View Poll Results: Who is the best "Cricketer" ever

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Keith Miller

    1 1.33%
  • Imran Khan

    7 9.33%
  • Gary Sobers

    16 21.33%
  • Jacques Kallis

    15 20.00%
  • Don Bradman

    28 37.33%
  • WG Grace

    5 6.67%
  • Other

    3 4.00%
Page 10 of 49 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 725

Thread: Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

  1. #136
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    It's funny - people come along every now and then with some "controversial" theory suggesting Bradman's numbers are somehow hyper-inflated in a way that no other batsman's are and that when you adjust for era, opposition, playing conditions, bowling quality and the number of spanners in a Sidchrome tool kit he's not actually that much better than anyone else. As though no one had though of that kind of analysis before.

    The truth is, people (in both official and unofficial capacities) have been conducting studies along these lines for years - adjusting for all those factors and more - and the one thing that remains consistent through all of them is the end result, which is always that Bradman is absolutely miles ahead of any other batsman in Test history.

    I personally think Bradman is the greatest cricketer - and, statistically, possibly the greatest sportsman - of all time. However, I can see the case for Sobers or Grace or Imran for example and if someone wants to extol their abilities and achievements to argue for them that's fine and I'll respect that. But don't just invent reasons to speculatively reduce Bradman's average (but conveniently no one else's) and then judge him on that, because you think his actual average is too high and can't possibly be true.
    I am not even bringing in eras here. If I did, I'd get shot down
    (do you really believe that Marshall, Imran khan, Garner, Botham, Holding, Roberts, Dev, Hadlee,and co would've allowed him to avg 100 in 100 tests in their intimidating era?)

    I'm only adjusting Bradman's avg because of his innings sample size.

    I voted for Bradman btw :P (like more than 1 day ago)
    Last edited by centurymaker; 28-03-2013 at 06:33 AM.
    Proud Supporter of All Blacks

  2. #137
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,180
    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    I am not even bringing in eras here. If I did, I'd get shot down
    (do you really believe that Marshall, Imran khan, Garner, Botham, Holding, Roberts, Dev, Hadlee,and co would've allowed him to avg 100 in 100 tests in their intimidating era?)

    I'm only adjusting Bradman's avg because of his innings sample size.

    I voted for Bradman btw :P (like more than 1 day ago)
    You don't allow Bradman to average 100. He averages 100 because nobody can control his scoring.

  3. #138
    State Vice-Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    You don't allow Bradman to average 100. He averages 100 because nobody can control his scoring.
    Bam!

    This is going in my sig.
    If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.

  4. #139
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,305
    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    NOPE thats not really possible imo

    From:
    10000 runs / 200 outs = avg 50

    To:
    15000 runs / 250 outs = avg 60

    So 5000 additional runs over 50 dismissals = avg 100!!!

    They'd have to Avg 100 to go from 50 to 60!
    Or, if you were to average 40; you wouldn't need to make 1 run in the next 50 dismissals = avg. 0.00. So, frankly, it is easy as piss to hold your average better than the 20% differential (+ or -) because you could get consecutive ducks for 49 innings and score 1 run in your 50th and beat the above. Meaning, it makes losing 10 points of your average far less likely/more difficult than averaging 100 - hence, it is more beneficial.

    Anyway, outs don't technically matter if you're talking about playing more. Two players could play the same exact number of innings and have a different amount of outs, and different averages.

    Ultimately, it isn't a case of Bradman averaging 100 over a few matches per year and then refusing to play in years where there were 10+ matches played - because, that is the only legitimate gripe I think you could have and that isn't what happened. He only played a handful of matches per year, on average, for 20 years. He consistently kept it near or over 100 for that whole time.
    Last edited by Ikki; 28-03-2013 at 07:29 AM.
    I think there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. - Gidgeon Haigh

    [Warne is] the greatest bowler ever produced in this entire world - Muttiah Muralidaran

    [Warne is] the greatest bowler of all time - Glenn McGrath


    In my opinion Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer who's ever lived - Ian Botham

    Warne is the greatest cricketer to pick up a ball ever.
    And is the greatest bowler I have ever laid eyes on. - Brian Lara


  5. #140
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    Sobers is rated better than Imran by most and he probably was. However Kyar2 has to start calling Immy a cheat to try and prove his point. Smali is right, Pak would have won the WI series, so Pak umpires weren't the only patriots.
    Din't intend to intimate that Imran was responsible for the umpiring and to his credit did what he could to address it. With regard to not being the only team with "patriots", N.Z were particularily bad and supposedly some of the Aussie home umpiring in the '70's was not known for their partiality. And yes they were those decisions in 88 vs Pakistan.
    1st XI
    Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman* | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
    2nd XI
    Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
    3rd XI
    Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
    4th XI
    Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2

  6. #141
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,917
    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    (do you really believe that Marshall, Imran khan, Garner, Botham, Holding, Roberts, Dev, Hadlee,and co would've allowed him to avg 100 in 100 tests in their intimidating era?)
    I don't really see any reason to think Bradman wouldn't have averaged around 100 in that era.

    Playing against India he'd only have to contend with seeing off Dev. See off Hadlee and NZ don't have much else. See off Imran and its not too tough against Pakistan. Batting against England in that era was pretty easy.

    But even if we come up with some random "adjusted" number, such as 85, or 87, or 79, the fact is he's still a **** load better than anyone else.

  7. #142
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    I don't really see any reason to think Bradman wouldn't have averaged around 100 in that era.

    Playing against India he'd only have to contend with seeing off Dev. See off Hadlee and NZ don't have much else. See off Imran and its not too tough against Pakistan. Batting against England in that era was pretty easy.

    But even if we come up with some random "adjusted" number, such as 85, or 87, or 79, the fact is he's still a **** load better than anyone else.
    No one is denying the bolded part.

  8. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    cape town
    Posts
    112
    Lohmann and Bradman have significant average advantages in their specific disciplines, but no one in the history of cricket quite combined the two disciplines in the manner Jacques Henry Kallis did IMHO. He has a batting record comparable if not better than Tendulkar and Sobers and he has a bowling record that is easily comparable to blokes like Jimmy Anderson, Zaheer Khan and the like. That is just incredible. Add to it his slip catching which is again beyond compare (Mark Waugh was perhaps an equal) and his ODI record and you have a clear winner.

  9. #144
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Plumbinfront View Post
    Lohmann and Bradman have significant average advantages in their specific disciplines, but no one in the history of cricket quite combined the two disciplines in the manner Jacques Henry Kallis did IMHO. He has a batting record comparable if not better than Tendulkar and Sobers and he has a bowling record that is easily comparable to blokes like Jimmy Anderson, Zaheer Khan and the like. That is just incredible. Add to it his slip catching which is again beyond compare (Mark Waugh was perhaps an equal) and his ODI record and you have a clear winner.
    Fair points. Would you have him in your ATG side?

  10. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    cape town
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Fair points. Would you have him in your ATG side?
    Most certainly, mate.

  11. #146
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    I feel Kallis has had sort of like two halves as an allrounder-

    one where he was very good with the bat and more than good with the ball

    and the other where he has been great/excellent with the bat and merely okay with the ball.

  12. #147
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Fair points. Would you have him in your ATG side?
    Not really, mainly because of way he batted until around 2007 (2 thirds of his career)

    His SR was 42. Since then, however, he has been excellent! (I am sure IPL has played a huge role in helping him play more freely, as well as the emergence of AB, Amla and co..)

    He's been amazing overall though.
    Last edited by centurymaker; 28-03-2013 at 02:33 PM.

  13. #148
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,180
    I'd have Sobers over him. But thats me.

  14. #149
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,468
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    It's funny - people come along every now and then with some "controversial" theory suggesting Bradman's numbers are somehow hyper-inflated in a way that no other batsman's are and that when you adjust for era, opposition, playing conditions, bowling quality and the number of spanners in a Sidchrome tool kit he's not actually that much better than anyone else. As though no one had though of that kind of analysis before.

    The truth is, people (in both official and unofficial capacities) have been conducting studies along these lines for years - adjusting for all those factors and more - and the one thing that remains consistent through all of them is the end result, which is always that Bradman is absolutely miles ahead of any other batsman in Test history.

    I personally think Bradman is the greatest cricketer - and, statistically, possibly the greatest sportsman - of all time. However, I can see the case for Sobers or Grace or Imran for example and if someone wants to extol their abilities and achievements to argue for them that's fine and I'll respect that. But don't just invent reasons to speculatively reduce Bradman's average (but conveniently no one else's) and then judge him on that, because you think his actual average is too high and can't possibly be true.
    Don't think Bradman is statistically the greatest sportsman.
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Yeah, look, it gives me a pain deep inside my uterus to admit it, but it's Ajmal until such time as we get a working throwing law again.
    Never in a million years would I have thought Brumby to admit this!!!!!!

  15. #150
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    I'd have Sobers over him. But thats me.
    So would I. There's possibly room for both, but it's a given I'm going to have Bradman at 3, and Sobers at 6 (most people would agree). Personally, I want Viv at 5.

    That leaves the number four spot open for a batsman. I tend towards one of Tendulkar, Lara, Hammond or G.Chappell for that spot.

Page 10 of 49 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •