Walcott home average 70 away
average 40. Is that Great? And Weekes has to be the biggest weak attack bully in
history, he scored a century almost every innings he played in India and NZ,
easily the weakest attacks in late 40s early 50s (something like todays Zim and
BD), but fared extremely poorly in Eng (avg 30) and Australia (avg 25). Miandad
has a poor record in WI, Australia, SL and also Zim, I would stop short of
calling him great.

Quote:

>I am surprised not one of Gilchrist's 3 test 100s has found a place in the
>top 100. I don't claim to know everything abt all the innings ever played,
>but I think Gilchrist should count himself even more unlucky than
>Tendulkar to not be on the list.

I am surprised by your comment. Gilchrist with only 3 test centuries in some 20
tests unluckier than SRT? Gilchrist's centuries came in the company of another
batsman/men getting runs, so that worked against him.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>I have heard a lot about Sir Jack Hobbs' 100 vs Australia at Headingley in
>1926, BTW, so I'm also surprised that innings doesn't figure in the list.

>I would assume thus that not having played one of the great knocks of all
>time doesn't preclude one from being one of the greatest batsmen of all
>time. Otherwise, The Master himself wouldn't qualify, what to say of
>Tendulkar!

>-Samarth.

>> H Sutcliffe
>> E Paynter
>> KF Barrington
>> ED Weekes
>> SR Tendulkar
>> JB Hobbs
>> CL Walcott
>> GE Tyldesley
>> CL Davis
>> Vinod Ganpat Kambli
>> AC Gilchrist
>> J Miandad
>> A Flower
>> MS Sinclair
>> DCS Compton

>> >Clearly, because VVS Laxman appears on the list, it doesn't make him a
>> >great batsman. But does the fact that Tendulkar *not* appear on the list
>> >make him any less great than he would otherwise be, considering his record
>> >otherwise, his 55+ average, the dozens of very good though not great
>> >innigns he's played, etc.?

>> >-Samarth.

>> >I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith
>> >> selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material you
>> >> have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
>> >> either, which I can't imagine is the case.

>> >> Andrew

by **samarth harish sha** » Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:14:45

Quote:

> harish shah says...

> ><snip>

> >> >I'd like to take a look at the list, in any case. I wonder how many
> >> >batsmen with an average of over 50 or 55 *don't* have their names on that
> >> >list. I wonder if SMG, the only Indian to be a very likely candidate in an
> >> >all-time world XI, appears on the list.

> >> Here are those batsmen with 50+ averages (great?) who missed out on the list.

> >Thanks a heap. Very interesting list. There's no doubt in my mind that the
> >likes of Sutcliffe, Barrington, Weekes, Hobbs, Walcott, Compton and
> >Miandad qualify as great. So, Tendulkar is in very good company.

> Tendulkar and Barrington seem to be in the same mould, workmanlike consistency.
> BTW, just checking records of Weekes and Walcott. Walcott home average 70 away
> average 40. Is that Great? And Weekes has to be the biggest weak attack bully in
> history, he scored a century almost every innings he played in India and NZ,
> easily the weakest attacks in late 40s early 50s (something like todays Zim and
> BD), but fared extremely poorly in Eng (avg 30) and Australia (avg 25). Miandad
> has a poor record in WI, Australia, SL and also Zim, I would stop short of
> calling him great.

Thanks. I had not really looked up the stats, just gone by what I read and
heard abt Weekes, Walcott and Miandad. Perhaps they don't belong in the
"great" category, as you say, but my point is made even without them -
surely, Hobbs, Compton, Sutcliffe and Barrington still constitute very
elite company.

Quote:

> >I am surprised not one of Gilchrist's 3 test 100s has found a place in the
> >top 100. I don't claim to know everything abt all the innings ever played,
> >but I think Gilchrist should count himself even more unlucky than
> >Tendulkar to not be on the list.

> I am surprised by your comment. Gilchrist with only 3 test centuries in some 20
> tests unluckier than SRT? Gilchrist's centuries came in the company of another
> batsman/men getting runs, so that worked against him.

Yes, I guess that is one minus-point in Gilly's 100s. But considering the
situation of the game when these 100s came and the *way* they were made
(unbelievable counter-attacking hitting from a not too advantageous
position), surely this minus-point is offset.

By saying Gilchrist is a shade unluckier than Tendulkar, I'm not trying to
imply he's a better batsman or anything. I'm only saying that he has as
many, or perhaps more candidate 100s than Tendulkar to be on that list. I
rate Tendulkar's 136 at Madras and the 169 at Capetown as his best 2 100s.
And I think Gilchrist's first 2 100s were at least as good as these two.
IMHO, of course.

Of course, Tendulkar has 20-something other 100s while Gilchrist only has
1 other, but the list only rates the innings themselves, not what else the
player in question has done.

-Samarth.

>

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >I have heard a lot about Sir Jack Hobbs' 100 vs Australia at Headingley in
> >1926, BTW, so I'm also surprised that innings doesn't figure in the list.

> >I would assume thus that not having played one of the great knocks of all
> >time doesn't preclude one from being one of the greatest batsmen of all
> >time. Otherwise, The Master himself wouldn't qualify, what to say of
> >Tendulkar!

> >-Samarth.

> >> H Sutcliffe
> >> E Paynter
> >> KF Barrington
> >> ED Weekes
> >> SR Tendulkar
> >> JB Hobbs
> >> CL Walcott
> >> GE Tyldesley
> >> CL Davis
> >> Vinod Ganpat Kambli
> >> AC Gilchrist
> >> J Miandad
> >> A Flower
> >> MS Sinclair
> >> DCS Compton

> >> >Clearly, because VVS Laxman appears on the list, it doesn't make him a
> >> >great batsman. But does the fact that Tendulkar *not* appear on the list
> >> >make him any less great than he would otherwise be, considering his record
> >> >otherwise, his 55+ average, the dozens of very good though not great
> >> >innigns he's played, etc.?

> >> >-Samarth.

> >> >I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith
> >> >> selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material you
> >> >> have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
> >> >> either, which I can't imagine is the case.

> >> >> Andrew

by **Ravi Krish** » Wed, 01 Aug 2001 11:25:42

Quote:

>Is that Great? And Weekes has to be the biggest weak attack bully in
>history, he scored a century almost every innings he played in India and
>NZ,
>easily the weakest attacks in late 40s early 50s (something like todays Zim
>and
>BD), but fared extremely poorly in Eng (avg 30) and Australia (avg 25).

Years (rather decades ago) I read about Everton Weeks:-
"his confidence against medium pace and spinners was unshakeable".

At that time I thought the sentence construction was bit odd, or may
be I failed to catch the sarcasm. Now, given the above 'facts'
everything falls in place.

RK-

by **Mike Holman** » Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:50:43

Quote:

>> I am surprised by your comment. Gilchrist with only 3 test centuries in some 20
>> tests unluckier than SRT? Gilchrist's centuries came in the company of another
>> batsman/men getting runs, so that worked against him.

>Yes, I guess that is one minus-point in Gilly's 100s. But considering the
>situation of the game when these 100s came and the *way* they were made
>(unbelievable counter-attacking hitting from a not too advantageous
>position), surely this minus-point is offset.

336/5 in reply to 294 all out is a not too advantageous position?

Cheers,

Mike

by **samarth harish sha** » Thu, 02 Aug 2001 02:06:53

Quote:

> >> I am surprised by your comment. Gilchrist with only 3 test centuries in some 20
> >> tests unluckier than SRT? Gilchrist's centuries came in the company of another
> >> batsman/men getting runs, so that worked against him.

> >Yes, I guess that is one minus-point in Gilly's 100s. But considering the
> >situation of the game when these 100s came and the *way* they were made
> >(unbelievable counter-attacking hitting from a not too advantageous
> >position), surely this minus-point is offset.

> 336/5 in reply to 294 all out is a not too advantageous position?

1. In the portion of my post that you, it seems, didn't read and snipped
away, I indicated that I was mostly talking of his first 2 100s.

2. Now that you mention it, a lead of 42 for a team that is going to bat
last is only a slight advantage i.e. not too advantageous a position. If
Gilly had gone cheaply, Australia been dismissed for under 400 and England
made 250 in the second knock, things might have been different. 150 in the
4th innings is tricky for any team and the Aussies - at least
pre-record-breaking-streak - were known to be vulnerable in 4th innings
chases. Mind you, 250 was not an unrealistic ask of England because they
made 300 in their first knock with a major contribution coming from the
lower order.

-Samarth.

Sport Today

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings

Former Wisden editor David Frith rubbishes Wisden rankings