Cricket Player Manager

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 3 of 49 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 725

Thread: Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

  1. #31
    International Regular harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3,096








    Hey Kohli, piss off!
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

  2. #32
    International Regular harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    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?

  3. #33
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,696
    I don't understand why his suit is not wet though?

    Needs more water.


  4. #34
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,302
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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.
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta


  5. #35
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swimming in the cry water of Antarctica
    Posts
    29,345
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  6. #36
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    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?

  7. #37
    International Regular harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,302
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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)

  9. #39
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,302
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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.

  10. #40
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swimming in the cry water of Antarctica
    Posts
    29,345
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    International Regular harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    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)
    Dude, we have been down this road before!

    Imran has just one instance of a 5-fer and century in the same match, compared to Botham's 5. He doesn't have 250 runs and 20 wickets in the same series (Came very close in the 82-83 India series, which was his best no doubt, brilliant performance, especially with the ball, also with the bat) (But as another aside, that series did have 6 tests, which is a rarity).
    Last edited by harsh.ag; 27-03-2013 at 01:56 AM.

  12. #42
    State Vice-Captain Coronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,365
    Its got to be the Don. If you had to pick an all time side, and he was available, he would be your first pick. Not to mention nobody, in the 70 years before and after his test career has come close to his records.

    52 matches, 80 innings
    6996 runs
    99.94 average
    29 centuries (better than 1 in every 2 matches)
    12 double centuries
    2 triple centuries

    People have beaten his run total, but of those, Hammond has played the least matches, at 85. Just 10 batsmen have scored more centuries than him, but every single one has played more than 100 matches. He still holds the joint record for triple centuries. He made his hundred 29 times, and 41% of the time, he'd go on to make another hundred. He is the only man to score more than 300 runs in a day. He was the fastest to 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs, and the 3rd fastest to 1000. In a game where 50 is considered a great average, he almost averaged 100. In fact, only 3 batsmen who have played more than 20 innings have averaged over 60, and none of them managed to average over 61.

    The fact that he dominated everyone before and after him, and by such a huge margin easily makes him the greatest batsman to ever play the game. Because of this dominance, I believe he is the best player to play the game. He was also an excellent fielder. Of course, there are those who would say that the best player must be an allrounder. I don't think we've had a truly great all rounder in the game. someone who bats like Sobers, and bowls like Imran. Maybe we never will. That man, may give Bradman a run for the top position.

    But seriously, if you were choosing an all time team, and you had first pick, would you not choose Bradman first, knowing that meant another team would have him on their roster?

  13. #43
    International Regular harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Of course, there are those who would say that the best player must be an allrounder. I don't think we've had a truly great all rounder in the game. Someone who bats like Sobers, and bowls like Imran. Maybe we never will. That man, may give Bradman a run for the top position.

    But seriously, if you were choosing an all time team, and you had first pick, would you not choose Bradman first, knowing that meant another team would have him on their roster?
    Man, I hope we see that

  14. #44
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,302
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    Dude, we have been down this road before!

    Imran has just one instance of a 5-fer and century in the same match, compared to Botham's 5. He doesn't have 250 runs and 20 wickets in the same series (Came very close in the 82-83 India series, which was his best no doubt, brilliant performance, especially with the ball, also with the bat) (But as another aside, that series did have 6 tests, which is a rarity).
    We have been down this road before and I keep arguing the same points over and over but what exactly is a good all round series for you? In most of the series that Imran played he had a very good batting average (At least the ones in the 1980s). What would that suggest?

  15. #45
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Its got to be the Don. If you had to pick an all time side, and he was available, he would be your first pick. Not to mention nobody, in the 70 years before and after his test career has come close to his records.

    52 matches, 80 innings
    6996 runs
    99.94 average
    29 centuries (better than 1 in every 2 matches)
    12 double centuries
    2 triple centuries

    People have beaten his run total, but of those, Hammond has played the least matches, at 85. Just 10 batsmen have scored more centuries than him, but every single one has played more than 100 matches. He still holds the joint record for triple centuries. He made his hundred 29 times, and 41% of the time, he'd go on to make another hundred. He is the only man to score more than 300 runs in a day. He was the fastest to 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs, and the 3rd fastest to 1000. In a game where 50 is considered a great average, he almost averaged 100. In fact, only 3 batsmen who have played more than 20 innings have averaged over 60, and none of them managed to average over 61.

    The fact that he dominated everyone before and after him, and by such a huge margin easily makes him the greatest batsman to ever play the game. Because of this dominance, I believe he is the best player to play the game. He was also an excellent fielder. Of course, there are those who would say that the best player must be an allrounder. I don't think we've had a truly great all rounder in the game. someone who bats like Sobers, and bowls like Imran. Maybe we never will. That man, may give Bradman a run for the top position.

    But seriously, if you were choosing an all time team, and you had first pick, would you not choose Bradman first, knowing that meant another team would have him on their roster?
    Dude, such a cricketer will leave any other in the dust. Even Bradman. I don't think we'll be seeing such a cricketer any time soon

Page 3 of 49 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •