• 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.

Vote for the greatest of Wisden's five cricketers of the century

The Greatest of Wisdens cricketers of the century

  • Shane Warne

    Votes: 6 10.7%
  • Jack Hobbs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Vivian Richards

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • Garfield Sobers

    Votes: 14 25.0%
  • Donald Bradman

    Votes: 31 55.4%

  • Total voters
    56

C_C

International Captain
This is easy pie really.
Sir Gary Sobers.
The greatest allrounder is the greatest cricketer.......i dont think there is any reason to beleive otherwise.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Bradman. The degree to which he dominated all opposition never has and never will be repeated. The greatest cricketer of all time without question.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Bradman. The degree to which he dominated all opposition never has and never will be repeated. The greatest cricketer of all time without question.
Agreed - not even remotely close.
 

C_C

International Captain
Bradman was the greatest batsman. Not the greatest cricketer. Sobers had the level of mastery in ALL disciplines of cricket that no one has matched ever since.

Saying that Bradman is the greatest cricketer, since he is the greatest batsman, is like saying Ivanisevic is the greatest tennis player, since he is probably the greatest server tennis has ever seen.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
Bradman was the greatest batsman. Not the greatest cricketer. Sobers had the level of mastery in ALL disciplines of cricket that no one has matched ever since.

Saying that Bradman is the greatest cricketer, since he is the greatest batsman, is like saying Ivanisevic is the greatest tennis player, since he is probably the greatest server tennis has ever seen.
Saying he isn't is like saying Pele isn't the greatest footballer ever because he wasn't the greatest sweeper ever seen. Bradman is so far ahead of the pack in all respects with regard to his discipline, I don't see how anyone could question his status as the greatest ever player.
 

C_C

International Captain
Saying he isn't is like saying Pele isn't the greatest footballer ever because he wasn't the greatest sweeper ever seen. Bradman is so far ahead of the pack in all respects with regard to his discipline, I don't see how anyone could question his status as the greatest ever player.
Err...pele was an allround footy player and the only one who can challenge him as a total footy player is DiStefano. Pele was decent back in the field and mindboggling as center/striker/sweeper.
Actually, Pele was a sweeper immediately after Garrincha retired.

The greatest ever player in a sport is the one who has the greatest mastery OVERALL in the said sport.
As such, Gary Sobers and Imran Khan slots in ahead of any specialist batsman or bowler...
Sobers overall was a superior cricketer than Bradman was.....
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
The greatest ever player in a sport is the one who has the greatest mastery OVERALL in the said sport.
As such, Gary Sobers and Imran Khan slots in ahead of any specialist batsman or bowler...
Sobers overall was a superior cricketer than Bradman was.....
The greatest ever player in a sport is the one who excelled the most above his competitors, the one who had the biggest impact on the performance of his team, the one who, quite simply, you would pick in your team before anyone else.

Bradman isn't just the greatest cricketer ever, the degree to which he dominates the rest of the field in his particular sport is very rarely matched in any other game either. If Bradman only averaged 70, and his team wasn't quite so brilliant just because he was in it, you could make an argument that Sobers was the better player because of his all-round skills. But, this is akin to saying that if England suddenly picked a bowler who took 500 wickets @ 10, but was a bunny and useless in the field, Flintoff would still be better because he can bat and catch.
 

C_C

International Captain
The greatest ever player in a sport is the one who excelled the most above his competitors, the one who had the biggest impact on the performance of his team, the one who, quite simply, you would pick in your team before anyone else
Aye.
And that would be Sobers.
I put down that name first, simply because his impact is greater than Bradman's - he has a tremendous impact as a fielder, bowler and batsman while Bradman has an untouchable impact as a batsman.

But, this is akin to saying that if England suddenly picked a bowler who took 500 wickets @ 10, but was a bunny and useless in the field, Flintoff would still be better because he can bat and catch.
Flintoff would be nowhere close as a bowler but overall, yes, he would impact the game just as much as this hypothetical bowler and if that was Sobers, he would impact it far more.

And I think Bradman's stats, as well as every single player in that eras is inflated by the lack of professionalism. I honestly dont think bradman in the late 60s/70s would average more than 75, so i dont think he is comparable to Sobers in terms of his impact, really.

Player 'X' is an ordinary fielder, cannot bowl and will score 100 runs everytime he goes out there to bat.

Player 'Y' is one of the greatest ever fielders cricket's ever seen, one of the greatest ever catchers in cricket's history as well and will probably save you 20-30 runs in the field every innings or snare up an 'unlikely' catch, will contribute around 58 runs everytime he goes to bat and will also take a few wickets at 30 apiece when he bowls.....

Put simply, its no contest, player 'Y' is far more instrumental and game-breaking than player X, simply because he contribute towards the win in every single department, while player X cannot.
 
Last edited:

Slifer

International Regular
CC i have to agree with u there Bradman greatest batsman not equal to best cricketer for cricket contrary to popular belief is not a batsman only game. I agree Bradman stands head and shoulders above every batsman but where is his contribution when it comes to taking the 20 wickets needed.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Really only a choice between 2 - I voted for Bradman, but easily could've gone for Sobers.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I went for Sobers, because I tend to believe that it is much harder to maintain the mastery in so many disciplines of the game. Quite simply, I think it would have been much harder for him, bowling so many overs, taking good catches at slips and close in and still bat well enough to be an all time great as a batsman alone.
 

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
C_C said:
Bradman was the greatest batsman. Not the greatest cricketer. Sobers had the level of mastery in ALL disciplines of cricket that no one has matched ever since.

Saying that Bradman is the greatest cricketer, since he is the greatest batsman, is like saying Ivanisevic is the greatest tennis player, since he is probably the greatest server tennis has ever seen.
heh? it has nothing to do with a comparison to Ivanisevic as the worlds best server.

It's all subjective. Who would you rather have in your cricket team? Sobers or Bradman. That is how you shuld base the best cricketer. It seems as if you are just clutching at something that just doesn't make any logical sense, to try for some reason to dethrone bradman as the King of cricket.

If he avged 75 or something like that then maybe Sobers would get a run, but to avg 99.94 when these days a batsman's considered amazing if he avgs above 55 suggests that Bradman was something else.
 

Top