Vote for the greatest of Wisden's five cricketers of the century

[C_C]

Who would you rather have in your cricket team? Sobers or Bradman. That is how you shuld base the best cricketer. It seems as if you are just clutching at something that just doesn't make any logical sense, to try for some reason to dethrone bradman as the King of cricket.

And i said i would rather have Sobers in the team than bradman ( ideally i would have them BOTH).
Why ? Because Sobers was a hall of famer batsman, hall of famer fielder and an excellent bowler.
Bradman was the greatest human being to pick up a bat but utter mastery in one outta the three disciplines doesnt cut it for me, when compared to top 1% in terms of batting and fielding and maybe top 10% in terms of bowling.

Bradman's contributions ends with the bat....Sobers on the other hand, contributes stellarly in every discipline of cricket.... you get Bradman for Zero and he is neutralised. You get Sobers for Zero and he might still get a 5-fer with the ball, save 20-30 runs in the field with his athleticism and hold on to a few stunners to swing the match your way.
Simple as that.
Bradman may be the king to the Aussie-English posse but to the rest of the cricket world, Sobers is the popular choice ( and justifiably so) when it comes to the ultimate cricketer and the king of cricket. Infact, i would pick Sobers and Imran Khan before ANY other player for my XI, be it bradman or Murali.

Besides, Bradman scored his runs in the amatuer era and against bowling which were several notches below the bowling of the 60s,70s,80s,90s and early 2000s....I am not convinced at all that he would average anything more than 70-75 in the modern era of professionalism.
The game was easy-paced then and not as physically demanding....simply because most players didnt exert that much, didnt take the game as seriously and that is evidenced by oh-so-many 40+ players playing the game back then...in the professional era a player is lucky if he makes it past 37-38.
Kinda gives you an idea of the 'competitiveness' of the field when 9 outta 10 players back then who were 'good enough to play test cricket' continued playing test/FC cricket till their mid 40s despite the fact that they were less physically fit and capable and had inferior nutritional standards.

 

[andyc]

Besides, Bradman scored his runs in the amatuer era and against bowling which were several notches below the bowling of the 60s,70s,80s,90s and early 2000s....I am not convinced at all that he would average anything more than 70-75 in the modern era of professionalism.

Don't go there. Bradman was a legend and would average the same, probably more, in this era. Look at the size of the bloody bats we use, he'd be spanking every ball to the boundary. I fail to see how the bowling of Bodyline was 'amatuer,' and 'several notches below' current bowling.


Bradman for me without a shadow of a doubt

 

[archie mac]

I think Sobers one of the all time greats, but just to make a couple of points.
Sobers ave. with the ball is nothing to flash, would he have played all those Tests if he could not bat?

Also Bradman was a fine out fielder especially early in his career.

I would also give Bradman the nod as a captain.

C_C you already know what I think of your old time players would not last in the modern era theory.

 

[C_C]

Don't go there. Bradman was a legend and would average the same, probably more, in this era. Look at the size of the bloody bats we use, he'd be spanking every ball to the boundary. I fail to see how the bowling of Bodyline was 'amatuer,' and 'several notches below' current bowling.


Bradman for me without a shadow of a doubt

Bulldust.
Average more probably from 2002 onwards but facing Harold Larwood is chump change compared to facing Wasim Akram or Curtley Ambrose.
Facing a decent tweaker like Verity is chump change compared to facing Kumble or Murali.

And given how he performed against Larwood and Voce, i would be surprised if he could average 50 against the WI four prong.... its one thing facing Larwood and Voce, its anothe thing facing Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts.

I suppose you also believe that Sampras would've been spanked by Bill Tillden and that Graf would've been spanked by Suzanne Lenglen if they all had the same equipments and i suppose you think Paavo Nurmi would stand a snowball's chance in hell against Haile Gebraselasse.
I also suppose you think newton might teach me a thing or three about Calculus.
Things progress...get over it. Almost every profession 50 years ahead of time is at a higher level and cricket is no exception.

 

[C_C]

I think Sobers one of the all time greats, but just to make a couple of points.
Sobers ave. with the ball is nothing to flash, would he have played all those Tests if he could not bat?

Also Bradman was a fine out fielder especially early in his career.

I would also give Bradman the nod as a captain.

C_C you already know what I think of your old time players would not last in the modern era theory.

Err.... according to Hall, Sobers was the best fricking new-ball bowler EVER.
Have you seen him bowl to Boycott ? I saw him bowl to Boycott, taking the ball ahead of Hall or Griffiths and Boycott missed every single ball for 3 overs straight. I think it speaks volumes about his fast-medium bowling callibre that he often was given the new ball over Wes Hall/Charlie Griffiths.

Sobers's career average was ruined when he took to bowling spin near the end of the innings, trying to buy a wicket and tossing it up all the time, mostly because he was too tired to bowl pace.... if Sobers didnt have his batting responsibilities, i dont have a doubt that he would've matched quiete a few 'great bowlers' in terms of their average.

And Bradman was a decent fielder ? Please..... he was a decent catcher... nobody from that era was a decent fielder and nobody before Colin Bland and Gary Sobers knew anything apart from running behind the ball and bending down to pick it up when it slowed/stopped.
The few clips i've seen of bradman, he makes Ganguly look like Jonty Rhodes in the field.

I know what you think of my theory but i have not heard anything apart from optimistic conjencture to try and prove it otehrwise.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry, but that claim that nobody in the era was a decent fielder is way off the mark. In fact, one of the things the Invincibles were renowned for was how amazingly good their fielding was. Bradman of course by that stage wasn't so flash, but guys like Morris, Hassett, Harvey and particularly Miller and Loxton were brilliant and athletic in the field, good catchers and excellent ground fieldsmen. And as far as catching in the era goes, well if you can find a better slip fielder than Wally Hammond anywhere you're doing a pretty good job. He stands comfortably alongside guys like Botham, Waugh, Sobers, Simpson etc as far as slip fielding goes.

 

[C_C]

Sorry, but that claim that nobody in the era was a decent fielder is way off the mark. In fact, one of the things the Invincibles were renowned for was how amazingly good their fielding was. Bradman of course by that stage wasn't so flash, but guys like Morris, Hassett, Harvey and particularly Miller and Loxton were brilliant and athletic in the field, good catchers and excellent ground fieldsmen. And as far as catching in the era goes, well if you can find a better slip fielder than Wally Hammond anywhere you're doing a pretty good job. He stands comfortably alongside guys like Botham, Waugh, Sobers, Simpson etc as far as slip fielding goes.

Umm...ground fielding in that era was attrocious...like i said, a Saurav Ganguly or Anil Kumble would be excellent, given the standard of fielding back then.
Nobody even ran behind the ball...they just jogged all the way to the boundary....you'd notice that from watching the few tapes from that timeframe as well as noting how common it was for batsmen back then to jog four singles.....
Sorry but the invincibles might've been 'excellent' fielders for their era, but for a professional era, were nothing more than club-cricket standard fielders.

 

[andyc]

Err.... according to Hall, Sobers was the best fricking new-ball bowler EVER.

So because Hall says Sobers was the best new-ball bowler, he must have been, but when you have all those players from the 30's-50's saying how difficult the bowling was and how good Bradman was, they're all deluded?

 

[King_Ponting]

No question: Bradman light years ahead of the pack

 

[C_C]

So because Hall says Sobers was the best new-ball bowler, he must have been, but when you have all those players from the 30's-50's saying how difficult the bowling was and how good Bradman was, they're all deluded?

Oh i dont think Sobers is the best newball bowler ever.....far from it..but it sure speaks volumes when he is the one taking a first bite at the cherry ahead of a bowler like Hall, who in the late 50s and 60s was possibly only behind Trueman as the best pace bowler.

 

[andyc]

Oh i dont think Sobers is the best newball bowler ever.....far from it..but it sure speaks volumes when he is the one taking a first bite at the cherry ahead of a bowler like Hall, who in the late 50s and 60s was possibly only behind Trueman as the best pace bowler.

But that means nothing now, cause it was so long ago, right?

 

[Jamee999]

Bradman's a choker.

 

[C_C]

But that means nothing now, cause it was so long ago, right?

I wouldnt take him over McGrath or Marshall or even Lillee as a newball bowler but we are talkin about two individuals, one from the 30s/40s and the other from the late 50s to mid 70s.

 

[Burpey]

Bradman ... no one will come close to his Test average of 99.94. How can you argue against that ?

 

[C_C]

Bradman ... no one will come close to his Test average of 99.94. How can you argue against that ?

Its a damn sight more frustrating, when someone pops into a thread and shoots off , derailing the conversation without having read anything posted so far.

 

[archie mac]

Err.... according to Hall, Sobers was the best fricking new-ball bowler EVER.
Have you seen him bowl to Boycott ? I saw him bowl to Boycott, taking the ball ahead of Hall or Griffiths and Boycott missed every single ball for 3 overs straight. I think it speaks volumes about his fast-medium bowling callibre that he often was given the new ball over Wes Hall/Charlie Griffiths.

Sobers's career average was ruined when he took to bowling spin near the end of the innings, trying to buy a wicket and tossing it up all the time, mostly because he was too tired to bowl pace.... if Sobers didnt have his batting responsibilities, i dont have a doubt that he would've matched quiete a few 'great bowlers' in terms of their average.

And Bradman was a decent fielder ? Please..... he was a decent catcher... nobody from that era was a decent fielder and nobody before Colin Bland and Gary Sobers knew anything apart from running behind the ball and bending down to pick it up when it slowed/stopped.
The few clips i've seen of bradman, he makes Ganguly look like Jonty Rhodes in the field.

I know what you think of my theory but i have not heard anything apart from optimistic conjencture to try and prove it otehrwise.

Sobers stopped playing Test Cricket in the early 70s (have not looked it up) that is over 30 years ago, so if we follow your theory, then surely Kallis is the greatest player in the history of Cricket? On his figures and with your theory of improvment. If not why not Sobers started in the 50s only ten years after Bradman but according to you he is well ahead, because of the huge improvment, in that time frame.

 

[luckyeddie]

One of the more meaningless polls we've ever had, and where the only obvious choice will not win.

Bradman was in all likelihood the greatest batsman who ever lived, a man head and shoulders above his counterparts and one who still deserves to be talked about in hushed, reverential tones.

Not the greatest cricketer, though. In my mind, in order to qualify as 'The Greatest of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Century', you have to be more than a 'mere' batsman.

Sobers was a world-class new-ball bowler, a considerable wrist-spinner, a pretty fine finger-spinner, an excellent slip, the greatest leg-slip I have ever seen and utterly imperious with a bat in his hand. It's almost certain that maintaining the highest level in any one discipline was to the detrement of everything else, too. I'm pretty sure that if he had decided to give up the twirlies, he'd have been an even better batsman or seamer - and vice-versa.

In short, the greatest all-rounder by a long, long way.

 

[shaka]

Bradman

 

[Demolition Man]

I have ignored this thread for some time, assuming it was a bit of a joke.

Bradman then daylight.

The more pertinant question, if you are ok with comparing eras, should be comparing sporting codes, is bradman the greatest sportsmen ever ??

 

[Jamee999]

Bradman's a choker.