• 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.

CW50 2nd Edition - No 01

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ian Chappell, I believe, said he would have Sobers as his first pick in an AT XI. the idea of his being number one isn't ridiculous by any stretch, nor is it exactly news.

Then again, Chappell hated Bradman. Whether that came into his thinking I do not know.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If I had have voted in this (which I didn't, other RL commitments kept me away from CW with a few exceptions), I would have voted in this way (the top 11 players constitute my all time greatest team - Lara would bat out of position and open):

1) Bradman
2) Sobers
3) Gilchrist
4) Warne
5) Imran
6) Tendulkar
7) Marshall
8) Hobbs
9) Richards
10) McGrath
11) Lara
12) Garner
13) Ambrose
14) Murali
15) Kallis
16) Chappell G
17) Miller
18) Holding
19) Wasim
20) Gavaskar
21) Lillee
22) Hadlee
23) Hutton
24) Healy
25) Pollock G

Healy is included because I do believe that wicket keeping is an underrated position and he's the best keeper/batsman behind Gilchrist. I don't rate batsman/keepers (such as Flower) as highly as I do keeper/batsmen. Graham Pollock is so low because of a lack of tests.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
No worries it was fun to help, thanks for running this mate, you did an awesome job. Small can you advise as all how many people actually had the great Sobers at number 1? I know the amount was very low..
hmmm......dude I just noticed that actually nobody voted Sobers at number 1. I'll have to edit his profile.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
Everyone should keep their knickers untwisted. We have already established that CW isn't Wisden. The results of this poll are truly reflective of CW in that they are the product of a lot of genuine knowledge of the game and its history and a lot of different perspectives, while also reflecting a degree of mischief making which is an essential part of CW.

I repeat: CW isn't Wisden. Now, without detracting from the efforts of smiley in particular, this is not an award which anyone outside this forum will give a rat's arse about; and if we all really know that CW ranks Bradman highest, as is being suggested, then what possible harm is done?

For my part, I voted for Bradman second and WG Grace top but partly to balance the under-representation I knew WG would get.

Many thanks to smiley and nufan for running it.
This.

As has already been said. I am one of the bastards who didn't place Bradman quite where he should be. Regardless of that though, he isn't my greatest cricketer of all time because he can't bowl. Number two imo is a fair reflection of where Bradman should be, though I had a couple more of the great allrounders ahead of him.

He is without doubt the finest batsman the game has ever seen by a huge distance, but allrounders get a natural advantage in my book as cricketers because they can participate in all facets of being a cricketer, which includes fielding and captaincy.

I submitted a couple of smart arse inclusions and exclusions because people were getting so hurt and precious before this exercise even begun. My list was also much different from a list I would usually submit, not just because of Doug Bracewell being the greatest cricketer of all time, but because I decided to challenge myself and write it with a slight variation on criteria. I submitted my list but varied it by giving a higher weighting to men who have had the greatest impact on the game, whether through greatness or folklore. I think I managed to forget one West Indian which was a genuine error, but my list would have skewed the results regardless because major players behind Bodyline got a boost and I included players like Bob Blair who aren't great at cricket but are undoubtedly great cricketers for sheer testicular fortitude. Allan Border, Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh also benefited from my criteria.

If Smali and NUFAN are hurt by my unorthodox rankings then I sincerely apologise, but if it is any consolation I think this list is entirely fair, so you have at least one backer of the list, even if he is a bastard.

My only excuse is I didn't think so many would think like me, but then this is CW, so you have to expect the mischief. You could argue this list represents CW far more than the first.:ph34r:

Last of all, thank you lads for running this. It has been great fun.:)

cliffs: PEWS is a rat
 
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
People just don't get it do they? Bradman was an all-rounder. He was nearly the best of all time in both of his disciplines - batting and batting. He was worth two Steve Waughs to the team. To say that he's not the best because he can't bowl is akin to saying that Warne was not the best spinner because he couldn't keep. Cricket is a team sport. Sobers was the equivalent of 1.7 world class players (1.2 batsmen and 0.5 bowlers). A batting lineup with Bradman in it could afford to play five specialist bowlers if they so desired. More to the point, batting is more important than bowling when it comes to numbers in a side, because everyone has to bat. A batting lineup with four world class bowlers will barely have need of a part timer (look at the WIndies during the 80s).

I don't rate the cricketing nous of anyone who doesn't rate Bradman at #1.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
bradman's bowling average of 36 clearly not shown the respect it deserves
If you define an all-rounder by the rudimentary idea that their batting average is higher than their bowling average and that the actual ability of that all-rounder is measured by the difference between the two, then Bradman qualifies as the best all-rounder the world has ever seen.
 

Flem274*

123/5
To say that he's not the best because he can't bowl is akin to saying that Warne was not the best spinner because he couldn't keep.
Cevnoing.

I've already said I think Bradman is the best batsman by quite some distance.

Bradman isn't best cricketer for the same reason a bowler who averaged 10 with the ball and 1 with the bat over 50 tests won't be. A cricketer who is very good at two things is more valuable than a cricketer who is excellent at one thing. A great allrounder is much rarer, much more valuable and I suspect much harder to be than a great specialist, which is why they are quite rightly so highly prized.

Sobers is arguably the second best batsman of all time, and is a test standard seamer and spinner, and by all accounts was a demon fielder. He is a worthy number one.

I can't help but think back to years gone by where some extreme CWers were insisting bowlers win you matches and batsmen are worthless. I'm not saying you were one of them stephen, but I'd love to hear their thoughts on this. It would make for some entertaining reading whichever way their votes swing.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
He's not Cevnoing. He's right when he argued about the total accumulated value of a player. If Bradman bowled and averaged 40 he'd still be more valuable than Sobers. It's an insult to logic to hold that because he didn't make a career out of averaging 40 with the ball whilst averaging 100 with the bat that he is less of a cricketer than Sobers or even Imran or even Hadlee by your determination.

You're right...a great allrounder is very rare. A batsman averaging about 100 is the rarest sportsman, nevermind cricketer, of all time.

I am not sure of the make-up of the lists in total. But how about a poll of Bradman v Sobers?
 

Flem274*

123/5
Hello Ikki, it's so nice to see you.

We taught you what Cevnoing is? (Well obviously not properly but..)

Show yourself whoever did that.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
People just don't get it do they? Bradman was an all-rounder. He was nearly the best of all time in both of his disciplines - batting and batting. He was worth two Steve Waughs to the team. To say that he's not the best because he can't bowl is akin to saying that Warne was not the best spinner because he couldn't keep. Cricket is a team sport. Sobers was the equivalent of 1.7 world class players (1.2 batsmen and 0.5 bowlers). A batting lineup with Bradman in it could afford to play five specialist bowlers if they so desired. More to the point, batting is more important than bowling when it comes to numbers in a side, because everyone has to bat. A batting lineup with four world class bowlers will barely have need of a part timer (look at the WIndies during the 80s).

I don't rate the cricketing nous of anyone who doesn't rate Bradman at #1.
Hmm.. How would you rate say a Imran by that logic ?

Edit - Not that i agree with the twice the batsman thing in first place.
 
Last edited:

Top