Best After The Don

[kyear2]

For spinners Lara, for fast bowling there were none better than IVA and on any kind of wicket.

 

[watson]

For spinners Lara, for express fast bowling there were none better than IVA and on any kind of wicket.

Can you name the express fast bowlers?

 

[kyear2]

Can you name the express fast bowlers?

Lillee, Thompson, Snow, Imran, Procter, Willis.

 

[akilana]

Lol @ kallis playing for himself. Dravid has similar SR but he is a teamplayer. A Cook scores at the same rate too.

 

[kyear2]

Lol @ kallis playing for himself. Dravid has similar SR but he is a teamplayer. A Cook scores at the same rate too.

And I don't rate any of them that highly, no do I particularily rate Boycott or Chanderpaul.

 

[akilana]

And I don't rate any of them that highly, no do I particularily rate Boycott or Chanderpaul.

lol. It does'nt matter to me how you rate players and where you rate Dravid and Kallis but my issue is that A Cook and Dravid have similar SR to Kallis but only Kallis is accused ofplaying for himself. I dare you won't say ACook and Dravid played for themselves.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd venture Kallis, Dravid, Chanderpaul etc bat in the way that makes them most effective at test level. That is the complete opposite of selfishness.

Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe Dravid is a team man needs to do their homework (pun intended).

 

[sobers no:1]

I would definitely argue for Chappell being the best in his era. I'm sure many others would argue that too. If tomorrow, Richie Benaud claimed that Brett Lee was the best fast bowler he'd ever seen, would that mean we all suddenly start ranking him amongst our best players? These experts aren't completely right about everything. I'm sure there are some experts who would rate Chappell just as highly, or better, than Viv.

1. Benaud wont make such a claim ( even if he do , that wud b a strange odd statement )
2. expert opinion counts ( remember recent icc 11 with out sobers)
3. i agree on experts are not ultimate judges. BUT THERE MUST BE SOME REASON for THE 15 gets universal acclaim but not chappell ( same level of appreciation ).
4. rating chappell > viv is different from rating chappell best of his era


grace
ranji
trumper
hobbs
hammond
bradman
headley
hutton
sobers
pollock
barry
viv
sachin
lara

no one disputes their claim on being highest quality
only one outside this 14 enjoys similar kind of recognition is GAVASAKAR not CHAPPELL
and the only one who desrves similar kind of recognition is CHAPPELL not GAVASKAR ... ???

its STRANGE..
any thoughts

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The best ton ever hit in a final is Sachin's 134 in Sharjah, 1998. Look it up.

Funny, don't seem to remember a world cup in Sharjah.

 

[sobers no:1]

Funny, don't seem to remember a world cup in Sharjah.

can you remeber top scorer of 96 and 03 WCs with 500+ and 600+ runs

 

[harsh.ag]

Funny, don't seem to remember a world cup in Sharjah.

Ah.. Didn't know you were just including World Cup Finals as you just said that Ponting hit the best ton in a final. On that point, the best ton in a World Cup Final was Clive Lloyd's 85 ball 102 in 1975.

Anyway, when it comes to World Cups, Sachin was the top scorer in the 96 and 03 WCs. The final is not the only big game.

 

[Ikki]

Tendulkar has his own set of reasons why he should rightfully be crowned the best after the Don, so does Chappell, and so do about 15 others

I agree, it is a debate for many other batsmen. Personally, though, I don't see where Tendulkar beats out Chappell apart from longevity and for me Tendulkar's case for playing longer doesn't aid his argument much. Chappell played for 14 years, has as complete record, home and away, and was also the best against the best. Unless you put stock in milestones like the most runs/centuries scored I don't see how this is much else of an argument, personally.

Stop manipulating things.

Tendulkar averaged 37 in matches with McGrath. In matches with McGrath and Warne, he averages 42. Playing a second string and Warne aside, his record isn't impressive. At best, he has a par score.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

. Chappell played for 40 years

I'd get on to the statsguru immediately. There might be a flaw in their calculator somewhere.

 

[Ikki]

Does Ikki have a low opinion of all non-Aussie cricketers? Just by reading his few posts in the different threads, I am pretty sure that he thinks

a) Lillee and McGrath are the two best fast bowlers of all time, in that order
b) Ponting is a better bat than Tendulkar
c) Miller is the greatest all-rounder ever

His sig makes his view on Warne pretty clear, of course.

I am not sure McGrath is the 2nd best, but he is certainly there.

Frankly, I am not sure on Tendulkar or Ponting at all. For me, Ponting's wild swings count against him in a sense. I feel Tendulkar's skills translated to a better, longer, career. Having said that, against the best, or in an important match with something on the line Tendulkar is behind several batsmen for me. Until Tendulkar's recent downturn in his career, I would have put him ahead. Right now, about even, really. As players, not just batsmen, I'd definitely have Ponting.

Miller is probably the greatest all-rounder. Most of my discussions around all-rounders revolve around the fact that I have disdain for the notion that Sobers is far and away the greatest when his bowling was so poor for so long.

Anyway, I have to wonder why it matters. Everyone is biased. It just so happens Australia has been ridiculously endowed with talent for a good century of cricket. If you disagree with the opinions, I'm more interested in the reasons than some call for faux equality.

 

[Ikki]

I'd get on to the statsguru immediately. There might be a flaw in their calculator somewhere.

man I'm tired.

 

[harsh.ag]

I am not sure McGrath is the 2nd best, but he is certainly there.

Frankly, I am not sure on Tendulkar or Ponting at all. For me, Ponting's wild swings count against him in a sense. I feel Tendulkar's skills translated to a better, longer, career. Having said that, against the best, or in an important match with something on the line Tendulkar is behind several batsmen for me. Until Tendulkar's recent downturn in his career, I would have put him ahead. Right now, about even, really. As players, not just batsmen, I'd definitely have Ponting.

Miller is probably the greatest all-rounder. Most of my discussions around all-rounders revolve around the fact that I have disdain for the notion that Sobers is far and away the greatest when his bowling was so poor for so long.

Anyway, I have to wonder why it matters. Everyone is biased. It just so happens Australia has been ridiculously endowed with talent for a good century of cricket. If you disagree with the opinions, I'm more interested in the reasons than some call for faux equality.

I didn't call for equality, mate. But Tendulkar's skills as a batsman did surpass Ponting for mine (unless you put the pull shot on a much, much higher pedestal than others). As overall cricketers even, if you value Ponting's fielding very highly (as you should), Tendulkar's bowling was not slouchy at all, and if he wasn't playing in an Indian team with a ridiculous supply of good spinners, he would have definitely bowled more.

Sobers was first picked in the side as a bowler. His bowling was pretty decent from the West Indian stand point, as during that period, he was one of their main strike bowlers (especially in the 60s). Now, when he initially came on to the scene, Windies were not the powerhouse they were when he left them, and he had very little bowling support, which matters too.

Australia have certainly been endowed with a lot over the years. Apart from the 80s side, their dominance since modern cricket began is unquestionable. But do you remember how long it took for Aussies to come out of the shadow of England at the international level going way back. It is difficult to nurture/assist a weak(er) team which isn't completely used to victory. People like Hadlee, Tendulkar, Murali, Sobers and others deserve a lot of credit for that.

Whatsay?

 

[Prince EWS]

Tendulkar's bowling was not slouchy at all, and if he wasn't playing in an Indian team with a ridiculous supply of good spinners, he would have definitely bowled more.

Replace the word Tendulkar with the word Ponting and the word spinners with the word seamers and that sentence still applies.

Both Tendulkar and Ponting had some serious potential as part-time bowlers - maybe even a little more than that if they really fancied it - but they were rarely required within the context of their sides. Tendulkar definitely had the more notable bowling career, but I don't think people arguing Tendulkar's case should really be going down the "he would've been a lot more successful with the ball if he was needed" path because I think that applies even more to Ponting.

 

[Ikki]

I disagree because conversely it makes you easier to stand out. Cricket, unlike other team sports, is a game of 1v1 duels. If Tendulkar was Australian, he would never have been debuted at 16 years old. If Murali was Australian, he'd might not get to bowl till he changed his action, let alone for 50-something overs per match. But cricket gives us a decent gauge in the ratios to compare them regardless of their team. Not perfect, but a good tool. I've even argued that bowling in a poor side, for an all-time great, is statistically even more advantageous.

As for your other points:

- I think Tendulkar's technique was more textbook and he relied far less than Ponting on his hand-eye coordination. On the other hand, Ponting's technique, where he'd rock back to pull or get forward and drive, may have been simple but extremely effective because of his hand-eye coordination. It did make his ageing in the game difficult though. And although I'd agree that Tendulkar would be a handy bowler, that's all he'd be. Ponting is arguably the greatest fielder the game has seen - definitely in the discussion. One of the most successful captains ever as well. For Australia, he was leader on several fronts; whereas I always got the impression that Tendulkar would rather just be responsible for himself.

- Sobers may have been picked for his bowling...but the truth is he sucked at it bar a decent period in the 60s. He is one of the greatest batsmen of all time - the best #6 - and also in the discussion as one of the greatest fielders ever, but I just don't have much time for the argument that he was far and away the best all-rounder. Surely one of them, but for me the period where he was lethal with both bat and ball considering the length of his career is just not enough. I've argued before that in an all-time side Sobers is my easy pick for #6, but I'd never let him bowl. I also think the game is better suited for bowling all-rounders - because all bowlers have to bat, but not vice-versa.

 

[harsh.ag]

I disagree because conversely it makes you easier to stand out. Cricket, unlike other team sports, is a game of 1v1 duels. If Tendulkar was Australian, he would never have been debuted at 16 years old. If Murali was Australian, he'd might not get to bowl till he changed his action, let alone for 50-something overs per match. But cricket gives us a decent gauge in the ratios to compare them regardless of their team. Not perfect, but a good tool. I've even argued that bowling in a poor side, for an all-time great, is statistically even more advantageous.

As for your other points:

- I think Tendulkar's technique was more textbook and he relied far less than Ponting on his hand-eye coordination. On the other hand, Ponting's technique, where he'd rock back to pull or get forward and drive, may have been simple but extremely effective because of his hand-eye coordination. It did make his ageing in the game difficult though. And although I'd agree that Tendulkar would be a handy bowler, that's all he'd be. Ponting is arguably the greatest fielder the game has seen - definitely in the discussion. One of the most successful captains ever as well. For Australia, he was leader on several fronts; whereas I always got the impression that Tendulkar would rather just be responsible for himself.

- Sobers may have been picked for his bowling...but the truth is he sucked at it bar a decent period in the 60s. He is one of the greatest batsmen of all time - the best #6 - and also in the discussion as one of the greatest fielders ever, but I just don't have much time for the argument that he was far and away the best all-rounder. Surely one of them, but for me the period where he was lethal with both bat and ball considering the length of his career is just not enough. I've argued before that in an all-time side Sobers is my easy pick for #6, but I'd never let him bowl. I also think the game is better suited for bowling all-rounders - because all bowlers have to bat, but not vice-versa.

In a world where Sobers never existed and you had Kallis at number 6, would you let him bowl?

Your last line on Tendulkar is extremely unfair mate. A more helpful fellow you couldn't find in Indian cricket, Dravid included. Captaincy isn't the only way to be a leader.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the stronger/weaker side issue. For me, it is easier to succeed in a culture of success. It is more difficult to be recognized and given opportunities as well, but that component does not cover it.

 

[Ikki]

Not in an all-time XI - both are a huge drop-off in quality relative to the bowlers I'd already have. As for the Tendulkar comment; look I don't know the guy personally, but you got the impression that Ponting would stand in front of a moving bus for the sake of the team whereas Tendulkar has never even batted at #3. Didn't want the captaincy. Tendulkar not being a nice/helpful guy isn't my contention.

You can only be part of that culture of success if you maintain those incredible standards - similarly, it is harder to stick out in a team full of great individuals. In a side like Australia's...one bad series and you could lose your spot. Look at the state Shield teams in the 90s...littered with batsmen who could've been amongst the best in the world if they were eligible to play for other teams. Someone like Hussey had to wait a long damn time to even get into the team. Look at Hayden, an all-time great, but a few bad performances and he was banished for years. Langer, similar. Bevan dropped never to return. Love, Lehmann, Hodge, etc.