Sunil Gavaskar - Where does he sit in the Hall of Fame?

[weldone]

Would put them like this: Chappell > Ponting > Waugh > Border > Kallis > Gavaskar > Miandad.

IMO:

Gavaskar>Chappell>Waugh>Border>Miandad>Kallis>Ponting

Needless to say that the last two still have chances of overtaking some of the others.

 

[sumantra]

IMO:

Gavaskar>Chappell>Waugh>Border>Miandad>Kallis>Ponting

Needless to say that the last two still have chances of overtaking some of the others.

Gavaskar>Chappel>Border>Kallis>Waugh>Ponting>Miandad

 

[intcricket]

Firstly, let me congratulate the writer for writing a good feature. I think it boils down to a matter of perspective. For me, and many others, Sunny Gavaskar will be the original Master Blaster of cricket.

 

[hang on]

master blaster! or little master?

though hanif mohammad would be the latter, wouldn't he?

 

[intcricket]

I remember hearing on commentary once that Sunny was the "Master Blaster", while Sachin, given his similarity to Sunny was given the nickname - the "Little Master Blaster".

 

[Furball]

Viv was the Master Blaster.

 

[Ikki]

IMO:

Gavaskar>Chappell>Waugh>Border>Miandad>Kallis>Ponting

Needless to say that the last two still have chances of overtaking some of the others.

I could fathom Gavaskar over possibly Waugh, Kallis and Border but Ponting and Chappell? Not a chance. It would be like saying he is better than Tendulkar - which is the class the other two are in, and in Chappell's case I'd say he's even better than Tendulkar.

 

[hang on]

chappell a class apart from gavaskar!?
i can imagine someone saying that chappell is better. sure. but another class!? and then go on to put ponting in the same class as tendulkar. and chappell possibly even higher. good lord, some seriously high quality hypocrisy there!

 

[Ikki]

chappell a class apart from gavaskar!?
i can imagine someone saying that chappell is better. sure. but another class!? and then go on to put ponting in the same class as tendulkar. and chappell possibly even higher. good lord, some seriously high quality hypocrisy there!

You need to re-read it again before you have a heart attack buddy. I said Chappell is in the same class as Tendulkar; but I consider him better. Players in the same class cannot be superior to each other?

I put Gavaskar on that slight class less than the likes of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell, Richards, etc, and in the Kallis, Dravid, Border, Waugh, etc, class.

By that, I mean, I can see an argument for those in the first group to be the greatest batsman ever after Bradman; but I cannot see that for the 2nd group. The 2nd group undoubtedly are ATGs very near those in the first group, but just short and definitively so IMO.

Again, I can entertain arguments of Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, and others, being the greatest batsman after Bradman. I can't entertain such an opinion for Gavaskar and the others.

 

[hang on]

You need to re-read it again before you have a heart attack buddy. I said Chappell is in the same class as Tendulkar; but I consider him better. Players in the same class cannot be superior to each other?

I put Gavaskar on that slight class less than the likes of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell, Richards, etc, and in the Kallis, Dravid, Border, Waugh, etc, class.

By that, I mean, I can see an argument for those in the first group to be the greatest batsman ever after Bradman; but I cannot see that for the 2nd group. The 2nd group undoubtedly are ATGs very near those in the first group, but just short and definitively so IMO.

Again, I can entertain arguments of Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, and others, being the greatest batsman after Bradman. I can't entertain such an opinion for Gavaskar and the others.

should have read chappell better than tendulkar, not in a class higher. badly worded.

my objection to your post is the way u put chappell in a class higher than gavaskar but then conveniently slot ponting and chappell in the tendulkar class.

are there many out there who would really have ponting as the second greatest batsman after bradman?! or chappell? really? ahead of tendulkar, lara, sobers, viv?

but then, you did have 7 australians in your all time 11, so asking for any level of objectivity from you is kind of silly.

 

[smash84]

a very well written article I can say now that I have gone through it

 

[Ikki]

should have read chappell better than tendulkar, not in a class higher. badly worded. my objection to it is the way u put chappell in a class higher than gavaskar.

but then, you did have 7 australians in your all time 11, so asking for any level of objectivity from you is kind of silly.

Nah, I am not going to change my opinion just because Ponting and Chappell happen to unfortunately be Australian. I suppose if I rate Ponting equal to Tendulkar I am biased, if Steve Waugh does it he is knowledgable.

Gavaskar is great and the differences between these batsmen are slight. One can argue why I leave out Kallis or Dravid behind Ponting/Tendulkar/Lara but fewer people dispute that because they were contemporaries and the differences between them were more readily comparable. Likewise for Gavaskar when compared to Chappell and Richards.

One can go further, why is Miandad not as good as Gavaskar? Again, the differences are slight; but I suggest definitive enough to categorise between players.

P.S. you did accuse me; you're exact words: "ponting in the same class as tendulkar. and chappell possibly even higher. " Higher what? Higher class.

 

[hang on]

Nah, I am not going to change my opinion just because Ponting and Chappell happen to unfortunately be Australian. I suppose if I rate Ponting equal to Tendulkar I am biased, if Steve Waugh does it he is knowledgable.

Gavaskar is great and the differences between these batsmen are slight. One can argue why I leave out Kallis or Dravid behind Ponting/Tendulkar/Lara but fewer people dispute that because they were contemporaries and the differences between them were more readily comparable. Likewise for Gavaskar when compared to Chappell and Richards.

One can go further, why is Miandad not as good as Gavaskar? Again, the differences are slight; but I suggest definitive enough to categorise between players.

P.S. you did accuse me; you're exact words: "ponting in the same class as tendulkar. and chappell possibly even higher. " Higher what? Higher class.

that is why in my post i acknowledge that it was badly worded. it was my mistake. as i say again.

again, in your current post, not as good is not the same thing as different class!

it is like saying that murali is not only better than warne but in a different class. ridiculous.

 

[Ikki]

that is why in my post i acknowledge that it was badly worded. it was my mistake. as i say again.

again, in your current post, not as good is not the same thing as different class!

it is like saying that murali is not only better than warne but in a different class. ridiculous.

No, it's clearly not and your example is just plain wrong. Either you have a problem with how I defined "class" here or you are misunderstanding me. I think the latter here, or possibly the former simply because you'd rather I rated certain players differently.

Murali and Warne both are candidates for the greatest spinner/bowler of all-time. Based on what I've already told you re how I defined "class" that should show you that I'd consider them of the same class.

I'll give you another example, in the hope that you understand what I mean, even if you do not agree. Many might rate Imran Khan an ATG bowler; but would you call him the greatest bowler ever? For me, that's what puts him on a slightly lower class than the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee and Lillee.

I understand there is variance in opinion and certain people will have a slightly different opinion on who makes up these classes; but I think the argument makes sense nonetheless.

 

[hang on]

ikki,

earlier in the thread, u had gavaskar below others including chappell etc. i had absolutely no problems with that since that is your opinion. so nothing to do with how i would 'rather' you ranked them differently (ie mirroring my rankings and preferences. however, i do have a problem with the different class category. i find that quite ridiculous especially when u do admit - in your previous post - that the differences are slight.

regarding the imran poser: yes, i would not put him, by any stretch of the imagination, in a different - ie lower in this case - class to marshall, hadlee, mcgrath or lillee. those others might, or might not, be better but a different class. are there actually any knowledgeable judges of cricket who do that - have them in different classes?!

 

[Ikki]

ikki,

earlier in the thread, u had gavaskar below others including chappell etc. i had absolutely no problems with that since that is your opinion. so nothing to do with how i would 'rather' you ranked them differently (ie mirroring my rankings and preferences. however, i do have a problem with the different class category. i find that quite ridiculous especially when u do admit - in your previous post - that the differences are slight.

regarding the imran poser: yes, i would not put him, by any stretch of the imagination, in a different - ie lower in this case - class to marshall, hadlee, mcgrath or lillee. those others might, or might not, be better but a different class. are there actually any knowledgeable judges of cricket who do that - have them in different classes?!

Then your issue is one of semantics. From your reply it seems you differentiate as well.

For me, Kallis, Dravid, Ponting, Richards, Miandad, Border, Tendulkar, etc, are all close statistically. But even in them I can further categorise them, and hence put them in a different class.

I've already explained why I do not put Gavaskar in that top bracket after Bradman, and it is for the same reason I do not put Imran in the top bracket with the Marshalls/McGraths of the world. It's not any more elaborate than that.

 

[kyear2]

No, it's clearly not and your example is just plain wrong. Either you have a problem with how I defined "class" here or you are misunderstanding me. I think the latter here, or possibly the former simply because you'd rather I rated certain players differently.

Murali and Warne both are candidates for the greatest spinner/bowler of all-time. Based on what I've already told you re how I defined "class" that should show you that I'd consider them of the same class.

I'll give you another example, in the hope that you understand what I mean, even if you do not agree. Many might rate Imran Khan an ATG bowler; but would you call him the greatest bowler ever? For me, that's what puts him on a slightly lower class than the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee and Lillee.

I understand there is variance in opinion and certain people will have a slightly different opinion on who makes up these classes; but I think the argument makes sense nonetheless.

I actually like your argument, if not your selections. Hang on I can sympathise with you, I am beginning to believe that Ikki doesn't do this on purpose, and that sometimes he actually believes in his biases (and they do exist), but he is willing to argue for his choices.
But really very few would right now place Ponting in that highest of classes and considerably more, including me, would be willing to place Gavaskar up there.

 

[centurymaker]

TBH only the following guys can have a strong claim at being the best after bradman-
sobers, viv, tend, lara and maybe chappell.

 

[hang on]

Then your issue is one of semantics. From your reply it seems you differentiate as well.

For me, Kallis, Dravid, Ponting, Richards, Miandad, Border, Tendulkar, etc, are all close statistically. But even in them I can further categorise them, and hence put them in a different class.

I've already explained why I do not put Gavaskar in that top bracket after Bradman, and it is for the same reason I do not put Imran in the top bracket with the Marshalls/McGraths of the world. It's not any more elaborate than that.

u could well call it a wrangle about semantics that but that does not still mean that class is an wholly appropriate or correct term to use when differentiating between players where the differences are, as noted by yourself, slight. perhaps i am completely off here, though i doubt it, but when one normally uses the word class to distinguish between objects or feats or anything for that matter on the basis of quality, then one uses it to mean more than just a slight difference ie the commonly understood meaning being that of great or significant or at least more than just a slight difference in quality. as you rightly note, i do differentiate, but, as i mentioned before, this debate is about more than just about differentiating or ranking.

i sincerely appreciate your taking the time to give illustrative examples but i do not agree with them and they do not militate against using the inappropriate word to begin with. if you do not mind my saying so, your examples seem a little arbitrary and contrived.

for example, as i said previously, using yourpersonal reasoning or logic (as gleaned from your examples), one could well be within his rights to put murali in a higher class to warne. apart from having better to far better stats, one could also argue that murali is in contention for not only the greatest spinner of all time but for the greatest bowler of all time (wisden had him at the top of the pile in 2001, if memory serves). hence, if one does not think that of warne, one would be justified in putting him in a lower class, as defined by the person, as opposed to reasonably standard understandings of the word.

btw, i take back my earlier crack of aussie bias. that was uncalled for.

 

[smash84]

I'll give you another example, in the hope that you understand what I mean, even if you do not agree. Many might rate Imran Khan an ATG bowler; but would you call him the greatest bowler ever? For me, that's what puts him on a slightly lower class than the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee and Lillee.
.

What is so special about Lillee tbh? And I wouldn't say there is a difference in class between Hadlee, Lillee, and Imran. McGrath and Marshall might be categorized in the top most bracket but the difference between them and the others is quite small.