aha calling me a moron doesnt effect me, only outlines your line of thinking and hypocracy...
no hypocrasy- only hypocrasy is what you've exhibited so far.
Who (apart from you) would argue that sobers was better?...what evidence do you have to back this up?... seeing your the self proclaimed king of backing up your outrageous statements... im not doubting that sobers was an awesome cricketer, just not as good as bradman, and he'd be the first to admit that... heres a statistic bradmans average: 99.94... sobers average: 57.78.....
cant argue with that..!
earth to benchie.
earth calling benchie.
I said it can be argued that Sobers was a better
cricketer.Not batsman.
Sobers was a great batsman ( though behind Bradman) but a MUCH superior bowler and fielder.
Overall, i would rate Sobers as the best CRICKETER of the last century.
an allrounder is a better cricketer than a specialist as he posesses a superior overall mastery over cricketing skills.
Which is why Imran Khan/Botham/Kapil/Miller etc. are better cricketers than Richards, Gavaskar, Border,Greg Chappell,Miandad,Lillee,Holding,Thommo,Tendy,Hayden,Dravid,McGrath etc etc etc.
PS: I am not the only one- MANY cricket conoisseurs and fans rate Sobers as the best cricketer of the last century. Try visiting other boards for a while to guage opinion