Rather than clog cricket chat with myriad grievances as to why your favourite player isn't as revered as, say Saint Francis of Assisi (and has therefore been treated in your fragile mind like a worthless cur despite being regarded very highly in their chosen discipline and seeming to be happy enough themselves with that legacy) I thought we would do better to have it all heaped into the steaming pile of excrement which will become this thread.
So, annoyed that someone suggests your hirsute antipodean 70s fast bowler is being done a disservice? Drop in a heap of stats here to make your case, and the testimonials of those who faced him.
Disappointed your matinee idol looking hero isn't definitively regarded a the greatest all rounder of all time? Come in here and have a whinge about it and ignore those who saw him and the other contenders to the title play. Just quote stats.
Think Jacques Kallis is under rated because he averages so highly but not many people rave about him because he's as boring as bat****? This is the place for you.
In all cases, cherry pick. Never ever say "Well, we disagree. Let's leave it at that". Always keep it going until your laptop explodes.
To get things going, will the Mods please merge the following into this thread:
Ponting v Lara
Lara v Tendulkar
Warne v Murali
Lillee and Imran
Where does Gavaskar rate?
Tendulkar vs Bradman
1. Use "peaks" for players. But only what you deem their peak to suit your argument.
2. Never concede a point. Instead, concoct another line of statistical bull****. Everyone loves reading that stuff.
3. If your non-favoured player is a million miles behind statistically, ignore it and refer to the imponderables like the "pressure" your bloke is under, and quote one or two experts who say they're the greatest ever.
4. If your next favourite player is behind statistically but not outrageously, refer to peer review as the definitive measure of greatness.
I'll get the ball rolling by suggesting Steve Waugh is a better batsman than either Brian Lara or Sachin Tendulkar. Sure he didn't play as many shots and averaged less than the other two, but the fact he didn't play the pull or hook shot means he was greater because despite not being as good, he nearly averaged as much. Plus he had the pressure of his twin brother in the team, the captaincy and he bowled a bit. That makes him greater. As a batsman.
I mean, I know he's respected and revered, I just don't think he's revered enough, you see.
For those who hate this line of argument, thank me later.
Take it away.