Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[centurymaker]

Inspired by the the thread "Who after Don", I have decided to touch on a similar question.

Who really is the Best Cricket Player ever? Is it Don Bradman or one of the great all-rounders?


Although Bradman averaged 100, I feel you have to take into consideration that if he had had to play in this era or in the 70s/80s and play as many tests as the corresponding era, he probably would have averaged quite a bit less due to law of diminishing returns IMO (around 80 Imo if we kept everything else constant). This is only a 20% drop. (This is almost equivalent of another great batsman going from averaging 60 to 50).

Hence, for example, when you consider that someone like Sobers/Kallis took/take a wicket an innings roughly iirc, which we can say is equivalent of 25 runs, in conjunction with scoring 55+ runs on average, you quickly realize there is barely much in it between them and the Don. Then if you add WG Grace into this debate , the competition becomes only stiffer.
W.G. Grace | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
Crazy stats.

Now bringing Imran Khan and Keith Miller into the mix takes this to a whole new level!
The former took more than 2.5 wickets an innings to go with a batting avg of close to 38 which together add up to 100 runs per full innings! Even if you looked at just averages, Imran has a bowling avg of 22 which we can say equates roughly to 60....Add in his batting avg and you still get an average of 100 roughly (or 95 if you want to be pedantic about it). It's exactly the same for Keith Miller. His combined average is also very high -- around 95 (bowling avg of 22 and batting avg of 36). After adjustments, maybe 75-80?

This is just an incomplete mathematical side to it and given that there's alot to it than just numbers, the question still remains who really is the best?

(note - I have only included numbers to get you guys thinking about this debate)

[benchmark00]

So how come Bradman's stats drop but the others don't?

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

So how come Bradman's stats drop but the others don't?

I did say it was an 'incomplete' Mathematical side to it to save myself from any mistakes (basically I forgot about Miller )

You could bring Miller down to 75-80 as well.

Sobers played in the 70s and played enough tests so I don't think he needs an adjustment (even if you were to give him one, then maybe 5-10 runs?)

I just found out that he actually took 1.5 wickets per innings so ...that makes up for it I suppose.

Kallis' averages probably deserve to be revised up given how much more he has played compared to others...

I am just trying to raise the point that there isn't that much in it between them all. I only added numbers to get people thinking about it!

[uvelocity]

sachin baby

[kyear2]

Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Jacques Kallis, Don Bradman, Wally Hammond, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Keith Miller, Imran Khan, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Sachin Tedulkar, Ian Botham, W.G. Grace, Muttiah Muralitharan, Jack Hobbs, Frank Worrell, Richard Hadlee.

My Eighteen candidates that I was going to use for this poll after the Best after Don thread and one other. Lillee, Lloyd and Simpson came close as well, in that order.

For me it has to be Sobers though Gilchrist comes awful close as he changed the wicketkeeper/ batsman position and mastered both arts to the point where it has never and may never be matched. Hammond as an All Rounder is really under rated as its hard for any other than Sobers and Kallis to match his skill set of batting, bowling and slip fielding though Chappell comes awful close.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Jacques Kallis, Don Bradman, Wally Hammond, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Keith Miller, Imran Khan, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Sachin Tedulkar, Ian Botham, W.G. Grace, Muttiah Muralitharan, Richard Hadlee.

My Sixteen candidates that I was going to use for this poll after the Best after Don thread and one other. Hobbs, Lillee, Worrell and Simpson came close as well, in that order.

For me it has to be Sobers though Gilchrist comes awful close as he changed the wicketkeeper/ batsman position and mastered both arts to the point where it has never and may never be matched. Hammond as an All Rounder is really under rated as its hard for any other than Sobers and Kallis to match his skill set of batting, bowling and slip fielding though Chappell comes awful close.

oh no I forgot about quite a few of them but at least I went with the most popular ones.

Normally I only see Imran Khan, Miller, Sobers or Kallis in the All time XIs...out of the ARs

Gilchrist obviously a bad omission.

How much can slip catching count here?

[Jono]

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Jono

He'd have to start taking a lot wickets to be in contention ...........in the distant future

Ashwin? hmmm

[Dan]

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

[Jono]

Originally Posted by centurymaker

He'd have to start taking a lot wickets to be in contention ...........in the distant future

Ashwin? hmmm

Nah being a good cricketer also involves being fashionable and well dressed. He's right in contention for best cricketer ever.

Virat Kohli in top-10 of GQ's 'Best Dressed International Men' - The Times of India

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

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 Lee Germon 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

Ponting went from 60 to 51 point something in no time after having played sooo many more tests! (it takes more and more failures for an avg to fall by the same amount as the number of games goes up, in case someone doesn't understand what I am implying here)

With Bradman's sample size, it's not much at all.

Let's say he averaged a bit more than 50 over back to back Ashes series'.

7000 runs /70 outs = avg 100
8000 /89 dismissals = new avg 90

If he were to have a real slump...

Or you could say that if he had had to play all year around all over the world in both formats and against amazing attacks that were around, it'd be extremely tough to sustain an avg that high.

If you don't like 80, then 85...It's all hypothetical.

[LongHopCassidy]

Originally Posted by Jono

Nah being a good cricketer also involves being fashionable and well dressed. He's right in contention for best cricketer ever.

You lose.

[Jono]

Nah I don't. We can do peak lapels too.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

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

And to answer the remainder of your post. You are absolutely right

I just had to bring in numbers or else all would've just voted for Don with their eyes closed haha

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by centurymaker

oh no I forgot about quite a few of them but at least I went with the most popular ones.

Normally I only see Imran Khan, Miller, Sobers or Kallis in the All time XIs...out of the ARs

Gilchrist obviously a bad omission.

How much can slip catching count here?

For me, having a great batsman who is also a great slip fielder, is just as important to a team or more so that a great bowler who is also an average batsman. A Marshall or Warne is more that good enough for the no. 8 position without having a full fledged "bowling all rounder"

I also rate batting all rounders higher than bowling ones, because for optimum balance a team would require a fifth bowler who doesn't weaken the batting, while if I would use Imran/ Miller as the all rounder I would have to bat them either in the top six thus weakening the batting or bat them at 7/8 and still only have 4 bolwers or still have to find a batting all rounder if you require a competent 5th bolwer. A Sobers, Hammond, Chappell, Kallis, Mcabe gives me an ATG batsman, good - competent bowler and an exceptional slip fielder. Hard to beat that combination. Miller and Warne does challenge though.