Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot

[Blaze 18]

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

 

[ankitj]

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...

Agree with everything you say. And I am inclined to downgrade the guy with jaws like Greek Gods.

Talking about Hadlee, as week as New Zealand was, it was the only team during the 80's to win at least one series against every opposition. They won 9 series in all (2 each against Eng, Aus and SL. 1 each against Ind, Pak, WI). In all but one series (one against Ind), he was the leading wicket-taker...on either side. Talk about being a match winner! Show me another cricketer that lifted an average side to such levels so single handedly.

EDIT: Yet, I don't see why you rate Imran so low in your pecking order

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I went for Warne. Something special about watching a leggie weave his magic.

 

[The Sean]

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.

Wouldn't disagree with a word of this - Imran for me too.

 

[Teja.]

Imran for me because all-rounders are the most valuable cricketers and Imran is the second most valuable cricketer to play the game post 1900 after Bradman, IMHO.

If I had a second, third and fourth vote, They'd go to Kallis, Hadlee and Gilchrist.

 

[ankitj]

What's with McGrath getting so many votes? He wasn't in 4 highest vote getters in the greatest post 90's poll. Surprised he is leading (along with Imran) here.

 

[smash84]

Agree with everything you say. And I am inclined to downgrade the guy with jaws like Greek Gods.

Talking about Hadlee, as week as New Zealand was, it was the only team during the 80's to win at least one series against every opposition. They won 9 series in all (2 each against Eng, Aus and SL. 1 each against Ind, Pak, WI). In all but one series (one against Ind), he was the leading wicket-taker...on either side. Talk about being a match winner! Show me another cricketer that lifted an average side to such levels so single handedly.

EDIT: Yet, I don't see why you rate Imran so low in your pecking order

Who is the guy with jaws like Greek gods????

 

[smash84]

What's with McGrath getting so many votes? He wasn't in 4 highest vote getters in the greatest post 90's poll. Surprised he is leading (along with Imran) here.

Even I am a bit surprised at this. McGrath is behind Warne, Murali, Sachin, and Kallis in the 90s thread IIRC. Over here he is in first place. I had personally thought that Warne or Viv Richards would get a lot of votes.

 

[smash84]

Imran for me because all-rounders are the most valuable cricketers and Imran is the second most valuable cricketer to play the game post 1900 after Bradman, IMHO.

If I had a second, third and fourth vote, They'd go to Kallis, Hadlee and Gilchrist.

And where in your list would Sobers appear???? Arguably the finest all rounder ever.

 

[Teja.]

And where in your list would Sobers appear???? Arguably the finest all rounder ever.

Third.

 

[smash84]

Third.

because you find bowling all rounders to be more valuable????

 

[Teja.]

because you find bowling all rounders to be more valuable????

Well as a general rule, Yes.

My top seven of the Bradman and Post-Bradman era would be something like:-

1.Bradman
2.Imran
3.Sobers
4.Miller
5.Hadlee
6.Kallis
7.Pollock

 

[Prince EWS]

I found it hard to split Imran and Hadlee, but in the end I went for Imran because he has a much greater chance of winning. That's FPTP voting for you.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think I do post like a 17 year old tbh.

Sometimes, but not always. Rarely do posters fit in so well at 17 and have such well-researched and defined ideologies. You have the potential to be an all-time great statistical analysis poster. The great allrounders of CricketWeb who can both analyse the technical aspects of the game live and compare retired cricketers statistically will always be more valuable than a specialist such as yourself, however.

 

[smash84]

I found it hard to split Imran and Hadlee, but in the end I went for Imran because he has a much greater chance of winning. That's FPTP voting for you.

what's FPTP???? And what did you find difficult to split between Imran and Hadlee? Is there as much of a difference between the bowling of the two as is there in their batting????

Sometimes, but not always. Rarely do posters fit in so well at 17 and have such well-researched and defined ideologies. You have the potential to be an all-time great statistical analysis poster. The great allrounders of CricketWeb who can both analyse the technical aspects of the game live and compare retired cricketers statistically will always be more valuable than a specialist such as yourself, however.

good one

 

[Prince EWS]

what's FPTP???? And what did you find difficult to split between Imran and Hadlee? Is there as much of a difference between the bowling of the two as is there in their batting????

I think Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran. Imran was the better batsman by a greater margin, but they were both primarily bowlers, so batting counts for a bit less. I voted for Imran anyway; I genuinely do think he was the better cricketer.. I was just being a bit of a turd with my post.

Oh and FPTP: First-past-the-post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Teja.]

Sometimes, but not always. Rarely do posters fit in so well at 17 and have such well-researched and defined ideologies. You have the potential to be an all-time great statistical analysis poster. The great allrounders of CricketWeb who can both analyse the technical aspects of the game live and compare retired cricketers statistically will always be more valuable than a specialist such as yourself, however.

Are you seriously stating that the great all-rounders are better posters than the great debate winners? The position of all-rounders is going from underrated to overrated very soon itbt. The only thing that should matter is who has won more debates for their ego.

Thanks for the bolded part btw.

 

[Dissector]

My order would probably be Imran, Hadlee, Murali, Kallis, Pollock for the last 30 years. All-rounders always seem to be underrated unless they are absolutely superlative in one area like Sobers and Imran. Pollock in particular has suffered because of this and Kallis too until recently.

Murali is the exception because his achievement of taking 7 wickets per test at 21 over 9 years is so extraordinary he deserves to be in the mix.

 

[Teja.]

My order would probably be Imran, Hadlee, Murali, Kallis, Pollock for the last 30 years. All-rounders always seem to be underrated unless they are absolutely superlative in one area like Sobers and Imran. Pollock in particular has suffered because of this and Kallis too until recently.

Murali is the exception because his achievement of taking 7 wickets per test at 21 over 9 years is so extraordinary he deserves to be in the mix.

Yeah, I rate Murali a small but non-negligible margin higher than the other ATG bowlers and only slightly behind the all-rounders.

 

[Uppercut]

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...

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.

These are both fantastic posts.

I voted for Shane Warne, as I always do when a question contains the word "great". I'd say Imran's the most valuable though. Personally I only have Bradman and Grace ahead of Imran.