3rd Greatest Cricketer - The Poll

[Ikki]

Haha serious?

Really. I just get this air of self-censoring on here for some reason. Maybe it's just me but it's almost like some are afraid to have an opinion that is 100% their own.

 

[Uppercut]

I think discussions just turn into dick-waving contests when national biases come into play.

I mean, cricketing opinions in no way have to be rational, and in that sense I agree with you. But if they are irrational, surely it's best if they're acknowledged as such rather than masqueraded as a reasonable conclusion based on solid evidence? That just results in all kinds of bizarrely twisted stats that make everybody facepalm.

 

[Teja.]

I have a confession to make. Today, I was trying to think of reasons for Tendulkar/Ponting to that be greater test cricketers than Kallis. I realized I can't think of too many reasons other than "but..but..Benuad/Hadlee/Bradman said so!". This might lead to a major update in my personal Greatest Cricketers List.

 

[Jono]

How about the fact that the bowlers think so?

Not saying that's definitive, but I reckon the opinion of Warne, Murali, McGrath, Pollock etc. should count.

 

[Matt79]

Depends on your definition of 'greatest'. I voted Imran earlier, and I think I was probably basing that in large part on 'best' rather than 'greatest', not meaning to deride Imran's claims to greatness beyond mere ability. I think in terms of impact and 'importance' as measured by the highly unfair and oft irrational court of public opinion, there is plenty of reason to say that Tendulkar has been a 'greater' player than Kallis, and that Ponting has been as well for that matter. Everyone is going to have their own criteria, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah atm for me, Kallis is the 'better' test cricketer while the other two are 'greater' ones.

 

[Matt79]

Wasn't saying that, IMO, Kallis is better than the other two btw.

(Stands clear so the lynch mob can get stuck in )

 

[Jono]

Oh we're talking cricketers here. Sorry, my earlier post about how contemporary bowlers' views should be taken into account was in regards to who was the better batsman.

Ignore me then.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh we're talking cricketers here. Sorry, my earlier post about how contemporary bowlers' views should be taken into account was in regards to who was the better batsman.

Ignore me then.

you know, I still won't.


IMO, Kallis is a clear level below Sachin/Lara/Ponting as a test batsman and as a test bowler, he is not good enough to make up for the fact that he is less likely to play the blinder than the other 3 in tough conditions while the other 3 are just as likely to play the "good" knock that he is likely to play in friendlier conditions.

 

[Migara]

I'd pick Imran. But I am biased. So voted for Murali.

On a side note, I think that Sobers > Bradman as a cricketer.

 

[GotSpin]

Disagree ^ Bradman's batting so far far better than Sobers that his bowling can't nearly make up for it.

 

[Migara]

How about being one of the finest close fielders add to the weight?

 

[weldone]

On a side note, I think that Sobers > Bradman as a cricketer.

One person would agree with you on this, Don himself. And no, that wouldn't be because of his humility either.

 

[weldone]

Not sure that Grimmett can be placed in the same echelon as Warne and O'Reilly, when he's been good, but not great against England, the only team that was strong during that time. He's dominated SA and WI, who weren't that great.

Grimmett averaged 32.44 against England.

The only team during Warne's time whose batting against spin bowling was comparable to that of England during Grimmett's time (not saying batting in general, I emphasize on 'batting against spin bowling') was India, and Warne averaged 47.19 against India.

No other team during Warne's time had more than 1-2 class players of spin bowling. SA and WI during Grimmett's time, too, had some class players against spin bowling - George Headley, Dudley Nourse, Bruce Mitchell come to mind. Warne, on the other hand, might have bowled well against some good batting lineups (like SA), but none of them were good enough against spin bowling, except India.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think the two teams are actually comparable as players of spin and did Grimmett have the injury problems Warne had? And for similar reasons, you should be naming Grimmett/O'Reilly ahead of Murali also. I wouldn't agree with such a ranking, just dissecting your reasoning.

Personally, I see it like this: Warne>Murali>O'Reilly>Grimmett.

Warne and Murali should get the nod ahead of those two. Over such a long period, so many matches, so many different opponents and variables...I think it's hard to argue. Then again maybe had I seen Tiger and Clarrie it would sway me differently.

Also, disagree re the number of class players of spin. Sri Lanka were a class team against Spin. Only slightly below India and probably equal with Australia in playing spin.

 

[weldone]

I don't think the two teams are actually comparable are players of spin

You might think that Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Duleepsinhji, Jardine were not as good players of spin as Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Azharuddin, Sidhu. But I don't.

Murali averaged 32.62 against India, and 36.07 against Australia. Not excellent, but not something that might suggest that he wasn't in the same league as Grimmett (32.44 against England).

Sri Lanka was never a class batting lineup against spin bowling (they were good, still), until very recently.

 

[fredfertang]

Grimmett is underrated - he had to bowl against the likes of Hobbs, Hammond and Sutcliffe on wickets designed for timeless tests (in Australia) and ones in England that were good enough for Bradman to set all his records on - his record against England is excellent overall - 11 5fers and two 10 wicket match hauls in 22 tests.

As for the South Africans he skittled so regularly they were good enough in 1935 to beat England in England so they can't be dismissed as cannon fodder

 

[weldone]

As for South African batting lineup during Grimmett's time, Dudley Nourse is still considered one among the best 3 saffie middle-order batsmen ever alongwith Kallis and Graeme Pollock. And Bruce Mitchell is still considered by many cricket pundits as the 2nd best opener SA ever produced, after Barry Richards.

What is more important to note here is that almost all South African batsmen of Grimmett's time were better players of spin than pace.

Of course, South Africa wasn't a class act against spin bowling, but they weren't trash either.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Zimbabwe once beat Pakistan in Pakistan.

 

[Shri]

Really. I just get this air of self-censoring on here for some reason. Maybe it's just me but it's almost like some are afraid to have an opinion that is 100% their own.

Thats just a myth. I think you are a **** for example. See? No self censure and all that jazz.