• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

Who is the best "Cricketer" ever

  • Total voters
    79
sobers no:1

sobers no:1

Banned
only 3 contenders

sobers
grace
bradman

other names mentioned here , were not even best of their eras (arguably )
 
Last edited:
Satyanash89

Satyanash89

Banned
hendrix said:
Imran Khan IMO.

On Sobers vs Khan, IMO Imran's bowling (i.e. his strength) was better than Sobers' batting (his strength).
Click to expand...
No way imo. Many many people consider Sobers to be the second greatest batsman ever. To my knowledge, Imran's name doesn't ce up as often as Marshall, Barnes, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Lillee in the best bowler ever debate. Think the greatest bowler thread would provide evidence for this too. Amazing though he was I don't have Imran in the top 5 bowlers ever, Sobers is in my top 3 batsmen.
It's silly to compare bowling and batting anyway
 
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Satyanash89 said:
It's Bradman. Even if you want to hold to the logic that the best player must be an allrounder(which I don't agree with at all), I say Bradman WAS an all rounder whose two core strengths were batting and batting.

FFS, he's statistically worth two ATG batsmen.
Click to expand...
Not aiming to pull down Bradman here.. But how is he statistically worth two ATG batsmen? How do you define that?

He is the greatest batsman and that is it. His stats don't measure up to any 2 ATG batsmen put together.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
CricAddict said:
Not aiming to pull down Bradman here.. But how is he statistically worth two ATG batsmen? How do you define that?

He is the greatest batsman and that is it. His stats don't measure up to any 2 ATG batsmen put together.
Click to expand...
An argument can be made that an average ATG batsman scores 50 runs per completed innings (eg. Viv, Ponting, Waugh, Border etc), while Bradman scores the double of that. So.... :happy:
 
sobers no:1

sobers no:1

Banned
imran khan greatest cricketer ever

so. hu is the greatest indian cricketer of 90s

kapil ? kumble ? or manoj prabhakar ?

if 1wkt=25 runs

prabhakar and kapil averaging 60+ in an innings
kumble - 70-80 :wacko:
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
hendrix said:
Imran Khan IMO.

On Sobers vs Khan, IMO Imran's bowling (i.e. his strength) was better than Sobers' batting (his strength). I'd say Imran's batting was probably about equal to Sobers' bowling.
Click to expand...
You are joking, right? Sobers is widely acknowledged as one of the best batsmen after Bradman. For 90% of people, I'd say Sobers would be among their top 10 batsmen of all time, and ditto for Imran with his bowling.
 
MrPrez

MrPrez

International Debutant
It has to be Bradman. He's the first pick in almost every ATG draft, and he's a specialist. If you notice, round 1 of most drafts see all of the top all-rounders being picked first, but Bradman always gets the nod ahead of any of them. He's quite simply seen as more valuable than any all-rounder, or for that matter, any player.
 
MrPrez

MrPrez

International Debutant
And, if we're to be daft and try to manipulate statistics to try to prove anything in this regard, you'd find that Sobers, Kallis and Imran all still fall short of Bradman.

Both Sobers and Kallis have roughly 55 batting averages, and you'd probably liken their bowling averages to batting averages around the 40 mark, which sits them at roughly 95 overall.

Imran averaged a bit below 40 with the bat, and his bowling was most definitely not the equivalent to a 60+ batting average, which would be required to equal Bradman on this daft statistical premise.
 
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
harsh.skm said:
An argument can be made that an average ATG batsman scores 50 runs per completed innings (eg. Viv, Ponting, Waugh, Border etc), while Bradman scores the double of that. So.... :happy:
Click to expand...
But all of them whom you mention average above 50..Any of the ATG batsmen who makes it to World XIs would surely average over 50..One of Bradman's 2 batsmen should average below 50 for overall rate to be 99.94.

And I am just nitpicking for fun.. :)

sobers no:1 said:
even ATG + VERY GOOD wins the argument.. 55+45..
Click to expand...
No..It loses the argument..
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
The Sean said:
A thousand times this.

I know I've said it before, but this obsession that a few people seem to have with inventing reasons or criteria to mark down Bradman - and only Bradman - just to somehow bring him back to the field is beyond ludicrous. I suppose it must seem easier to artificially create some sort of level playing field than to acknowledge that there was a bloke so good that statistically he shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...
It's the law of diminishing returns, god! There's no way he would've sustained an average that high if he'd had played at least 3 times as much cricket in his career!

Although he avg'd 95 over a really long FC career, you have to consider that a guy who can avg 100 in tests should be averaging easily120+ in FC against worse attacks, given his unrelenting style of batting. The fact that he didn't illustrates diminishing returns! (look at his avgs against the likes of India to get an idea of how he fared against worse attacks)

I hope I don't have to explain this again.

(I haven't even brought up any difference in era and stuff this time...)
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
harsh.skm said:
An argument can be made that an average ATG batsman scores 50 runs per completed innings (eg. Viv, Ponting, Waugh, Border etc), while Bradman scores the double of that. So.... :happy:
Click to expand...
Please refer to my last post.

As good as Bradman was, he was not 2 times better than any ATG batsman( average-wise)
 
Last edited:
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
centurymaker said:
It's the law of diminishing returns, god! There's no way he would've sustained an average that high if he'd had played at least 3 times as much cricket in his career!

Although he avg'd 95 over a really long FC career, you have to consider that a guy who can avg 100 in tests should be averaging easily120+ in FC against worse attacks, given his unrelenting style of batting. The fact that he didn't illustrates diminishing returns! (look at his avgs against the likes of India to get an idea of how he fared against worse attacks)

I hope I don't have to explain this again.

(I haven't even brought up any difference in era and stuff this time...)
Click to expand...

I hope you never "explain" that again too.

Because you've "explained" nothing. You've speculated a lot.

You've done so ridiculously inconsistently. Bradman is laughably marked down for not "easily" averaging 120 in FC cricket because of his Test average against India, but apparently gets no credit for actually performing at his best at the highest - Test match - level.

And yet again you've applied that negative speculation to Bradman - and ONLY Bradman - in order to mark him down.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
centurymaker said:
It's the law of diminishing returns, god! There's no way he would've sustained an average that high if he'd had played at least 3 times as much cricket in his career!

Although he avg'd 95 over a really long FC career, you have to consider that a guy who can avg 100 in tests should be averaging easily120+ in FC against worse attacks, given his unrelenting style of batting. The fact that he didn't illustrates diminishing returns! (look at his avgs against the likes of India to get an idea of how he fared against worse attacks)

I hope I don't have to explain this again.

(I haven't even brought up any difference in era and stuff this time...)
Click to expand...
You really need to cut down on the condescension, mate. The law of diminishing returns is a concept of utility (satisfaction), it cannot be applied to raw numbers.

After the resumption of Bradman's career following WWII, he averaged 105.72 in his last 15 tests. The law was conspicuous by its absence. Some people defy laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top