Sobers vs Viv vs Lara

[kyear2]

Is that the real reason he was down the order or your take?

Definitely his take

 

[slippy888]

It a shame Lara play for a average west indies team that is why he always never gets the respect he deserve as a batsman

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It a shame Lara play for a average west indies team that is why he always never gets the respect he deserve as a batsman

Murali respected him…as a batsman.

 

[slippy888]

1996 west indies team should have gotten through to world cup final and who knows maybe they win it, but i was happy for Brian Lara that the West Indies won the icc champions trophy in 2004 and he won a icc world trophy.

 

[Flem274*]

All these guys are amazing but Sobers was the best of every world. Arguably the greatest mortal batsman to take guard.

 

[kyear2]

Would be interesting to hear Lille's perspective on whom he though was greater between Sobers and IVA Richards

 

[The Sean]

Would be interesting to hear Lille's perspective on whom he though was greater between Sobers and IVA Richards

I can't speak for DKL but Doug Walters in his autobiography had a chapter where he discussed the best of the best from his time in the game and he was unequivocal that Sobers was not just the greatest cricketer he ever saw but also the greatest pure batsman.

He praised Richards very highly - and to be fair, he played both more against Sobers and less against Richards than Lillee did - but he said he just felt that Sobers was the most complete.

 

[subshakerz]

I can't speak for DKL but Doug Walters in his autobiography had a chapter where he discussed the best of the best from his time in the game and he was unequivocal that Sobers was not just the greatest cricketer he ever saw but also the greatest pure batsman.

He praised Richards very highly - and to be fair, he played both more against Sobers and less against Richards than Lillee did - but he said he just felt that Sobers was the most complete.

Ian Chappell said the same.

 

[Migara]

Difficult to tell.

Viv the most destructive.
Lara, the best player of spin out of them.
Headly, statistically the greatest.
Sobers, second in all above aspects.

Tough choice, but it would be between Sobers and Viv for me. Lara had tough competition from Sachin, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, S. Waugh and even Chanderpaul.

Sobers and Viv didn't had many breathing down their necks.

 

[Migara]

I can't speak for DKL but Doug Walters in his autobiography had a chapter where he discussed the best of the best from his time in the game and he was unequivocal that Sobers was not just the greatest cricketer he ever saw but also the greatest pure batsman.

He praised Richards very highly - and to be fair, he played both more against Sobers and less against Richards than Lillee did - but he said he just felt that Sobers was the most complete.

Probably the greater ability of Sobers against spin makes him a complete batsman. Viv had his fair share of struggles against Chandra and Qadir.

 

[subshakerz]

It a shame Lara play for a average west indies team that is why he always never gets the respect he deserve as a batsman

He was always respected.

 

[cricketsavant]

First thing Newzealand were an average side,Secondly he didnt hit his peak until 1958.And based on 6 matches against England and Australia(most were from before 1958) you are judging him as failed top order.

You haven't read my post or seen it in context. I raised an argument that Viv is arguably the best WI batter and that SObers may have an argument but as a top order batsman, Viv would have had to face better, fresher bowlers and a new-ish ball far more often. That argument still stands, Sobers only played 18 such matches and in conditions where the new ball does something, fared very badly. You even state NZ was an average side, they were...which makes him look even worse. So thats why, for me, Viv >>> Sobers the batsman, but Sobers imo as an overall cricketer is still the best ever in the game's long history. Being second to Viv only as a batsman is still remarkable.

 

[cricketsavant]

Very different results in previous polls. Viv dips down as time passes and the younger demographic become more and more statsmongery.

And demographics on forums, there's a lot more Indian posters here than when I previously used to post. Please no one take this the wrong way, it's just that imo Indians and South Asian fans in general are far more stats driven in our...and yes, I can say our, I'm a Brit South Asian...asessment. Just look at ESPN Cricinfo and how heavily stats driven it is in assessing performances, greatness, all time XIs etc.

I think many English, Aus, NZ etc fans would combine stats with on field performance and aesthetics, hence hwy I would rate KP so highly and I'd rather have him in the middle order than say Jayawardene or Sanga, if I had to absolutely pick one.

 

[Chrish]

Richards > Sobers > Lara IMO.

Have no idea how to rate Headley. I have considered Viv as 2nd best batsman of all time for a while now, and it’s not changing.

 

[h_hurricane]

And demographics on forums, there's a lot more Indian posters here than when I previously used to post. Please no one take this the wrong way, it's just that imo Indians and South Asian fans in general are far more stats driven in our...and yes, I can say our, I'm a Brit South Asian...asessment. Just look at ESPN Cricinfo and how heavily stats driven it is in assessing performances, greatness, all time XIs etc.

I think many English, Aus, NZ etc fans would combine stats with on field performance and aesthetics, hence hwy I would rate KP so highly and I'd rather have him in the middle order than say Jayawardene or Sanga, if I had to absolutely pick one.

ok..

 

[Xix2565]

I think many English, Aus, NZ etc fans would combine stats with on field performance and aesthetics, hence hwy I would rate KP so highly and I'd rather have him in the middle order than say Jayawardene or Sanga, if I had to absolutely pick one.

Are these not the same thing? Do you think runs scored are not a stat or an example of on field performances?

Context of the era is always important to take into account, but thinking stats don't show on field performances or that the two are separate is baffling.

 

[cricketsavant]

Are these not the same thing? Do you think runs scored are not a stat or an example of on field performances?

Context of the era is always important to take into account, but thinking stats don't show on field performances or that the two are separate is baffling.

Stats certainly indicate on field performance, but not how those runs/wickets were got, against whom, at what stage in the game...in other words context.

E.g: Kallis has phenomenal numbers but if I was looking for a batsman from 3-5 in that era I'd pick Lara's versatility, Tendulkar's consistency and Pontings all round game (one of the best all format batsmen ever). If we were looking at stats only, then Kallis would rank above just about everyone except maybe Tendulkar.

 

[Xix2565]

Stats certainly indicate on field performance, but not how those runs/wickets were got, against whom, at what stage in the game...in other words context.

E.g: Kallis has phenomenal numbers but if I was looking for a batsman from 3-5 in that era I'd pick Lara's versatility, Tendulkar's consistency and Pontings all round game (one of the best all format batsmen ever). If we were looking at stats only, then Kallis would rank above just about everyone except maybe Tendulkar.

Clearly every major cricket website is lying to me when they say they can find out how well someone does against someone else with all sorts of filters. Those are all recorded as well you know, just need to dig a bit to understand them clearly. I don't get this misunderstanding of statistics with clarifiers, it's not like any match we didn't see is suddenly a complete, impenetrable mystery.

 

[h_hurricane]

You haven't read my post or seen it in context. I raised an argument that Viv is arguably the best WI batter and that SObers may have an argument but as a top order batsman, Viv would have had to face better, fresher bowlers and a new-ish ball far more often. That argument still stands, Sobers only played 18 such matches and in conditions where the new ball does something, fared very badly. You even state NZ was an average side, they were...which makes him look even worse. So thats why, for me, Viv >>> Sobers the batsman, but Sobers imo as an overall cricketer is still the best ever in the game's long history. Being second to Viv only as a batsman is still remarkable.

Sobers' poor performance against NZ has a lot more context.

He toured there first as a teenager. He was picked as a bowler then, was a nothing batsman and was poor against everyone during this period, not just NZ.
He toured then again 14 seasons later when he already completed a tiring trip of Australia, having scored around 500 runs and bowled around 1200 deliveries. That is the most insane workload ever for any cricketer in history.

He scored a mountain of runs in England, so it wasn't as if he wasn't proven in swinging conditions.

Not saying that Viv doesn't have an argument for the best WI batsman. He was truly epic and the best batsman I have seen.

 

[smash84]

I think as a batsman Viv shades it, not that I ever watched Sobers play but he seems to have dominated the minnows of this time a lot more than any of the decent teams. In fact his "minnow" bashing also seems to be skewed towards India and Pakistan but very ordinary against NZ