Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[kyear2]

Gilchrist really deserves to be included. What a talent and he revolutionized his position and the game more than anyone since Grace, Bradman and Sobers.

 

[centurymaker]

I can't remember the kohli pic that you used to post A LOT

 

[uvelocity]

either this one

or this one

 

[harsh.ag]

Simple. Bradman is irreplaceable. Nobody else is.

 

[harsh.ag]

Gilchrist really deserves to be included. What a talent and he revolutionized his position and the game more than anyone since Grace, Bradman and Sobers.

Not disagreeing completely, but shouldn't Les Ames and Andy Flower get more credit for this as well.

 

[Coronis]

A question for all-

if Bradman had played 4 times as much cricket as he did i.e 320 innings (almost as much as Tendulkar)

do you think he would've had the following stats?

28,000 runs
100 avg
116 100s

Had stats very close to that in FC.

 

[harsh.ag]

A question for all-

if Bradman had played 4 times as much cricket as he did i.e 320 innings (almost as much as Tendulkar)

do you think he would've had the following stats?

28,000 runs
100 avg
116 100s

Bradman's FC record:

Innings: 338
Runs: 28067
Avg: 95.14
100s: 117

Check, check and check

 

[Jono]

I can't remember the kohli pic that you used to post A LOT

Look if this is an invitation to post that picture more, I will accept.

But let's stay on topic in this thread. This thread was about Kohli's fashionable dress sense, so let's stick to that.

Looking great even when his suit is drenched.

 

[smash84]

I really don't think it matters all that much; in the end there are far too many variables to come out with any form of 'scientific' answer (I mean, lopping 20% off Bradman because of era strikes me as incredibly inexact, and so does valuing the wicket of Glenn McGrath in 1993 alongside the wicket of Bradman in 1930 at 25 apiece).

Yes, I will maintain that Harold Larwood is the greatest bowler of all time, and that Frank Worrell was the greatest man to set foot on a cricket field, but ultimately that's my own opinion, and I don't truly expect anyone else to share it (even if I do debate with people who call Larwood average). Ultimately there will never be a clear answer, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Trying to quantify and list everything, boiling it down to numerical and statistical discussion takes away from makes our game great, IMO. Cricket is such a unique sport in that it has changed so much over eras, is played in so many different conditions and has this element of romance that isn't reflected in any other sport. When you strip that away entirely, you end up making 80,000 posts on how Nick Knight was a better batsman than Adam Gilchrist or how Gavin Larsen was better than Waqar.

I never saw Stan McCabe bat; when I read Tangy's article I had no idea what his average was, but reading about him made me rate him extremely highly. Same goes with Macartney. To me, cricket isn't about averages to the second decimal point - it's about people.


Also, inb4Smali'sincrediblypredictableImranpost

WAC

A good bowling all rounder to me is arguably the most valuable player you can get in your team. Without going into the permutations and combinations of kyear2 about batting positions a bowling all rounder gives you the flexibility to have an additional batsman in while giving more depth to the side. Secondly (and I take Ikki's point here) that in a test match every player (theoretically) must bat but not every player must bowl and hence the bowling becomes a more specialized job. And I do agree with Ian Chappell's statement that batsmen set up the matches and it is the bowlers who win it. So ladies and gentleman I think Imran it is coupled with his fantastic leadership I give him the nod.

 

[akilana]

Nah every player doesn't have to bat

 

[harsh.ag]

Hey Kohli, piss off!

 

[harsh.ag]

WAC

A good bowling all rounder to me is arguably the most valuable player you can get in your team. Without going into the permutations and combinations of kyear2 about batting positions a bowling all rounder gives you the flexibility to have an additional batsman in while giving more depth to the side. Secondly (and I take Ikki's point here) that in a test match every player (theoretically) must bat but not every player must bowl and hence the bowling becomes a more specialized job. And I do agree with Ian Chappell's statement that batsmen set up the matches and it is the bowlers who win it. So ladies and gentleman I think Imran it is coupled with his fantastic leadership I give him the nod.

Isn't this a circular statement? For bowlers to win you the matches, the other side's batting would have to do badly, no?

Plus, don't you think that Imran is replaceable with say, Miller and vice versa. But who can replace Bradman?

 

[Jono]

I don't understand why his suit is not wet though?

Needs more water.

 

[smash84]

Isn't this a circular statement? For bowlers to win you the matches, the other side's batting would have to do badly, no?

Plus, don't you think that Imran is replaceable with say, Miller and vice versa. But who can replace Bradman?

You do have a point but in the practical scheme of things you only take 1 ball to dismiss a batsman and with a bunch of good bowlers you are going to do that very often and hence will win a lot of matches (case in point the WI sides and the McWarne Aussies).

Imran isn't replaceable by Miller. Miller was a better batsman but Imran the better bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

Bowlers win matches, batsmen set them up is a rubbish statement. It only applies to the team batting first (another Chappellism: always bat first). The statement just smacks of analysis for the sake of analysis.

If you're batting in the fourth innings you can bet your bottom dollar your batsmen are the ones who will be winning the match, especially if you're chasing a decent score.

 

[smash84]

Bowlers win matches, batsmen set them up is a rubbish statement. It only applies to the team batting first (another Chappellism: always bat first). The statement just smacks of analysis for the sake of analysis.

If you're batting in the fourth innings you can bet your bottom dollar your batsmen are the ones who will be winning the match, especially if you're chasing a decent score.

Maybe which is why usually teams don't end up winning too many matches in the 4th innings when chasing a decent score?

 

[harsh.ag]

You do have a point but in the practical scheme of things you only take 1 ball to dismiss a batsman and with a bunch of good bowlers you are going to do that very often and hence will win a lot of matches (case in point the WI sides and the McWarne Aussies).

Imran isn't replaceable by Miller. Miller was a better batsman but Imran the better bowler.

So, when it comes down to one ATG team against another, wouldn't a better batsman be worth much more because the bowling attack on both sides are as great?

Okay, what about Hadlee, as good a bowler as Imran, and decent bat. Plus, we have had this conversation before, but Imran was never a good batsman and a great bowler at the same time. So, even if you wanted to, you couldn't take both sides of him.

 

[smash84]

So, when it comes down to one ATG team against another, wouldn't a better batsman be worth much more because the bowling attack on both sides are as great?

Okay, what about Hadlee, as good a bowler as Imran, and decent bat. Plus, we have had this conversation before, but Imran was never a good batsman and a great bowler at the same time. So, even if you wanted to, you couldn't take both sides of him.

Not true. Imran was a pretty decent batsman and bowler at the same time as well for a significant part of his career. And I'll list some series for you too.

Against India 1982-83
Against England 1981-82
Against WI 1987-88
Against England 1986-87

Plus there were other series where he was awesome with the ball but didn't get much chances to cash in since the batsmen just ran away with the batting otherwise Imran would have probably scored loads of runs (Australia in Pakistan 1982-83, Sri Lanka vs Pakistan 1981-82)

 

[smash84]

So, when it comes down to one ATG team against another, wouldn't a better batsman be worth much more because the bowling attack on both sides are as great?

.

Which is why a bowling all rounder is so valuable because it allows you to bring in an extra batsman as well as gives you more batting depth with his own batting skills as well.

 

[Flem274*]

Maybe which is why usually teams don't end up winning too many matches in the 4th innings when chasing a decent score?

I don't have the stats next to me and idgaf because I know plenty of games have been won by the chasing side chasing between 200 - 300 with enough sides chasing 300+ for the world to keep spinning without incident when it happens (though obviously it is very well chased). Cricket matches aren't decided at the toss 90% of the time.

And lets say you're half right just as an exercise: Doesn't that make batsmen who win matches during an innings where the bowlers are expected to win the match even more proportionally matchwinning?

When the chasing target is 200 or over, if the bowlers are just expected to turn up in the fourth innings and win the match with only the risk of the draw to thwart them, doesn't that make them less matchwinners and more doing what is par of the course? And in that situation, if the batsmen do chase the total, how are they not matchwinners when in Chappell land the bowlers were expected to roll them over or hold them to a draw?

So even if the statement is right, it's still wrong.