Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot

[L Trumper]

Back to the topic

Imran, Hadlee, Sachin, Warne, VIV seems to fit both bills; Others as good as they are/were & bloody good they are/were but still seems meh...

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah well tbh if everyone is just voting according to their own subjective interpretations of what 'great' means it will just end being a completely meaningless poll. A poll isn't going to show anything if people are voting for completely different things.

All CW polls are meaningless.

People always have different methods of rating things.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah well tbh if everyone is just voting according to their own subjective interpretations of what 'great' means it will just end being a completely meaningless poll. A poll isn't going to show anything if people are voting for completely different things.

Well then in my subjective opinion the profound impact a cricketer has on his people and how he defines his art etc. are **** criteria while judging cricketers because a cricketer's job is to score runs and take wickets not to fit people's romantic perceptions of what a great cricketer is supposed to be like.

 

[smash84]

All CW polls are meaningless.

People always have different methods of rating things.

 

[Ruckus]

Well then in my subjective opinion the profound impact a cricketer has on his people and how he defines his art etc. are **** criteria while judging cricketers because the cricketer's job is to score runs and take wickets not to fit people's romantic perceptions of what a great cricketer is supposed to be like.

Yeah cool, I don't know why you are replying to me though, I never said any of that.

 

[L Trumper]

Well then in my subjective opinion the profound impact a cricketer has on his people and how he defines his art etc. are **** criteria while judging cricketers because the cricketer's job is to score runs and take wickets not to fit people's romantic perceptions of what a great cricketer is supposed to be like.

Of course without those they are not great. But Sachin is not simply measured by his centuries, he is much much more than just a batsman/cricketer. Its apply to every great person no matter what their field of excellence is.

 

[G.I.Joe]

More importantly, where is this guy?

Six feet under.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah cool, I don't know why you are replying to me though, I never said any of that.

Didn't mean to quote you, soz.

 

[smash84]

Yeah cool, I don't know why you are replying to me though, I never said any of that.

 

[Ruckus]

^What's that meant to mean haha ?

 

[smash84]

^What's that meant to mean haha ?

yeah............Teja went overboard with his emotions and quoted you when you didnt say any such thing .............I found it funny

 

[ankitj]

By the way isn't the poll asking for who is greater rather than better?
A bit different

Honestly, I have no clue what the difference is? And lot of people toss this argument around over here

 

[Blaze 18]

1) Imran Khan
2) Brian Lara
3) Glenn McGrath
4) Richard Hadlee
5) Viv Richards
6) Ian Botham
7) Sachin Tendulkar
8) Shane Warne
9) Muttiah Muralitharan
10)Adam Gilchrist

That is how I would rank them. Of course, they are all quite close, so my rankings may change depending on what day of the week it is.

 

[smash84]

1) Imran Khan
2) Brian Lara
3) Glenn McGrath
4) Richard Hadlee
5) Viv Richards
6) Ian Botham
7) Sachin Tendulkar
8) Shane Warne
9) Muttiah Muralitharan
10)Adam Gilchrist

That is how I would rank them. Of course, they are all quite close, so my rankings may change depending on what day of the week it is.

You seem to rate Lara very very highly

 

[Prince EWS]

You seem to rate Lara very very highly

Sweaty man crush. We've been over this.

 

[Blaze 18]

You seem to rate Lara very very highly

Yeah, the best batsman of all time bar Sir Donald Bradman, a peerless match-winner and a ridiculously gifted player. Watching him bat was the cricketing equivalent of having an orgasm

 

[Blaze 18]

Sweaty man crush. We've been over this.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As there was criteria given for voting I voted for Botham who's the most naturally gifted all around cricketer from the list.

 

[Ikki]

The era McGrath played in didn't make that much of a difference though. It was definitely enough for me to say McGrath was in fact a better bowler than Hadlee, but only by a small margin. They were in fact 13th and 14th in my standardised bowling averages thread, which took the standards of run-scoring into account (it was basically its only purpose ).

Hadlee's average minus the minnows of his time should probably be considered. Great bowler, but I think McGrath was a bit more cheaper than your stats suggest.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hadlee's average minus the minnows of his time should probably be considered. Great bowler, but I think McGrath was a bit more cheaper than your stats suggest.

Those stats actually take the quality of each team into account though. There are definitely factors standardised averages don't take into account (longevity, top order v lower order wickets, support, strike rate, context of performances, difficulty of bowling in your home country compared to others at the time etc etc) so they aren't in any way a perfect measure, but minnow-bashing and era differences are taken care of, largely. I'm in no way saying they're the be all and end all, but I personally trust them to account for two factors scorebook averages dont : era run-scoring standards and relative quality of opposition. Given they're the first two things people have come up with to point out McGrath's supposed superiority over Hadlee, I'm inclined to think both are exaggerated in this particular case. I think McGrath was the better bowler but I do not think there is much in it at all; two extremely similar bowlers career-wise.