View Poll Results: Who is Australia's second best Test cricketer ever?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • Warwick Armstrong

    0 0%
  • Richie Benaud

    0 0%
  • Allan Border

    0 0%
  • Greg Chappell

    1 1.64%
  • Alan Davidson

    0 0%
  • Adam Gilchrist

    4 6.56%
  • Clarrie Grimmet

    0 0%
  • Archie Jackson

    2 3.28%
  • Dennis Lillee

    1 1.64%
  • Ray Lindwall

    0 0%
  • Glenn McGrath

    12 19.67%
  • Keith Miller

    16 26.23%
  • Monty Noble

    0 0%
  • Bill O'Reilly

    1 1.64%
  • Ricky Ponting

    1 1.64%
  • Victor Trumper

    1 1.64%
  • Doug Walters

    0 0%
  • Shane Warne

    22 36.07%
  • Steve Waugh

    0 0%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 92

Thread: Who is Australia's second best Test cricketer ever?

  1. #76
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,690
    The "best" batsman I've ever seen is Viv Richards but he's not the "greatest" in terms of achivement.

  2. #77
    Cricket Spectator GilchristFtw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Adam Gilchrist's House
    Posts
    17
    I Think That Shane Warne Is Second To Bradman. Although I Did Vote For Gilchrist.He Was My Favourite Player Thats Why I Voted For Him

  3. #78
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Level with Gooch on 8,900
    Posts
    8,899
    Quote Originally Posted by GilchristFtw View Post
    I Think That Shane Warne Is Second To Bradman. Although I Did Vote For Gilchrist.He Was My Favourite Player Thats Why I Voted For Him
    You make it sound like The Very Long Subtitle Of An American Self-Help Book...

  4. #79
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    I can see Matt's point here - I think an example might be if someone considers Bradman to be the "best" cricketer of all time, due to him simply playing the game of cricket better than anyone before or since. But that same person might consider Grace the "greatest" cricketer of all, given his influence on and legacy to the sport overall, combined with his playing prowess.

    Just an example obviously, but I can see the thinking.
    Well, see, I'd put it a different way - to me, Grace is the best and greatest cricketer of all-time. However, Bradman might possibly be the better batsman. Or he might not.

    I've said it before, but I'm always highly reluctant to compare them as pure batsmen. The game they played just wasn't, quite, the same one. That Grace would have been a fantastic batsman had he played the game Bradman - and we today - play I don't doubt for a second. Just how fantastic, though, we'll never really know IMO.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006


  5. #80
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Well, see, I'd put it a different way - to me, Grace is the best and greatest cricketer of all-time. However, Bradman might possibly be the better batsman. Or he might not.

    I've said it before, but I'm always highly reluctant to compare them as pure batsmen. The game they played just wasn't, quite, the same one. That Grace would have been a fantastic batsman had he played the game Bradman - and we today - play I don't doubt for a second. Just how fantastic, though, we'll never really know IMO.
    I'd wholeheartedly agree that Grace would have been an all time great Test player had he come along later - though of course this would have in turn diminished his influence and importance to the development of the game. Personally I'm happy to have had him where he was to drive the progress and popularity of cricket the way he did.

    I simply can't believe that he - or anyone else - would ever have averaged 99.94 in any era of international cricket. But that's a discussion for another time.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    C'mon Man U.
    RIP Craigos

  6. #81
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Level with Gooch on 8,900
    Posts
    8,899
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    I simply can't believe that he - or anyone else - would ever have averaged 99.94 in any era of international cricket. But that's a discussion for another time.
    As you say, it's hard to believe. However by some quite telling statistical measures Grace's achievements over a sustained period are perhaps even more astonishing than Bradman's. I don't have the figures to hand but when/if the relevant thread gets re/started I will dig them out.

  7. #82
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,514
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    As you say, it's hard to believe. However by some quite telling statistical measures Grace's achievements over a sustained period are perhaps even more astonishing than Bradman's. I don't have the figures to hand but when/if the relevant thread gets re/started I will dig them out.
    I remember seeing such stats - the good Doctor's performances when compared to his contemporaries in the 1870s and 1880s were nothing short of phenomenal. I've just always thought it was comparing apples with oranges a little - dominating the much narrower world of English cricket in the 19th Century isn't an even comparison with a similar level of dominance across the spectrum of a much more developed and international sport half a century later.

    When it comes down to it they both went all right, really.

  8. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rahmaniverse
    Posts
    7,358
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    As you say, it's hard to believe. However by some quite telling statistical measures Grace's achievements over a sustained period are perhaps even more astonishing than Bradman's. I don't have the figures to hand but when/if the relevant thread gets re/started I will dig them out.
    WG was the greatest of his era. And any comparison between him, Don and Tendulkar would be even more laughable than the cliched apple-orange-tomato one.

  9. #84
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Level with Gooch on 8,900
    Posts
    8,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Precambrian View Post
    WG was the greatest of his era. And any comparison between him, Don and Tendulkar would be even more laughable than the cliched apple-orange-tomato one.
    I disagree. Of course they're from different eras, and their games can't be compared precisely (not least because none of us saw WG or the Don play). That won't, and shouldn't, stop us from debating the point for the sake of it. Nothing will turn on the outcome of our discussions, except perhaps for the presentation of some interesting arguments and facts, so I say bring it on.

    ps.
    Oranges are nicer than apples, but messier to eat and cannot be eaten just after you've brushed your teeth.

  10. #85
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Yeah, odd TSTL for mine from he of the birth in '79. "Best" and "greatest" are just euphemisms for one another, the way I see it. Of course, "most valuable" is a bit different, but by-and-large the best players are the most valuable ones.

    What's the difference between "best" and "greatest" then? All to do with mystic auras, I guess?
    More or less, but probably without the slight sneer placed in the emphasis.

    To me greatness in any field encompasses so much more than simply being the best at it. Greatness implies the changing of what you found into something better and being, to a degree, an aberration amongst your peers. In cricketing terms, it also involves for me an element of a player's presence. Warne, for instance, scores much higher for me in those areas than McGrath. This is not a slight on McGrath - in general terms he was a 'great' cricketer in all those categories, simply not the 'greatest'. But in a purely achievement/results/consistency framework he was probably as good or slightly better than Warne. However he brought little that was new to the sport, apart perhaps from a new standard of consistency and longevity (except others had played as long as him anyway), and did not really leave it different from how he found it in the manner that a Grace, a Bradman, a Worrell, Imran, Warne or Gilchrist did. And while he was menacing to opponents and made his teammates walk taller, he didn't have the same presence on the field as a Warne or Richards.

    Hope I've explained that distinction, which is a bit like pornography in that I know it when I see it, somewhat clearly there. It's only my personal take on things.

    As you rightly say "most valuable" is indeed a horse of a different colour to either 'best' or 'greatest'. I'd have no hesitation in saying in almost all scenarios, the pecking order for value amongst the guys most central to this argument would be Bradman>Miller>Warne>McGrath. PEWS suggested before that Miller might be more valuable to most teams than Bradman. I disagree with this. Miller's value lay in him being not only an exceptional bowler, but also a good enough batsman to bat 6. This potentially allows a team to have 5 bowlers without weakening their batting too much. Bradman achieves the same result, only better IMO. His record shows that he is essentially worth two top drawer batsmen (99.94 equalling 2 X 49.97). This means again that you can have 5 bowlers in the team without weakening the batting too much. So in terms of allowing the team flexibility their equal. This then leaves us with are the "two players" you're getting of an equal standard. Miller the bowler is certainly worth a batsman who averages 50. Miller the batsman is not. He was a very good batsman, and if he hadn't been asked to bowl, it's possible that he would have been even better, but as his career record stands, he wasn't as good as a batsman who averages 50. Should be noted that this kind of theoretical, mathematical quick sketch is all highly hypothetical, but that's the game we're playing here.
    Last edited by Matt79; 13-02-2009 at 06:14 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  11. #86
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,475
    Quote Originally Posted by zinzan12 View Post
    Sorry, who's their best bowler ever then?
    McGrath, Lillee, O'Reilly would be a few.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  12. #87
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Precambrian View Post
    WG was the greatest of his era. And any comparison between him, Don and Tendulkar would be even more laughable than the cliched apple-orange-tomato one.
    WG and Don, yes. Don and Tendulkar, though, no. There are many differences between Test cricket in the 1930s and 1990s, but the fundamental basics were the same. The same is not true of the 1870s and 1930s. You could recognise similarities, but no more than that. If cameras were positioned behind bowlers in the 1930s, and film was in colour, most casual eyes would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a game in the 1930s and 1990s.

  13. #88
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    I remember seeing such stats - the good Doctor's performances when compared to his contemporaries in the 1870s and 1880s were nothing short of phenomenal. I've just always thought it was comparing apples with oranges a little - dominating the much narrower world of English cricket in the 19th Century isn't an even comparison with a similar level of dominance across the spectrum of a much more developed and international sport half a century later.
    Not to mention the much more considerable factor that overarm bowling had only just been legalised in the 1870s, never mind become commonplace. It had essentially disappeared from the professional game by the 1930s.

    There's other differences besides the two named above, too. Apples and oranges? Perhaps more television sets and chests of drawers.

  14. #89
    State 12th Man 0RI0N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Groom Lake
    Posts
    703
    Batsman:Ponting
    Bowler:Warne
    Honourable mentions G chappell,Border,Lillee and McGrath

  15. #90
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    More or less, but probably without the slight sneer placed in the emphasis.

    To me greatness in any field encompasses so much more than simply being the best at it. Greatness implies the changing of what you found into something better and being, to a degree, an aberration amongst your peers. In cricketing terms, it also involves for me an element of a player's presence. Warne, for instance, scores much higher for me in those areas than McGrath. This is not a slight on McGrath - in general terms he was a 'great' cricketer in all those categories, simply not the 'greatest'. But in a purely achievement/results/consistency framework he was probably as good or slightly better than Warne. However he brought little that was new to the sport, apart perhaps from a new standard of consistency and longevity (except others had played as long as him anyway), and did not really leave it different from how he found it in the manner that a Grace, a Bradman, a Worrell, Imran, Warne or Gilchrist did. And while he was menacing to opponents and made his teammates walk taller, he didn't have the same presence on the field as a Warne or Richards.

    Hope I've explained that distinction, which is a bit like pornography in that I know it when I see it, somewhat clearly there. It's only my personal take on things.
    See, I can't see that it's entirely fair to say that to be "great" you have to bring something new. I'm quite happy to let someone merely better what everyone has done before. I'm extremely sceptical that the likes of Bradman, Warne, Gilchrist and several others left the game any different to how it was before they arrived - players that good can't, really. No-one can remotely hope to match the deeds of a Bradman, or very possibly a Gilchrist. Muralitharan, of course, has matched the deeds of Warne but it's very possible no spinner will ever touch either again.

    Also, being an aberration is more to do with what others are capable of rather than what you yourself are. Warne and Murali's excellence at wristspin is unusual only because wristspin is incredibly difficult to bowl, not because they're better bowlers than some of the best seamers.

    For me, greatness as a cricketer is purely, 100% related to your own skill and that of others is irrelevant.
    As you rightly say "most valuable" is indeed a horse of a different colour to either 'best' or 'greatest'. I'd have no hesitation in saying in almost all scenarios, the pecking order for value amongst the guys most central to this argument would be Bradman>Miller>Warne>McGrath. PEWS suggested before that Miller might be more valuable to most teams than Bradman. I disagree with this. Miller's value lay in him being not only an exceptional bowler, but also a good enough batsman to bat 6. This potentially allows a team to have 5 bowlers without weakening their batting too much. Bradman achieves the same result, only better IMO. His record shows that he is essentially worth two top drawer batsmen (99.94 equalling 2 X 49.97). This means again that you can have 5 bowlers in the team without weakening the batting too much. So in terms of allowing the team flexibility their equal. This then leaves us with are the "two players" you're getting of an equal standard. Miller the bowler is certainly worth a batsman who averages 50. Miller the batsman is not. He was a very good batsman, and if he hadn't been asked to bowl, it's possible that he would have been even better, but as his career record stands, he wasn't as good as a batsman who averages 50. Should be noted that this kind of theoretical, mathematical quick sketch is all highly hypothetical, but that's the game we're playing here.
    Averages don't work that way, though, and you know it. No batsman can be two batsmen, because you can only bat one innings at a time. Batting and bowling, however, you do at different times of the game. So you really can be two players in one if you're an all-rounder of the highest class.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. TWC quiz
    By Somerset in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 27-03-2010, 04:07 PM
  2. Who is India's best ever Test cricketer?
    By G.I.Joe in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 08:22 AM
  3. England axe Test for South Africa tour
    By biased indian in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 26-01-2009, 12:30 PM
  4. Best of the non test playing countries XI
    By Migara in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 20-01-2009, 04:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •