Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[smash84]

Haha way to go... Where did you pull that 30 out of?
But if someone told me that Tendulkar/Sobers/Lara/kallis are not in the top 15 of all time, I'd get angry and respond approproately sure, but I'd understand because there are plenty of other worthy candidates...
I don't know why this is so hard to understand FFS... I'm out

I said 30 batsmen because in a usual team there are roughly twice as many batsmen in the team as bowlers.

You should have kept out in the first place if you only had to come up with frivolous points

 

[Plumbinfront]

I said 30 batsmen because in a usual team there are roughly twice as many batsmen in the team as bowlers.

You should have kept out in the first place if you only had to come up with frivolous points

the first line underlines the ridiculousness of the discussion. You keep missing the point and come up with utterly comical stuff such as the above. I am done too.

 

[Coronis]

Again, people rate batsman differently. Some people would say players like Trumper, Gower and Mark Waugh were better batsman, simply because of how stylish and elegant they were. I don't think anyone here has said they don't consider Imran a top 15 fast bowler, but rather that it is possible to make a case for 15 or so fast bowlers. For example, I myself don't rate Larwood very highly, but there are people who consider him the greatest fast bowler of all time. Hell, there're probably people who think it'd be ridiculous to have an ATG XI without WG Grace and Fred Spofforth.

Now, 30 batsmen who could be considered better than Kallis: Bradman, Sobers, V.Richards, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Headley, Hutton, Pollock, Hammond, Ponting, Lara, Dravid, Tendulkar, G.Chappell, Border, S.Waugh, Gavaskar, Greenidge, B.Richards, Trumper, Gower, M.Waugh, Barrington, Compton, Ranji, McCabe, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Gilchrist.

Also Agent_Nationaux, if its ridiculous to compare Larwood and Lindwall to someone like Imran Khan, isn't it also ridiculous to compare Bradman to Tendulkar? Tendulkar must be much better then! Also, I don't understand whats so ridiculous about rating Procter or Richards highly. Sure, both had very limited opportunities in tests, but they both performed well in their short careers, and followed it up by playing exceptionally well in one of the most competitive eras for first class cricket.

 

[kyear2]

No one's top fifteen will be the same, but most of the names will be the same. Mine would look like

Marshall, Mcgrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Trueman, Holding, Lindwall, Hadlee, Garner, Steyn, Imran, Davidson, Larwood, Waqar, Donald.

Robers, Fazal, Snow, Wasim, Pollock, Hall, Willis ect are all next in line.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Again, people rate batsman differently. Some people would say players like Trumper, Gower and Mark Waugh were better batsman, simply because of how stylish and elegant they were. I don't think anyone here has said they don't consider Imran a top 15 fast bowler, but rather that it is possible to make a case for 15 or so fast bowlers. For example, I myself don't rate Larwood very highly, but there are people who consider him the greatest fast bowler of all time. Hell, there're probably people who think it'd be ridiculous to have an ATG XI without WG Grace and Fred Spofforth.

Now, 30 batsmen who could be considered better than Kallis: Bradman, Sobers, V.Richards, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Headley, Hutton, Pollock, Hammond, Ponting, Lara, Dravid, Tendulkar, G.Chappell, Border, S.Waugh, Gavaskar, Greenidge, B.Richards, Trumper, Gower, M.Waugh, Barrington, Compton, Ranji, McCabe, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Gilchrist.

Also Agent_Nationaux, if its ridiculous to compare Larwood and Lindwall to someone like Imran Khan, isn't it also ridiculous to compare Bradman to Tendulkar? Tendulkar must be much better then! Also, I don't understand whats so ridiculous about rating Procter or Richards highly. Sure, both had very limited opportunities in tests, but they both performed well in their short careers, and followed it up by playing exceptionally well in one of the most competitive eras for first class cricket.

I didn't say Imran was better. I said you couldn't compare because they played in a different era. All we can go on are the stats and as I'm sure you are aware they don't paint the best picture.

Imran played most of his matches on the subcontinent flat pitches whereas Larwood played mainly in England where batting was difficult. Even today you get such contrast between England and Pakistan/India.

I'm sorry but Proctor only played 7 matches. It's like saying Philander is now the greatest ever.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

No one's top fifteen will be the same, but most of the names will be the same. Mine would look like

Marshall, Mcgrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Trueman, Holding, Lindwall, Hadlee, Garner, Steyn, Imran, Davidson, Larwood, Waqar, Donald.

Robers, Fazal, Snow, Wasim, Pollock, Hall, Willis ect are all next in line.

So why do these guys fall in the next category for you personally? Why is someone like Pollock worse than Holding or Larwood?

 

[Coronis]

I didn't say Imran was better. I said you couldn't compare because they played in a different era. All we can go on are the stats and as I'm sure you are aware they don't paint the best picture.

Imran played most of his matches on the subcontinent flat pitches whereas Larwood played mainly in England where batting was difficult. Even today you get such contrast between England and Pakistan/India.

I'm sorry but Proctor only played 7 matches. It's like saying Philander is now the greatest ever.

Its nothing like that at all, did you even read my post? While with Procter we have an entire career in first class during its most competitive era, and a test career cut short due to his country's racist policies, whereas Philander has played less than 100 first class matches in the least competitive era (imo), and has played few tests due to his injuries, and currently short career, which is far from over.

Also, if we can't compare across different eras, clearly ATG discussions are pointless, and the best team of all time is:

Hayden
Sehwag
Ponting*
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist+
Warne
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

 

[kyear2]

I didn't say Imran was better. I said you couldn't compare because they played in a different era. All we can go on are the stats and as I'm sure you are aware they don't paint the best picture.

Imran played most of his matches on the subcontinent flat pitches whereas Larwood played mainly in England where batting was difficult. Even today you get such contrast between England and Pakistan/India.

I'm sorry but Proctor only played 7 matches. It's like saying Philander is now the greatest ever.

If the Pakistani pitches were so dead, why is that Imran;s average is so much better there. Beyond that Larwood played in an era of even flatter pitches, especially in Australia where the pitches were so dead that they didn't have a decent pacer until after the war. Added to that the LBW laws were as such that if the ball pitched outside the off stump one was to be adjudged not out. The stumps were also smaller and even in England the wet pitches helped the spinners not the quick men.

 

[kyear2]

So why do these guys fall in the next category for you personally? Why is someone like Pollock worse than Holding or Larwood?

Not a fan of Pollock's strike rate or five wicket hauls. For me he was a clear number two to Donald and not quite the match winner as the ones listed aove.

 

[the big bambino]

Proctor should not even be in contention. I don't care if he averaged 100 in those 7 Tests with the bat and 10 with the ball. He only played 7. Unfair to him but that's how it is.

It is unfair though understandable I guess. However understand if Waqar played only 7 tests and all against Australia he would have taken 17 wickets at 33.8.

It gives you some idea of Procter's impact that he is still highly regarded on the basis of those 7 games and his fc record. Whereas I'm sure Waqar wouldn't have been. In fact he would have been a footnote and if he was ever disussed probably considered a journeyman at best.

There is a bias against older players in tests played and strength of opposition. Put simply a modern player's case is assited by playing more matches but proportionally fewer against their toughest opponents.

That is why so few older players are considered by modern fans when rating the best ever. You have to be abnormally good like Bradman or Hammond. Or your deeds over one series abnormally noteworthy like bodyline. That doesn't mean others less famous would not have been so if given more opportunities. You can compare older v modern players by isolating their records against their toughest opponent. Such as the one above btwn Waqar and Procter. This seems fair as the comparsion is with comparable quality and matches played. It is a reason why I'd place Procter above Waqar.

 

[watson]

Not a fan of Pollock's strike rate or five wicket hauls. For me he was a clear number two to Donald and not quite the match winner as the ones listed aove.

Yeah, a fast-medium bowler who averages nearly 37 (13 Tests) against Australia doesn't really excite me too much. Great allrounder though.

 

[smash84]

If the Pakistani pitches were so dead, why is that Imran;s average is so much better there. .

Ok, now this is a first. Pakistan preparing green tops and rank turners. So Pakistani batsmen shouldn't be included for being FTBs I suppose

 

[akilana]

Yeah, a fast-medium bowler who averages nearly 37 (13 Tests) against Australia doesn't really excite me too much. Great allrounder though.

He was playing the aussies at the wrong time. Aussies during his time were arguably the greatest. I think most ATG bowlers would have struggled.

 

[Ikki]

Haha, definitely the first time I've heard Lindwall's rugby league career actually used as evidence for him being a better cricketer than someone. That's a new one.

tbf he mentioned a better athlete and not cricketer

CW, where making a smartarse reply is more important than being accurate.

A highly subjective claim.

You think someone that played Rugby League (grand finalist) and also cricket to the highest level of both sports isn't a better athlete than the guy who played only one?

It is subjective, but I recall seeing a photo of Lindwall in a rugby kit and he looked pretty muscular. Moreso than Imran who looks very slight. The emphasis was on 'probably', so I can agree he may not have been.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

If the Pakistani pitches were so dead, why is that Imran;s average is so much better there. Beyond that Larwood played in an era of even flatter pitches, especially in Australia where the pitches were so dead that they didn't have a decent pacer until after the war. Added to that the LBW laws were as such that if the ball pitched outside the off stump one was to be adjudged not out. The stumps were also smaller and even in England the wet pitches helped the spinners not the quick men.

He adapted to them well. Can't say the same for everyone.

 

[Burgey]

Has anyone mentioned Imran, Sobers or Miller in this thread yet?

 

[H4G]

If the Pakistani pitches were so dead, why is that Imran;s average is so much better there.

It takes special talent, hard work & devotion to do that on flat wickets.All great Pakistan pacers especially Imran,Wasim & Waqar possessed those attributes & thats why I rate them higher than those from other countries with similar or bit better records.

 

[Burgey]

It takes special talent, hard work & devotion to do that on flat wickets.All great Pakistan pacers especially Imran,Wasim & Waqar possessed those attributes & thats why I rate them higher than those from other countries with similar or bit better records.

Then why are their records **** in Australia, where conditions for fast bowling are supposed to be so good?*


*Wasim's record is decent tbf, and anyway he's my fave.

 

[H4G]

Then why are their records **** in Australia, where conditions for fast bowling are supposed to be so good?*


*Wasim's record is decent tbf, and anyway he's my fave.

Waqar never toured Australia at his prime
Wasim has good record in Australia
Imran has excellent record in Australia if you don't consider his performance in 1976(before transforming into a deadly fast bowler) & 1990(well past his prime).In 1983-1984, when he was at peak he had 2 play 2 matches in Australia as specialist batsman due to injury.

 

[Burgey]

So, like everyone else, if you take out the times they didn't do well, they were universally excellent.