-
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.
3rd best cricketer ever?
- Thread starter Francis
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Without WG, it's safe to say that cricket might not have ever developed the way it did.
He single-handedly popularised the game in England and put thousands on gates. It's also safe to say that he was a wassock.
He single-handedly popularised the game in England and put thousands on gates. It's also safe to say that he was a wassock.
adharcric
International Coach
I don't think Warne can be considered the #3 as his claim to being the greatest spinner is already disputed. If he's being considered, Tendulkar definitely has to be considered. Tendulkar isn't rated as the greatest batsman of all-time (bar Bradman), so Viv Richards comes into the equation. But really, I'd say Imran Khan or Richard Hadlee are the main contenders, probably Khan.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Shane Warne for me
Dixie Flatline
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Bradman was also a good captain when he came back to play international cricket after the second World War. I would have Bradman the best of all time. Sobers would be second. For mine, Shane Warne would be third, but then again I'm too young to really remember the exploits of Sir Viv and Imran Khan.
James90
Cricketer Of The Year
Tendulkar wouldn't come close. He's scored mountains of runs at a fine average but when compared to other batsmen of his era (Dravid, Ponting) it's not insane like Sobers or Bradman were. Warne and Murali could well be the two greatest bowlers of all time but I don't know if they have done enough to warrant being #3 when people like John Wisden and Jim Laker could be holding many records if they played more test cricket.
The first name that came to my head was Hobbs but Len Hutton also deserves a mention. It's almost impossible to judge at this point in time.
The first name that came to my head was Hobbs but Len Hutton also deserves a mention. It's almost impossible to judge at this point in time.
C_C
International Captain
Why does Hobbs or Hutton come close when Tendulkar/Murali/Warne dont ? People in amatuer era, playing against amatuer players on much less varied conditions, facing very little pressure, etc. compare to modern day perfectionists with superior/similar records playing all over the globe against professionals and comming under intense scrutiny and pressure ?!
James90
Cricketer Of The Year
There's definitely more pressure in this current era but I was certainly still there in their day. People did come to the ground afterall. How can they be decribed as amateurs if they are representing their country in front of a crowd of people and up against the best the world has to offer.
Maybe the fact that cricket wasn't as popular or important in those days makes it more exceptional that these types of people can come through and dominate attacks on uncovered pitches. Unlike today where people grow up watching a lot of cricket from a very young age, get professional coaching and vast amounts of knowledge about how to improve their game and how to play in certain situations. They were still among the best cricketers of thier time.
Maybe the fact that cricket wasn't as popular or important in those days makes it more exceptional that these types of people can come through and dominate attacks on uncovered pitches. Unlike today where people grow up watching a lot of cricket from a very young age, get professional coaching and vast amounts of knowledge about how to improve their game and how to play in certain situations. They were still among the best cricketers of thier time.
C_C
International Captain
Because amatuer is defined as someone who either plays for fun or does it for passtime.
ie, stakes arnt very high if its not your livelyhood.
But just about the only thing going for these guys is the pitch being uncovered. The skill in batsmanship, bowling, planning, tactics, fitness, more varied conditions, far more hectic schedule, etc.have all improved considerably since Hammond or Hobb's era. Sure, Bradman might be an exception case but if someone duplicates/surpasses Hammond or Hobbs in the tougher modern environment, they do deserve to be rated higher.
And they may've been best cricketers of their time...but just like how 'best scientists of their time' from 100 years ago are no match for the ones today, same applies for sports.
Difference of opinion.C C I'm curious about sub-continent attitudes toward all-rounders. Sounds like all-rounders are more valued than any other type of player. I mean not on my worst day would I put Dev above Tendulkar. Keith Miller rated high on your list and so on...
Are all-rounders more valued where your from? I suppose it's not suprising since Pakistan and India's world cups came with a dominant all-rounder.
How is Flintoff viewed in the sub-continent?
Are all-rounders more valued where your from? I suppose it's not suprising since Pakistan and India's world cups came with a dominant all-rounder.
How is Flintoff viewed in the sub-continent?
C_C
International Captain
I honestly got no idea. Opinions are so varied in the subcontinent when it comes to the value of a player and as such. But from my own experience, i would say that most subcontinentals approach a player's worth based on two criterias ( ofcourse, i am talking of the few people i've interacted with, which is in no way representative of approx 1.4 billion people) :Francis said:
1. comprehensive mastery of one of bowling/batting/keeping
2. Overall mastery of all skillsets pertaining to cricket ( batting, fielding, bowling).
In general, i've seen ( and i agree with this perspective) many people rating allrounders higher on the scale than specialists. Take for example Imran Khan and someone like Gavaskar. Gavaskar was one of the greatest batsmen of alltime just as Imran was one of the greatest bowlers of alltime. But Imran could affect a match significantly with his batting compared to Gavaskar's bowling and in terms of fielding, both are in the same zone ( Gavaskar a good catcher, Imran a good outfielder)...so people (who can see past jingoistic colors ofcourse) tend to rate Imran as a greater cricketer than Gavaskar.
Fusion
Global Moderator
I think Imran's outstanding leadership as Captain gives him the edge over others for the number three spot. He was so good leading a traditionally fractional side that had many strong personalities throughout the years (who didn't necessarily want to cooperate!). Also, IMO, his bowling stats would've been much better had it not been for injuries and time missed due to personal conflicts of various reasons. If not for that time missed, I think it's conceivable that he would've been in the 500 wicket club.
thierry henry
International Coach
Imran. Viv not even in the top 10 bats