-
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.
Who is the second greatest batsman of all time? Part II
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
Imran Khan.
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
Don't make an ass of yourself. The cheeky boy's on crack, I'd wager.
Swervy
International Captain
I would keep an eye on him, he has had some success in the opening position
Looks like he is in the game to win it
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Sobers.
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
Without causing a bunfight, I'd have to say Gooch.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Lets fight about it and get this thread closed
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
well, I didn't have a chance to reply to some of the posts directed to me in the other thread, since it was closed:
Here goes, first of all, I haven't seen Bradman but his record and what everyone says about him places him so much above everyone else that we HAVE to consider him the #1 batsman of all time, regardless of whether we have seen him or not. It is almost impossible to argue with his stats itself, but apart from that we have the views of so many cricket literates, so to speak.
But when it comes to Hobbs and Richards, the diff. isn't so marked and therefore, I believe I am within my right in saying that he may/may not have been a better batsman than Richards. Only someone who has seen both can say, honestly. And yes, I still do believe that given how many variables are there in cricket, the only best way to judge a player is by having watched them over the years. Only then can we really compare to any real sense of fairness. Arguing about x was better than y by just seeing their numbers serves no purpose and will NEVER be anywhere near the facts....
Here goes, first of all, I haven't seen Bradman but his record and what everyone says about him places him so much above everyone else that we HAVE to consider him the #1 batsman of all time, regardless of whether we have seen him or not. It is almost impossible to argue with his stats itself, but apart from that we have the views of so many cricket literates, so to speak.
But when it comes to Hobbs and Richards, the diff. isn't so marked and therefore, I believe I am within my right in saying that he may/may not have been a better batsman than Richards. Only someone who has seen both can say, honestly. And yes, I still do believe that given how many variables are there in cricket, the only best way to judge a player is by having watched them over the years. Only then can we really compare to any real sense of fairness. Arguing about x was better than y by just seeing their numbers serves no purpose and will NEVER be anywhere near the facts....
