-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Top ten greatest bowlers and batsmen of all time
- Thread starter The King
- Start date
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Waqar had a purple patch that was as good as anyone ever in the early 90s for 4 years.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree that early Waqar had an absurd SR, but I mean their entire careers...
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Hobbs played in the same era, and also another. The argument is against Trumper being rated as highly as he is, based on his performance against his contemporaries.
Slifer
International Captain
Easily Imran imo. If people could look past the wasim lefty thingand ***iness and all that stuff they'd realise what a phenomenal bowler (and cricketer) imran was.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think the best argument for Trumper in an AT Aus XI is that he would succeed in conditions where the other batters fail.
Statistically he's nothing special but it's the conditions that he made his runs in that is what makes him special.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Ok, so because Hobbs was a great and he played a couple of years at the same time as Trumper, Trumper shouldn't be rated highly by people.
Regardless of what all the anecdotal evidence of everyone who saw him suggests.
Ok.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That anecdotal can be biased is well established. Why would you be so condescending to someone who chooses to give less weight to it?
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Thats not what I, nor anyone else said. Multiple people who played at the same time have similar or better performances, and are not rated nearly as high as him.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Good job deliberately misconstruing the point we're making. No one said Trumper wasn't great.
indiaholic
International Captain
Anecdotal evidence is **** anyway. Pretty sure Williamson would have been rated higher than Smith if we were valuing them based on essays and not actually watching them bat.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Probably because they weren't as good.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Mate, I've got three guys trying to batter me into submission. You guys can keep having a circle jerk and liking each others' posts.
I'll just sit here thinking Trumper is great, just like you do, apparently.
But apparently not as great as Hobbs was. So, ok.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's a relatively new phenomenon this.
the big bambino
International Captain
Exactly. I'm not even sure that OS understands he's arguing against himself. The point being if Trumper was as lucky to play as many matches against SA as some of his contemporaries there wouldn't be as many as 7 who had higher averages than him. Why are people ..?
Even then his average against England is comparatively high. Being 7 more than the generational average and 3rd highest in his era. One of those higher is Hill. The other was Ransford who played 15 tests v Eng against Trumper's 40.
Ranji was great but had a 6 year test career. He was done at that level by 1902. Secondly he scored the bulk of his runs outside of the Trumper years including a big ton on a flat track in Sydney. If you confine his runs to the same parameters his average is 31, so i don't see him as an effective counterpoint. Hobbs was great and imo better than Trumper but that doesn't equate to an opinion that Trumper's greatness is a romantic fantasy.
Last edited:
I would do a list on bowlers. Batsmen list would be too complicated to come up with, too many parameters to look at although I wouldn't find it difficult to put Bradman at 1, Tendulkar and Viv at 2nd and 3rd or the other way round.
Top 5 fast bowlers:
1. Richard Hadlee
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Curtly Ambrose
4. Wasim Akram
5. Glenn Mcgrath
Top 5 fast bowlers:
1. Richard Hadlee
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Curtly Ambrose
4. Wasim Akram
5. Glenn Mcgrath
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You and red Hill haven't really understood my point then. If you look at the contemporary opinion, it consistently names Trumper as head and shoulders above his peers. His statistical record doesn't bear this out. It's still a great record but when you have guys like Hill whose record was every bit as good, and Hobbs', whose record was far better, I'm not sure Trumper can be put at the very top tier.
He's very obviously a great player, the only thing I disagree with you guys on is that Trumper is great enough to be ranked ahead of guys like Border, Waugh and Ponting, when none of them had any peers who clearly outperformed them to the extent Hobbs did Trumper. Is that not fair?
the big bambino
International Captain
You can pick other guys ahead of him and you agree he's a great player. We are quibbling at the margins. I haven't looked but I think ponting is abt 16 ahead of his generational ave and trumper 13. I give trumper extra points bcos I think it's harder to exceed an average in a lower scoring era and compensate for his ave being discounted bcos he played Eng disproportionately a lot. So imo they're even.
The discrepancy of his reputation to figures is starkest with Hill whom I suspect is underrated. However Hill held the same opinion of Trumper. I think the difference is Trumper was reputed to regularly play innings no one else could or could only in a rare instance. He was thought an inconsistent player but was consistent in that way. But that is my speculation though it is implied in essays I've read abt him.
The discrepancy of his reputation to figures is starkest with Hill whom I suspect is underrated. However Hill held the same opinion of Trumper. I think the difference is Trumper was reputed to regularly play innings no one else could or could only in a rare instance. He was thought an inconsistent player but was consistent in that way. But that is my speculation though it is implied in essays I've read abt him.