• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The 2nd Greatest Cricketer From A Country

vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Howe_zat said:
I genuinely think that if you look at a player based on how good he was at his best, rather than what they achieved over a career, Botham is one of the greatest cricketers of all time.
Click to expand...
Easily. Unbelievable peak. Perhaps the only criticism you could make would be his record against the best team (WI), but his Ashes exploits already make him a legend. Plus his personality etc.
 
S

sehwag fan

School Boy/Girl Captain
smalishah84 said:
Still beat India in India and England in England without the neutral umpires :cool:
Click to expand...
India also beat England in England 2-0 , WI in WI. What are you talking about ?

And yes Pakistan's W/L has gone since introduction of neutral umpires and India's gone up.

Perhaps you should know that Pakistan lost to Zim in 1998 in home ground.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Howe_zat said:
I genuinely think that if you look at a player based on how good he was at his best, rather than what they achieved over a career, Botham is one of the greatest cricketers of all time.
Click to expand...
Rankings become very messed up if you do that though.
 
S

sehwag fan

School Boy/Girl Captain
Howe_zat said:
I genuinely think that if you look at a player based on how good he was at his best, rather than what they achieved over a career, Botham is one of the greatest cricketers of all time.
Click to expand...
Going by that logic Vaas and Maninder singh were better ODI bowler than Waqar and Wasim.
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
sehwag fan said:
Going by that logic Vaas and Maninder singh were better ODI bowler than Waqar and Wasim.
Click to expand...
Allow me to introduce you to some concepts. One is called "missing the point". You may already be familiar.

The other is called "ignore list".

Ah, that's better.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
vcs said:
Yeah, but that is balanced out by the fact that Hadlee had less support (Imran had Wasim and Qadir), more burden to shoulder, and took more wickets/match, and more 5WI/10WM. A bit of an average rise in that scenario is acceptable. Hadlee is not as good as Imran with the bat overall, but in that period he still has nearly as many runs, equal number of 50s and 2 centuries to Imran's 4. Purely as bowlers, I would probably go Marshall > Hadlee > Imran, though obviously the margins are extremely fine.
Click to expand...
The Wasim support from 85-88 is over rated I think. I really do think that Wasim though decent was not as good as he became later on. However still better much better than the lone wold Hadlee. Also I do think that Imran was striking much quicker than the other bowlers during this period.

And also I was only talking of the period given in the article. I would agree with the assessment that Marshall > Hadlee > Imran over the course of their careers but as you say that at that level the difference is very marginal.

Howe_zat said:
Allow me to introduce you to some concepts. One is called "missing the point". You may already be familiar.

The other is called "ignore list".

Ah, that's better.
Click to expand...
haha.......gun post.......deserves a genuine :laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
H

hang on

State Vice-Captain
If Beefy had ended his career in 1982 he would have been the greatest all rounder ever and there would have been little debate about it.
Click to expand...
oh no! it would still have been sobers.

or, at the very least, there would have been a lot of debate about it. let's also not forget miller.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
hang on said:
oh no! it would still have been sobers.

or, at the very least, there would have been a lot of debate about it. let's also not forget miller.
Click to expand...
Yes i would agree that there would have been lots of debate but now Botham usually even doesn't feature quite as much in the best all rounders debate as he should be. That is mostly because of the last 6 years or so of his career.
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
smalishah84 said:
If Beefy had ended his career in 1982 he would have been the greatest all rounder ever and there would have been little debate about it.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Maybe a bit about the batting but not that much
Click to expand...
It would have been debatable, I think. People would say that he hadn't performed for long enough, like they say about Sydney Barnes or Graeme Pollock.

It's kind of illogical, really, that doing nothing for 10 years could be be considered "better" than being a decent cricketer, just because he wasn't being a legend.

On the other hand, it would have taken a tragic, career-ending injury (or possibly death) to have him gone in 1982. Maybe that would have romanticised his story further.
 
Last edited:
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Howe_zat said:
It would have been debatable, I think. People would say that he hadn't performed for long enough, like they say about Sydney Barnes or Graeme Pollock.

It's kind of illogical, really, that doing nothing for 10 years could be be considered "better" than being a decent cricketer, just because he wasn't being a legend.

On the other hand, it would have taken a tragic, career-ending injury (or possibly death) to have him gone in 1982. Maybe that would have romanticised his story further.
Click to expand...
yeah his career could do with a bit of romanticizing I think. The last 6 years or so were just downhill. Poignant is the word.
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Top 2 from each Nation according to me:

Australia: Donald Bradman, Adam Gilchrist
West Indies: Garry Sobers, Malcolm Marshall
England: Jack Hobbs, Sydney Barnes
South Africa: Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards
India: Sachin Tendulkar, Sunil Gavaskar
Pakistan: Imran Khan, Wasim Akram
Sri Lanka: Muttiah Muralitharan, Kumar Sangakkara
New Zealand: Richard Hadlee, Bert Sutcliffe
Zimbabwe: Andy Flower, Heath Streak
 
Last edited:
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Howe_zat said:
I genuinely think that if you look at a player based on how good he was at his best, rather than what they achieved over a career, Botham is one of the greatest cricketers of all time.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is why I won't mind if someone put him in top 3 cricketers of all time. Since we are talking of ICC ratings, no cricketer other than Botha has crossed 800 point barrier both with bat and ball. And only cricketer to take 10+ fivers and score 10+ centuries. How bloody awesome is that!
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
salman85 said:
Using Reliance Rating to prove a point.

Cuter.
Click to expand...
Truth is in terms of being an all-rounder Imran falls down on actually performing on an all-round basis.

It's something I've often said on here and it's why I can't see how anyone rates him ahead of Sobers.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
This article also tells Hadlee has the best batting average of the 4 all-rounders against West Indies. Gives me another point to drool over Hadlee. Love the guy anyway!
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Spark said:
He said "if he stops" batting tbf. It's an interesting question, can you really call someone an allrounder if they're good at both disciplines over the course of their career, but never at the same time? Ie. always good at one of batting or bowling at any point in their career, but not both?
Click to expand...
IMO no and it's why I consider Botham to be the best all-rounder there's ever been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top