Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot

[ankitj]

I miss Marshall, Ambrose, G Chappel, Lillee, Kapil and Donald in that set. But Imran is an easy choice for me. The given players stack up like this for me:

Imran > Murali > Viv Richards > Hadlee > Tendulkar > Warne > Botham> McGrath > Lara > Kallis > Ponting > Gilchrist

I am kinda confused about Kallis after all the love for him (quite justified tbf) in CW, and also about Gilchrist who tends to get rated highly for his wicket keeping - batsman combination, but I am somewhat unsure if I can meaningfully add the two and compare with others. He still makes it to my all time world XI though (unless I decide to represent 9 different test nations by including Andy Flower)

And what's with the OTT McGrath love? All else may be subjective but he can't be better than Imran and Hadlee?

 

[ankitj]

Among this lot, for me atm:

Hadlee>Tendulkar>Muralitharan>Gilchrist>Imran>McGrath>Botham>Kallis>Richards>Lara>Warne>Ponting

However, nothing to choose between the top 5 for me. The order among teh top 5 could be completely opposite some other day, depending on my mood.

I quite like the fact that you rate Hadlee so high. Such a supergun!

 

[The Sean]

I miss Marshall, Ambrose, G Chappel, Lillee, Kapil and Donald in that set. But Imran is an easy choice for me. The given players stack up like this for me:

Lillee and Chappell both retired in January 1984, so I don't think they really played enough of the period in question to rate here - particularly when you consider that Lillee's performances declined substantially from 1982 onwards (only 34 wickets in his last 11 Tests).

With you on Ambrose and Kapil for sure. Donald possibly, though I reckon I'd personally have Wasim, Border and S Waugh all there before him.

 

[Teja.]

Personally, I don't think anyone except Kallis, Imran, Hadlee and S. Pollock belongs to this debate.

However, Since people are suggesting specialists, Get Waqar in, IMO.

Aaprt from that, Shaun Pollock is the glaring omission. 400 wickets @ 23 is as good or negligibly worse than pretty much any other pacer on the list and then the bat comes in. While It is often pointed out that McG deserves extra credit for doing his thing through the 00s too, Pollock most certainly does too, IMO. Despite being done with the peak of his career, He still averages 24(?) in the 00s.

 

[smash84]

Can any of the mods please add Malcolm Marshall to the poll list??? Do I pm them??

 

[Jono]

Nah don't add a player to the poll after people have voted. It screws up the results.

Just leave it. It isn't a list of the greatest, it's justa list of players you chose. Plenty of great cricketers missing on that list.

 

[Teja.]

Nah don't add a player to the poll after people have voted. It screws up the results.

Just leave it. It isn't a list of the greatest, it's justa list of players you chose. Plenty of great cricketers missing on that list.

AWTA Now I think of it.

 

[weldone]

I quite like the fact that you rate Hadlee so high. Such a supergun!

Played for an average team and with a junk bowling lineup...had superlative performances in all corners of the world, against all opponents...took many wickets, gave away the least runs without ANY support from the other end...never shied away from bowling too many overs in unhelpful conditions...always gave his best for the team, be it in a test match against the best opponent, or an ODI with the lightest....had McGrath's line-and-length coupled with more pace, slightly better outswinger and much better inswinger...almost always troubled the best of batsmen he bowled to...added value as a hard-working batsman in an average batting lineup...didn't sleep with Liz Hurley or 'have jaws like Greek Gods' though...but I'm not a Hollywood director searching for the protagonist for my next project either...

 

[smash84]

...didn't sleep with Liz Hurley or 'have jaws like Greek Gods' though...but I'm not a Hollywood director searching for the protagonist for my next project either...

 

[smash84]

Nah don't add a player to the poll after people have voted. It screws up the results.

Just leave it. It isn't a list of the greatest, it's justa list of players you chose. Plenty of great cricketers missing on that list.

agreed

 

[Fusion]

Probably biased, but Imran for me. When you talk about cricketers as a whole, great AR’s weigh heavily in my book. That’s why I also consider Sobers to be the greatest cricketer ever. Imran was all-time great bowler (his injury free peak is mind boggling) and a more than handy bat. He performed like a champ against arguably the greatest team in cricket history (at worst, the WI side of the ‘80’s belongs in the top 3 discussion). He also excelled facing his country’s arch rivals India, and I don’t need to emphasize the incredible pressure of a Pak/India series. Add to all that his great Captaincy skills, and I think he edges out the other greats listed on the poll.

 

[smash84]

Probably biased, but Imran for me. When you talk about cricketers as a whole, great AR’s weigh heavily in my book. That’s why I also consider Sobers to be the greatest cricketer ever. Imran was all-time great bowler (his injury free peak is mind boggling) and a more than handy bat. He performed like a champ against arguably the greatest team in cricket history (at worst, the WI side of the ‘80’s belongs in the top 3 discussion). He also excelled facing his country’s arch rivals India, and I don’t need to emphasize the incredible pressure of a Pak/India series. Add to all that his great Captaincy skills, and I think he edges out the other greats listed on the poll.

True all of this. The only thing that he lagged behind in was fielding. He was one of the worst fielders in a pretty ordinary Pakistan fielding side.

 

[Cevno]

It is not that simple. Bowlers are very valuable commodities hence some might rate Murali > Kallis.

But at the same time bowlers play for a shorter duration than Batsmen.

 

[Cevno]

Torn between Imran and Sachin ,really can't pick one .

Will probably vote for the one with the lesser votes tomorrow.

 

[smash84]

But at the same time bowlers play for a shorter duration than Batsmen.

but good bowlers are very hard to come by. Good batsman are more readily available for some reason. Maybe batting is an easier art?????

 

[vcs]

but good bowlers are very hard to come by. Good batsman are more readily available for some reason. Maybe batting is an easier art?????

Think you are basing your judgment too much on the last decade. These things are cyclical.

 

[Teja.]

Think you are basing your judgment too much on the last decade. These things are cyclical.

Yep, Very.

Even if you go one decade back to the 90s, You had four batsman who averaged in the 50s:-Gooch, Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh. Gooch played only the initial four years. So It's basically three batsman through the decade

The exceptional bowlers of that period were:- Warne, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Donald, Waqar, McGrath and Pollock.

3 vs 8. You decide.

 

[smash84]

Yep, Very.

Even if you go one decade back to the 90s, You had four batsman who averaged in the 50s:-Gooch, Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh. Gooch played only the initial four years. So It's basically three batsman through the decade

The exceptional bowlers of that period were:- Warne, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Donald, Waqar, McGrath and Pollock.

3 vs 8. You decide.

But 90s was arguably the finest era for fast bowlers. There have not been too many great bowlers before the 80s-90s period I think.

 

[Xuhaib]

Teja, I have said it before and I will say it again. You are a funny guy. And I still can't believe that you are just 17 years old.

17 yr old with a man crush on a 6 yr old.

 

[weldone]

But 90s was arguably the finest era for fast bowlers. There have not been too many great bowlers before the 80s-90s period I think.

Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes, Larwood, Bedser, Lindwall, Davidson, Trueman, Statham, Miller, Adcock, Hall, Mahmood, Snow, Voce, Tate, Peter Pollock to name a few (excluding the spinners, and those who 'also' played in the 80s)...

Yes, 90s was the best era for fast bowlers, followed by the 80s and the 70s...but saying that there were not many great fast bowlers before that will not be right. In fact, I would say every decade of the twentieth century produced at least as many great fast bowlers as the 2000s. Every decade has had its Steyn, if not more.