3rd best cricketer ever?

[Francis]

I think most cricket fans, and all probably should, rate Don Bradman as the best and Garfield Sobers the second best respectively. When Wisdon was rating it's five cricketers of the century, some felt they should exclude Bradman and Sobers since it was such a clear one-two. Bradman got 100 of 100 votes, Sobers got 90 of 100 vote and then there was Jack Hobbs, coming third, who ended up on 29 votes.

So my question is, who is the third best cricketer of all time?

For me, I haven't quite decided yet and will come up with somebody soon. After watching some old footage of Viv Richards, I have to say it's tempting to say him when you look at his impact.

 

[Tom Halsey]

As an all-round cricketer, I reckon Botham at his peak was the best all-rounder ever bar Sobers, but if we're including specialists too, I reckon realistically it would be someone like Hobbs.

Also don't forget 19th Century cricketers who weren't taken into account - I'm not suggesting that anyone knows enough about them to include them in something like this, but I think Grace in particular deserves mention.

 

[Pothas]

Its certainly not Botham. It is a tricky one but Shane Warne has got to be a contender

 

[33/3from3.3]

Brian Lara???

 

[luckyeddie]

Viv for me

 

[simmy]

Warne... If the best batsman is the 1st, the best allrounder 2nd, it just makes sense that the best bowler of all time come in third, right?!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Its certainly not Botham. It is a tricky one but Shane Warne has got to be a contender

Yeah I said realistically it wouldn't be Botham.

I reckon one of Hobbs, Richards, Warne, Hammond.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bradman is the obvious Number 1 and Sobers the equally obvious Number 2, but there is no obvious Number 3. There are plenty of candidates, but unlike Bradman and Sobers - who surely no one would argue against - it's open to debate. If absolutely pushed into a corner I would probably go for Tony Pigott.

 

[luckyeddie]

Bradman is the obvious Number 1 and Sobers the equally obvious Number 2, but there is no obvious Number 3. There are plenty of candidates, but unlike Bradman and Sobers - who surely no one would argue against - it's open to debate. If absolutely pushed into a corner I would probably go for Tony Pigott.

How could you overlook Fred Swarbrook?

 

[age_master]

Viv Richards or Shane Warne

 

[C_C]

Imran Khan.
The best allrounder the world has seen since Sobers.


PS: Most fans i think rate Sobers ahead of Bradman. I know that support for Sobers is higher in the subcontinent significantly so than Bradman.

 

[Fusion]

For me, it's either Imran Khan, Viv Richards, or Shane Warne.

 

[Natman20]

Shane Warne. I love watching him bowl.

 

[Francis]

Imran Khan.
The best allrounder the world has seen since Sobers.

I agree... not that he's number three, but for me there's no question he's the next best all-rounder. I know there's Hadlee and Botham and Miller, but Khan is distinctly the best... even if it's not by much. I've seen stats on his 1982 season and the impact he had on games was phenominal.

PS: Most fans i think rate Sobers ahead of Bradman. I know that support for Sobers is higher in the subcontinent significantly so than Bradman.

I've heard that before but I didn't know how true it was. It seems in England, Australia, New Zealand South Africa Bradman is the best. In the sub-continent, Sobers is the best. How anybody who averaged 99.94 isn't the best is beyond me.


Anyway I second the Shane Warne love as he was my next contender behind Viv. People talk about him just having an average of 50... but one look at his 1976 season shows how destructive he was... especially to the England. No doubt in my mind, that if Viv played a five test series against England, he would have smashed Bradman's record for most runs in an Ashes-type format. No batsman has come close to his ammount of runs in a calendar year and I don't see it being broken.

But watching what Warne did in the Ashes last year certainly puts him up there. I agree with Richie Benaud in that his comebacks are more memorable than his great form. I mean in 1993-1997 he was great, sucked in 1998 and came back and won the world cup for Australia in 1999. He goes back down a little and then takes 31 wickets in the 2001 Ashes... then he gets banned and takes 26 wickets in Sri Lanka... then before the Ashes people are saying he's washed up and no longer a threat to England. 40 wickets in five tests at a strike-rate below 40 and an average below 20. Just incredible!

Others that might be worth considering are:

Dennis Lillee (yes Lillee)
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sachin Tendulkar (people are underrating him these days if you ask me)
Imran Khan

I'd like to say Murali, Hammond, Hadlee, Botham, Miller and Marshall... but as high as I could put them, and I could put some of them top 5... I just can't see top 3.

But yeah it's Viv or Warne for me right now...

 

[C_C]

I've heard that before but I didn't know how true it was. It seems in England, Australia, New Zealand South Africa Bradman is the best. In the sub-continent, Sobers is the best. How anybody who averaged 99.94 isn't the best is beyond me.

Because Bradman was God in one aspect of cricket, Sobers had mastered all aspects of cricket better than anyone else. I for one, would take Sobers ahead of Bradman simply because Sobers can affect the game in far more ways than Bradman could.
Not that Bradman is far behind Sobers IMO- its very close.

I consider Imran to be the next best after Sobers and Bradman because allrounders are overall better cricketers than specialists. And we arnt talking about bits-n-pieces allrounders here, we are talking about someone who's primary skill was one of the best even amongst the specialist practitioners of that skill.

Anyways, after Imran, i would rate Keith Miller, then Murali, then Tendulkar, Hadlee,Viv,etc.

 

[Francis]

Sobers really wasn't that great with the ball at all. He hardly mastered all types of bowling as people indicate. I mean I think it's impressive that he could bowl swing, seam, spin and cute little chinamen... but with a strike-rate over 90 in bowling he's probably not one of the top 70 best bowlers in cricket history. I mean off the top of my head without any research there's...

SF Barnes
Harold Larwodd
Jim Laker
Fred Trueman
Frank Tyson
John Snow
Bob Willis
Tony Grieg
Clarrie Grimmett
Bill O'Rielly
Ray Lindwall
Keith Miller
Richie Benaud
Allan Davidson
Dennis Lillee
Jeff Thompson
Craig McDermott
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath
Jason Gillespie
Peter Pollock
Shaun Pollock
Mike Proctor
Allan Donald
Richard Hadlee
Sarfaz Anwar
Imran Khan
Wasim Akram
Waquar Yunis
Saqlain Mushtaz
Abdul Quadir
Bishan Bedi
Anil Kumble
Muttiah Muralitharan
Charminda Vass

OK so that's only 35 of the 70... but that's without thinking, but with a strike-rate over 90 that really doesn't bode well as a impacting bowler.

Imran Khan was a genuine all-rounder in that he could do both equally the same. Sobers was a far superior batsman. In fact there's been plenty of all-rounders who were better bowlers.

It is true than all-rounders can impact games and thus they're hard to guage. But with Sobers it was mostly with the bat. Even if he had, taking three wickets in a match and getting 50 might not compare to Bradman. Who in 52 matches made 8 double-centuries.

 

[C_C]

Put it this way, compare his statistics in bowling with leading bowlers and then compare Khan's batting with leading batsmen.
You'd find that Sobers was a very decent bowler and Khan was a very decent batsman. However, Sobers overall mastery of cricket ( batting,bowling,fielding) is unquestionably peerless. And as such, i dont see how he is not #1 cricketer of alltime.

Sobers actually was a brilliant seam bowler but often resorted to bowling spin in the latter part of his career(something in which he was very mediocre-no better than Giles or so) because of sheer tiredness of his endavours- he bowled more overs and batted longer than any other player in history of the game....he did stuff like batting a whole day right after bowling 30 overs in an innings day in and day out.

 

[Francis]

You have a point and I respect your opinion... but Andrew Symonds can bowl seam, although not as good as Sobers, he can bowl finer spin, probably about the same as Sobers... and he's the best fielder in the world today.

Granted he's a bad example because he doesn't play tests... but I don't see why Sobers' variety is so great if he couldn't impact with it. There've been domestic cricketers before who've tried both pace and spin and it's OK... doesn't mean they're complete.

I personally don't know why Sobers used spin when he wasn't greatly effective with it... does the fact that he used spin make him absolutely complete? Nope. He was a genuine all-rounder, but he did things better than others things. Why do spin to be different when pace works? I know Sobers didn't do it to be different, but if he's less effective in another area, how's he completely great in all areas?

Khan was far a beyond a greater bowler and if Sobers wasn't more of a batting all-rounder, then Khan would be better because Sobers relied more on being one of, if not the second best batsman in history. Ian Chappell believes he was. If he wasn't a great batter, then he wouldn't be there.

If he strikes at 90, and did worse with spin... then he either was so bad at spin and barely striked at all, or he strikes around 80 with pace. Not too impressive.

I can't believe when I made that list I forgot to list the West Indian six - Roberts, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh...

 

[C_C]

but Andrew Symonds can bowl seam, although not as good as Sobers, he can bowl finer spin, probably about the same as Sobers... and he's the best fielder in the world today.

I wouldnt be putting Sober's spin-capability akin to Symonds. From what i've read, the impression i get is that Sober's bowling is what mixing Gillespie and Ashley Giles would produce.
Sobers often used spin because he was the mainstay of his team-both with batting and bowling. And often he was required to bowl 30-40 overs in an innings right after batting for the whole previous day. As such, often in the latter part of his career, he bowled a lot more spin than seam, simply because he had very little energy left to bowl seam. In his peak, he used to open the WI bowling a fair number of times and often come as 1st change bowler...he would usually bowl spin in the latter half of the innings when facing tailenders out of sheer exhaustion and stuff. But if you look at the load he carried, no cricketer has come close.
And its not like Sobers was a bits-n-pieces allrounder- he still is one of the 5 best batsmen of alltime and one of the 5 best fielders of alltime.

The comparison between Khan and Sobers is split pretty evenly as far as batting and bowling is concerned. Sobers was an alltime great batsman and a decent bowler. Khan was an alltime great bowler and a decent batsman. But Sobers was also an alltime great fielder while Khan was merely above average at best.
I personally consider Sobers mastery of batting relative to other batsmen was higher than Imran's mastery of bowling ( for eg, i would rate Sobers in the top 5 batsmen of alltime, Imran would probably either just make top 5 bowler's list for me or just miss it) and his fielding really opens a wide gap between who was the best allrounder of the lot.

 

[Matteh]

and he's the best fielder in the world today.

Mhmm....Paul Collingwood, Trevor Penney (39 years old...picked as a substitute fielder in the Ashes, shows he's still got it)....i'm sure there's more too