Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Viscount Tom]

This is the most balanced topic I have read here. The top 3 cricketers are unquestionable: Bradman, Sobers then Kallis. Anybody else is bias. Murali and Warne are unlucky though but they were not that superior to their fellow bowlers.

Would have Hobbs ahead of Kallis tbh.

 

[harsh.ag]

This is the most balanced topic I have read here. The top 3 cricketers are unquestionable: Bradman, Sobers then Kallis. Anybody else is bias. Murali and Warne are unlucky though but they were not that superior to their fellow bowlers.

Picking Imran Khan or Keith Miller is not bias. If you were told that you could only pick one player for a team and the other 10 players could be anybody from history and you wouldn't know, then picking Imran or Miller could be considered the smartest choice.

 

[harsh.ag]

Would have Hobbs ahead of Kallis tbh.

Why would you do that exactly?

 

[Viscount Tom]

Judging on his FC record as well as Tests, I'd struggle to argue against a bloke who scored 199 tons and played tests till he was 47 missed some serious cricket during the war years and was still playing at FC level until he was 52.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If Kallis had been around in the 60's or 70's he would have been given far more kudos than he is. But in an era when scoring rates soared amongst the great (and some not so great) batsman he remained Mr Plod.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Has to be said I think some people see a bit of Boycott in Kallis, he's not too flashy and appears to bat well within his limits while he's evidently got the talent to play flashily and play well.

 

[kyear2]

This is the most balanced topic I have read here. The top 3 cricketers are unquestionable: Bradman, Sobers then Kallis. Anybody else is bias. Murali and Warne are unlucky though but they were not that superior to their fellow bowlers.

Sobers, Bradman, Kallis, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne.

Would add Warne because of what he adds with his batting and slip fielding, Marshall as the greatest fast bowler and match winner deserves a place. Gilchrist changed the game and was a demoralising sight coming in at seven either to crush the oppsition or to stage the recovery. Kept brilliantly to Warne and Mcgrath as well.

 

[Satyanash89]

Sobers, Bradman, Kallis, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne.

Would add Warne because of what he adds with his batting and slip fielding, Marshall as the greatest fast bowler and match winner deserves a place. Gilchrist changed the game and was a demoralising sight coming in at seven either to crush the oppsition or to stage the recovery. Kept brilliantly to Warne and Mcgrath as well.

All fair calls, but no Imran ? One of the top 10 fast bowlers of all time, solid lower order batsman, inspirational captain... more i think about him, the more i struggle putting Sobers above him

 

[rza]

Hobbs was a good batsman, but there are other batsmen who are better than him. Gilchrist has Flower who has a better record than him and Flower batted at number 3 for a weak team. Then you have Kumar, Prior and AB who are proving that its possible to do what Gilly did. Miller and Khan are decent but not better than Sobers and Kallis.

 

[Prince EWS]

Andy Flower at 3

5 innings
39 runs @ 16.5
HS: 39

There seems to be a growing myth about Flower being a top order batsman in Test cricket, and I have no idea where it's coming from, but it's not true. He batted primarily at number five.

 

[akilana]

Sobers, Bradman, Kallis, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne.

Would add Warne because of what he adds with his batting and slip fielding, Marshall as the greatest fast bowler and match winner deserves a place. Gilchrist changed the game and was a demoralising sight coming in at seven either to crush the oppsition or to stage the recovery. Kept brilliantly to Warne and Mcgrath as well.

Inran, Botham and Miller were far better cricketers than Warne and Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

Have alrady explained my issues with calling Imran the greatest cricketer of all time, unlike Imran though Miller was a legitimate top order batsman, but not an exceptioanl one (about equivalent to Sobers bowling) and as a bowler he was never a work horse bowler, he was used more purely as a new ball shock bowler and his three wickets a match (despite for one series receiving the new ball every 55 overs) is testament to this and his strike rate is less than stellar. So as a bowler he is not as good as Sobers was as a batsman though his slip fielding added additional to his game and elevates him to just above Imran, but since Imran was the better bowler and that is their main function in any team and would be batting at 8 anyway, Imran makes my first team and we could hide him at mid on or mid off when not bowling or at fine leg.

 

[kyear2]

Botham's peak was incredibily short and never performed vs the W.I as Richards constantly caned him, also neither his bowling or batting average is exceptional. Good enough for an ATG All Rounder, not as a candidate for greatest ever player.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs was a good batsman, but there are other batsmen who are better than him. Gilchrist has Flower who has a better record than him and Flower batted at number 3 for a weak team. Then you have Kumar, Prior and AB who are proving that its possible to do what Gilly did. Miller and Khan are decent but not better than Sobers and Kallis.

Prior or AB are not as good keepers as Gilly and while AB is the better batsman, keeping isn't his natural thing, especially againts spin. Prior is an good batsman, but wasn't In Gilly's class or have his destructive abilities. Flower wasn't a good keeper either and not as impactul as a batsman with a s/r of 45. None of them had the impact that Gilchrist did for his team or the sport and remember for most of his a career his average was over 50 while keeping brillianly to Warne, Lee and co.

 

[doesitmatter]

You cannot just discount Andy Flower by the mere mention of his strike rate..You also need to understand the context in which he was batting..Flower always was trying to rebuild Zimbabwe's innings, trying to give them a respectable score, coming in at single digit score for 2 wickets..With Gilly, great and revolutionary as he is, came in to bat most of the time atleast at 300 or 400/4 so it was easy to come in and tonk the bowlers when they were already at their lowest..Don't get me wrong he is a revolutionary player and that can be said of very very few players in any sport..Andy Flower considering he played for Zimbabwe and amount of pressure he had to endure is right up there..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Good to see Matt Prior getting a mention in a thread about the greatest ever cricketer.

Why don't all just admit it's Collis King and then we can all go to bed.

 

[Red]

If we're looking at all-rounders as the greatest cricketers (in terms of contribution to their teams), I think it boils down to a select few.

The following players would have been selected for their national teams as either batsmen OR bowlers (or wicketkeepers):

Miller, Sobers, Jack Gregory, Botham, Gilchrist, Les Ames, Flintoff (briefly), Kapil Dev (probably would have been selected as a specialist bat even if he didn't bowl)

Players capable of batting top 6 and either being one of the four main bowlers, or being the wicketkeeper, have been pretty rare.


The following players would have definitely been picked for their dominant skill, but it's questionable whether they'd have been picked for their secondary skill:

Imran, Hadlee, Davidson, Kallis, Flower, Lindwall, Benaud, Wasim


Any I've forgotten?

 

[Coronis]

If we're looking at all-rounders as the greatest cricketers (in terms of contribution to their teams), I think it boils down to a select few.

The following players would have been selected for their national teams as either batsmen OR bowlers (or wicketkeepers):

Miller, Sobers, Jack Gregory, Botham, Gilchrist, Les Ames, Flintoff (briefly), Kapil Dev (probably would have been selected as a specialist bat even if he didn't bowl)

Players capable of batting top 6 and either being one of the four main bowlers, or being the wicketkeeper, have been pretty rare.


The following players would have definitely been picked for their dominant skill, but it's questionable whether they'd have been picked for their secondary skill:

Imran, Hadlee, Davidson, Kallis, Flower, Lindwall, Benaud, Wasim


Any I've forgotten?

Faulkner, perhaps?

 

[Pothas]

Shakib clearly.

I know Bangladesh are an unusual case but it illustrates the weakness with basing it on this criteria.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

If we're looking at all-rounders as the greatest cricketers (in terms of contribution to their teams), I think it boils down to a select few.

The following players would have been selected for their national teams as either batsmen OR bowlers (or wicketkeepers):

Miller, Sobers, Jack Gregory, Botham, Gilchrist, Les Ames, Flintoff (briefly), Kapil Dev (probably would have been selected as a specialist bat even if he didn't bowl)

Players capable of batting top 6 and either being one of the four main bowlers, or being the wicketkeeper, have been pretty rare.


The following players would have definitely been picked for their dominant skill, but it's questionable whether they'd have been picked for their secondary skill:

Imran, Hadlee, Davidson, Kallis, Flower, Lindwall, Benaud, Wasim


Any I've forgotten?

Flintoff (31.77 / 32.78) in the first group but not Kallis (56.10 / 32.43), hilarious. Kallis with more fifers too. I think people understimate Kallis's bowling because of his batting. And that he has been used mainly as a "holding" fifth bowler. Yet 288 wickets. And can someone please link to the ball that made Ponting fall flat on his face as it swung past him.