Going by pure stats, what Sachin, Kallis and especially Murali has accomplised is just as amazing to the Don's numbers. 800 test wickets at 22 as a spinner in the modern era and if Murali played all of his career in only familiar conditions as the Don did and we look at his numbers at home 493 wickets at 19, that just blows the mind. And this is not the discussion to bring up minnows, as Bradman did his best work agains them as well.
For Kallis 13,000 runs at near 60 playing on the difficult and fast South African pitches coupled with nearly 300 wickets is pretty impressive an unparrelled.
Hutton* | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2
Would be interesting to see how Murali would have got on on uncovered wickets - I think dear old Jim Laker's record might have been in his sights
so glad this poll has settled the kallis v miller debate
Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?
With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left
You don't allow Bradman to average 100. He averages 100 because nobody can control his scoring - Coronis at his eloquent best
Draft Side: Hobbs | Hutton | Don | Pollock | Ponting |ABDV | Miller | Davidson | Warne | Garner | Waqar
Surely there must be a Kallis v Miller thread somewhere?
Longevity is something to be considered, but it isn't significant when judging a player.
Most of the cricketers of previous eras would have played on until they were much older had they been able to afford it financially. There's no reason why they wouldn't have maintained a high level of success.
Last edited by Monk; 29-03-2013 at 02:59 PM.
I know you mentioned that you didn't want this to turn into a discussion about minnows, but it's relevant when comparing Murali and Warne. Murali picked up over 1/8th of his wickets against BZ/Zim. Take out Zim and BZ and Murali and Warne's records are virtually identical. (624 wickets at 24.70 and 691 at 25.40)
I don't mean to try and diminish Murali's record, only pointing out that Warne has an equally amazing record statistically, which sort of unfairly gets overshadowed. Imo, they both have the most ridiculous bowling records stats wise that anyone has had in ages.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)