• 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.

Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
ma1978 said:
bradman
hobbs
Tendulkar
Lara
Sobers
Richards
Hutton
Chappell
Hammond
Headley
Gavaskar

people who you “could” make an argument are ahead of Smith, and that’s just off the top of my head. You could also make the other argument.

it’s the definitiveness of your statement that he’s top 8 that’s troublesome
Click to expand...
Not too long ago he was seen as definitive 2nd best ever and for me personally there's not much that can happen to diminish his top tierish standing. An end of career slump isn't abnormal in cricket so somewhat factored in.

But to break it down, think there's a top tier that's not fully arguable even if you disagree with the order.

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Hobbs.

Then some may include this next set in the same tier or as just below.

Richards, Smith, Lara, Hutton.

Think the community basically sees the first 3 as more or less equals with Hutton right behind. Some would include Gavaskar or Hammond, I wouldn't personally.

Smith has kinda don't enough, the argument would have been if he could have made the top 4 into a top 5, and that seems less likely now.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Vice-Captain
kyear2 said:
Not too long ago he was seen as definitive 2nd best ever and for me personally there's not much that can happen to diminish his top tierish standing. An end of career slump isn't abnormal in cricket so somewhat factored in.

But to break it down, think there's a top tier that's not fully arguable even if you disagree with the order.

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Hobbs.

Then some may include this next set in the same tier or as just below.

Richards, Smith, Lara, Hutton.

Think the community basically sees the first 3 as more or less equals with Hutton right behind. Some would include Gavaskar or Hammond, I wouldn't personally.

Smith has kinda don't enough, the argument would have been if he could have made the top 4 into a top 5, and that seems less likely now.
Click to expand...
I have Gavaskar over a fair few in the second class, and Hammond to close that off, but overall I agree.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
peterhrt said:
This line was taken up by a few former players, leading to a spat with Denis Compton, whom Botham described as a "so-called great player".

Compton's response was that Alec Bedser used to bowl one or two bad balls in a day's play, while Botham served up at least one every over.

Walking the length of Britain for charity in 1985 hastened the decline of Botham's cricket career.
Click to expand...
I mean in retrospect, Beefy is 100% right on that at least.
 
M

ma1978

State Captain
kyear2 said:
Not too long ago he was seen as definitive 2nd best ever and for me personally there's not much that can happen to diminish his top tierish standing. An end of career slump isn't abnormal in cricket so somewhat factored in.

But to break it down, think there's a top tier that's not fully arguable even if you disagree with the order.

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Hobbs.

Then some may include this next set in the same tier or as just below.

Richards, Smith, Lara, Hutton.

Think the community basically sees the first 3 as more or less equals with Hutton right behind. Some would include Gavaskar or Hammond, I wouldn't personally.

Smith has kinda don't enough, the argument would have been if he could have made the top 4 into a top 5, and that seems less likely now.
Click to expand...
Lara or Richards or Smith over Tendulkar, Hobbs and Sobers is plenty arguable.

Gavaskar or Hutton or Smith is equally plenty arguable

Youve created these arbitrary tiers in your mind and treat them as gospel when the factual case and broader perception is much murkier
 
M

ma1978

State Captain
kyear2 said:
Not too long ago he was seen as definitive 2nd best ever and for me personally there's not much that can happen to diminish his top tierish standing. An end of career slump isn't abnormal in cricket so somewhat factored in.

But to break it down, think there's a top tier that's not fully arguable even if you disagree with the order.

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Hobbs.

Then some may include this next set in the same tier or as just below.

Richards, Smith, Lara, Hutton.

Think the community basically sees the first 3 as more or less equals with Hutton right behind. Some would include Gavaskar or Hammond, I wouldn't personally.

Smith has kinda don't enough, the argument would have been if he could have made the top 4 into a top 5, and that seems less likely now.
Click to expand...
by the way, who saw him as the DEFINITIVE second best? Virtually no one
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
ma1978 said:
Lara or Richards or Smith over Tendulkar, Hobbs and Sobers is plenty arguable.

Gavaskar or Hutton or Smith is equally plenty arguable

Youve created these arbitrary tiers in your mind and treat them as gospel when the factual case and broader perception is much murkier
Click to expand...
Started off with for me personally

Secondly, as a result of numerous polls, rankings and discussions, it's relatively easy to determine where the community sits with these things.
 
M

ma1978

State Captain
kyear2 said:
Started off with for me personally

Secondly, as a result of numerous polls, rankings and discussions, it's relatively easy to determine where the community sits with these things.
Click to expand...
correct, and I find the hierarchical groupthink that develops here both ridiculous and analytically unsound
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
ma1978 said:
correct, and I find the hierarchical groupthink that develops here both ridiculous and analytically unsound
Click to expand...
The only reason you find anything unsound is when you disagree with it, despite how logical it is.
 
M

ma1978

State Captain
CricAddict said:
Any specific examples of the groupthink?
Click to expand...
notions that somehow Mcgrath, Marshall and Hadlee are in some different tier to Imran, Akram, Donald, Lillee, Trueman, Steyn etc.

Same with Tendulkar, Sobers and Hobbs vs Lara, Richards, Smith, Hutton, Gavaskar

there’s no science to any of those groupings. At that level, it’s just individual preference and people try to make it this scientific hierarchy based on very poor analysis
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
ma1978 said:
notions that somehow Mcgrath, Marshall and Hadlee are in some different tier to Imran, Akram, Donald, Lillee, Trueman, Steyn etc.

Same with Tendulkar, Sobers and Hobbs vs Lara, Richards, Smith, Hutton, Gavaskar

there’s no science to any of those groupings. At that level, it’s just individual preference and people try to make it this scientific hierarchy based on very poor analysis
Click to expand...
The top 3 or the bowlers have much more well-rounded records with no or fewer holes.

Steyn's record was more inconsistent, with less than impressive records vs multiple countries, he also was the easiest of the bunch to hit.

Ambrose's 2nd half of his career he was less destructive than the first half and his overall wpm and s/r while great doesn't compare to the top tier guys.

Imran had a similar s/r to Ambrose and a less than stellar away record.

Lillee basically only played in 3 bowler friendly counties and still his record wasn't as good.

Trueman was not good away from home

Akram'a record was also inconsistent averaging 25, 28 and 30 vs the best reams of the era.. also had relatively less than great s/r and wpm, though his longevity contributed to that.

the top guys didn't have this type of issues and should be rewarded for that. There's logic involved.

same with the batsmen.

lara was inconsistent, Viv fell off a cliff, Hutton was glacial and didn't have the extra gear the others had, Smith is in progress.

And everyone will have their own tiers, not saying mine is absolute. But to say it lacks analysis is just your own bs.
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
@CricAddict I notice a fair bit of discussion on batsmen. No problem with that but, when I finish the bowling poll (Friday) I'll be starting the batsmen poll on the weekend. Would you like to start a "Debate" thread as you have done with the current poll?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top