• 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.

Which 4 heads would you put on a cricketing Mount Rushmore?

Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Teja. said:
but the population thing is very, very relevant. One of the biggest reasons M. Ali was so iconic was because he was Ameircan, black and represented the fact that black men could be the best at their field in a field as incredibly popular as boxing at the time. If he wasn't American or black or was at the top of a field less prominent than than boxing or wasn't born at that particular time when racial tensions were high etc., he wouldn't be as important a cultural symbol though he'd be as awesome a boxer.

To determine if someone is iconic, fortune, circumstances etc. obviously come into play. You can't wash them away.
Click to expand...
Muhammad Ali was iconic for people outside of his country really. And I don't mean in the sense that he was just a well-known American boxer. His political stance and his being Muslim made him incredibly popular in many other countries as well. I recall a story about my mum saying her dad would wake them up as kids to pray for an Ali win.

Why should Tendulkar be up there instead of Lara, for instance? Just because he has more countrymen? I don't think he's enough of a stand-out for what he was - all-time great middle order bat - to really qualify in these lists. The big push seems to be "well he was really popular in his own country". Unlike Ali, even in terms of importance for his own country, what did he really do? He's probably one of the most vanilla sporting personalities I've ever encountered.

I guess I'm taking this question more along the lines of which 4 would be a great representation for the cricketing community as a whole rather than just who I thought was great and kind of iconic. IMO, the guys on there should be kind of 'irreplaceable' in terms of importance.
 
Last edited:
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I actually think the Packer nom isn't a bad one but I think I'm against it because of what is possibly a really big change for such a small period of the game's life.

Grace, Bradman, Benaud...Imran?
 
indiaholic

indiaholic

International Captain
Ikki said:
Muhammad Ali was iconic for people outside of his country really. And I don't mean in the sense that he was just a well-known American boxer. His political stance and his being Muslim made him incredibly popular in many other countries as well. I recall a story about my mum saying her dad would wake them up as kids to pray for an Ali win.

Why should Tendulkar be up there instead of Lara, for instance? Just because he has more countrymen? I don't think he's enough of a stand-out for what he was - all-time great middle order bat - to really qualify in these lists. The big push seems to be "well he was really popular in his own country". Unlike Ali, even in terms of importance for his own country, what did he really do? He's probably one of the most vanilla sporting personalities I've ever encountered.

I guess I'm taking this question more along the lines of which 4 would be a great representation for the cricketing community as a whole rather than just who I thought was great and kind of iconic.
Click to expand...
If we are awarding points for symbolism then his rise coincided with India's markets opening up to the world. Decades of socialism and the protection of Indian industries had convinced Indians that foreign made goods were better, foreign universities were better and athletes other than our own were better. Tendulkar by being the very best batsman of the 90s gave Indians the confidence that they could compete as equals in any sphere in the world. I am not saying that Indians in other fields were not better but he was magnificent in a sport that mattered to people.

You seem to outright dismiss the 'number of people' argument but why shouldn't that be relevant? Surely the person who had the greatest influence on the greatest number of people should matter? In issues like creating monuments, popularity is pretty much the only criteria, not how good or bad they are. It is the mindless deification of people who hit a ball with a piece of wood, and it should be based on nothing else but the viewpoint of the masses.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
My point is, even that symbolism basically has nothing to do with him - rather it's a projection on him, as opposed to what Muhammad Ali did for instance in going out his way to shake things up. The reason, at least to me, it seems Tendulkar is so big is because he is basically first great batsman after Gavaskar that the Indian fans could focus on and idolise. If a player from Bangladesh suddenly became an all-time great batsman or bowler, for similar reasons, he would probably affect his people through doing nothing else than just by being great to that level. Does that person suddenly have a Mt Rushmore claim because Bangladesh has the population of all the test countries combined bar India and Pakistan? I get the 'greatest number of people affected' argument I just think it's crappy.

I think the reason they're affected is just not interesting to most people that aren't Indian. I'm sure most people identified with David Beckham over Andrea Pirlo; and while none of them would have a Mt Rushmore case in the game of football; it'd be silly to suggest that Beckham has an argument over Pirlo because of it.

For me the popularity point comes after a few other considerations and not the base of the decision. Even from the subcontinent; why should Tendulkar have a case over Murali because he was simply born in a country with more people? Murali seems a greater story in the game for me considering the way the game changed from his actions; similarly because SL weren't loaded with ATGs before him; and because as a player he is a greater outlier as a player than Tendulkar. In every era, there are usually 2-3 batsmen at least similar to Tendulkar; but for Murali it's more like 2-3 in the history of the game.

And that's not to say you can't have both or it is an either or with them; I'm just trying to illustrate that I think from an actual cricketing perspective that Murali has the better foundation to start from and it doesn't rely on his popularity back home.
 
Last edited:
AldoRaine18

AldoRaine18

State Vice-Captain
The mountain will be filled with sponsors and sold to some petroleum firm the next day Dhoni's face is carved on it, so yes, just about anyone else would do. :D

(just kidding my csk supporting friends)
 
AldoRaine18

AldoRaine18

State Vice-Captain
schearzie said:
Ew, is he really? Where you're from or everywhere?
Click to expand...
Can't think of anyone else.

The first T20 WC winning captain.
Captain and ambassador of the most successful IPL team, the very mecca of T20 cricket.
Knows nothing else but to play like it's your last over on the crease.
 
The Battlers Prince

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
AldoRaine18 said:
Can't think of anyone else.

The first T20 WC winning captain.
Captain and ambassador of the most successful IPL team, the very mecca of T20 cricket.
Knows nothing else but to play like it's your last over on the crease.
Click to expand...
I see your argument, but he's not on my Mt Cricketmore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top