Worlds greatest team

[Zinzan]

I just see a big difference between a great batsman and a great alrounder, Sobers wasn't just "decent" with bat and ball, he was bliming GREAT with bat and ball, plus a cracking fielder, i guess we'll have to disagree on this subject because i'll always say Sobers is the greatest and you'll most likely stick with your opinion too.

To me Sober's was a "great' with the bat & but was no better than just a 'good' test bowler. 235 wickets in more than 90 test doesn't suggest he was much of a match-winner with the ball at all. The fact he was such a great batsman yet still managed 235 test wickets as why he's considered as such great player overall, very much in the Jacques Kallis mould, yet we'd never in our wildest dream compare Kallis with Bradman.

 

[Redbacks]

Not good then. No need to be nitty. It's not like Bradman was a complete spastic with the ball though.

was meant to be a reply to WW's GREAT comment about Sobers bowling, he was handy but no great.

 

[WindieWeathers]

It's really a matter of opinion.

Do you want someone who excels greatly to be one of the best in two fields or someone, in one field, or someone who surpasses everyone to a level which will never be arguably never surpassed or equaled but not great in the 2nd field.

But like i said G-S the argument about cricket being easier back in Bradman's day will always linger in the background, which is why many respected people in the game say Sobers is the greatest cricket of all time, Bradman's stats are incredible but it's a little biased to just ignore the quality of the opposition imo.

 

[GotSpin]

But like i said G-S the argument about cricket being easier back in Bradman's day will always linger in the background, which is why many respected people in the game say Sobers is the greatest cricket of all time, Bradman's stats are incredible but it's a little biased to just ignore the quality of the opposition imo.

Damnit, now you're going to turn this thread into a past v present debate! I personally don't buy the argument that cricket was easier

 

[GotSpin]

was meant to be a reply to WW's GREAT comment about Sobers bowling, he was handy but no great.

yep fair enough no need for my post now.

 

[WindieWeathers]

To me Sober's was a "great' with the bat & but was no better than just a 'good' test bowler. 235 wickets in more than 90 test doesn't suggest he was much of a match-winner with the ball at all. The fact he was such a great batsman yet still managed 235 test wickets as why he's considered as such great player overall, very much in the Jacques Kallis mould, yet we'd never in our wildest dream compare Kallis with Bradman.

Great with the ball in terms of bowling different styles!!.. left arm chinaman , Seam, a slow ball etc, he could do it all .

 

[Zinzan]

If Sobers had Imran's record with the ball or vice versa (Imran had Sobers batting record), there'd be a seriously case for either being as good a cricketer as Bradman

 

[satyam]

Great with the ball in terms of bowling different styles!!.. left arm chinaman , Seam, a slow ball etc, he could do it all .

Sorry but sobers would have become ineffective with ball against Australian batsman. He would play purely as batsman.

 

[GotSpin]

Sorry but sobers would have become ineffective with ball against Australian batsman. He would play purely as batsman.

I'm not sure why you bother posting here...Why don't you run along to youtube comments or something.

 

[GotSpin]

Great with the ball in terms of bowling different styles!!.. left arm chinaman , Seam, a slow ball etc, he could do it all .

Same could be said of Bill Johnston then

 

[Jono]

I like Got Spin posting in CC more. Adds some flavour to what was a struggling forum.

Good stuff

 

[WindieWeathers]

Damnit, now you're going to turn this thread into a past v present debate! I personally don't buy the argument that cricket was easier

It's a fair argument though G-S, there's major doubts that he faced the same tough opposition that the likes of Sobers, Lara, Viv, Tendulka ect have faced in their careers, i'm not putting down Bradman i'm just bringing a little realism to this debate.

 

[GotSpin]

It's a fair argument though G-S, there's major doubts that he faced the same tough opposition that the likes of Sobers, Lara, Viv, Tendulka ect have faced in their careers, i'm not putting down Bradman i'm just bringing a little realism to this debate.

It's an argument that could go back and forth though and it really doesn't end up well.

As for facing weaker opposition, that is equally debatable. It's just like saying that Lara, tendulkar etc never had to face the bodyline series without protective equipment. How would they have fared without the aid of immensely strong modern day bats. It goes on and on not to mention that you're claiming that the bowlers of his era were hopeless.

My favourite line for discussing Bradman is the old 'Ceteris paribus' phrase which basically means all other things being equal. If he was able to dominate the game to the extent he did yesterday, by all reason he should today as well.

 

[GotSpin]

I like Got Spin posting in CC more. Adds some flavour to what was a struggling forum.

Good stuff

Oh you shouldnt have

 

[WindieWeathers]

It's an argument that could go back and forth though and it really doesn't end up well.

As for facing weaker opposition, that is equally debatable. It's just like saying that Lara, tendulkar etc never had to face the bodyline series without protective equipment. How would they have fared without the aid of immensely strong modern day bats. It goes on and on not to mention that you're claiming that the bowlers of his era were hopeless.

My favourite line for discussing Bradman is the old 'Ceteris paribus' phrase which basically means all other things being equal. If he was able to dominate the game to the extent he did yesterday, by all reason he should today as well.

"Equipment" is hardly the same as having to bat against top class opposition is it? and lets be fair Sobers hardly had equipment aiding him either, if people want to call him Bradman the best batsman then fair enough but doubts over the level of opposition he faced means he isn't a better cricketer than Sobers IMO, but as i said it'a all about opinions.

 

[Malleeboy]

Presuming all players are taken at their peak to play at this game, then the ICC peak rating is one way to judge players across era’s at their comparative peaks (Batting always listed before bowling, number in brackets is ranking….

Greenidge 844 (1)
Haynes 785 (2)
Headley 915 (2)
Richards 938 (1) 180
Lara 911 (1)
Sobers 938 (1) 715 (4)
Dujon 703 (8)
Marshall 375 910 (1)
Holding 259 860 (1)
Gibbs 133 897 (1)
Ambrose 229 912 (1)

Lawry 878 (1)
Hayden 935 (1)
Bradman 961 (1)
N Harvey 921 (1)
Ponting 942 (1)
Miller 681 (8) 862 (1)
Gilchrist 874 (1)
Lindwall 433 897 (1)
Warne 348 905 (1)
O’Rielly 212 901 (1)
McGrath 123 914 (1)

XV Aussie squad S Waugh 895/397 (1) G Chappell 883/234 (1) A Davidson 526/908 (1) Lillee 252/884 (1)

Lawry won’t win the style points but this is the WI were playing an immovable rock at the top of the order to blunt their attack won’t hurt, especially given the stroke makers below him. Trumper is a great but from when the game was very different. (The same case for Spofforth)

The selected team is for Australian or neutral conditions.
If playing in the WI, and presuming they produce pace friendly wicket to blunt Australia’s spin advantage, then either drop O’Rielly for Davidson at 8, Warne then comes in at 10. Or drop O’Reilly put S Waugh at 6 to add grit to the lower order (and as the fifth part-time bowler) and bat Miller at 8.

Australia’s advantages…

1) Bradman
2) Miller as the fifth bowler is the equal of Holding. Australia would have 5 genuine great bowlers to the WI 4.
3) Gilchrist above Dujon at batting.
4) Spin bowling
5) Aussie opening pair statistically a class above WI.
6) A stronger tail

WI advantages ….

1) Sobers batting better then Miller’s


I’d back Australia 3-2, if for nothing more then being able to draw great players from over a much longer time frame, and that the Don.

 

[GotSpin]

"Equipment" is hardly the same as having to bat against top class opposition is it? and lets be fair Sobers hardly had equipment aiding him either, if people want to call him Bradman the best batsman then fair enough but doubts over the level of opposition he faced means he isn't a better cricketer than Sobers IMO, but as i said it'a all about opinions.

Equipment effects the ability of a batsmen to play said quality opposition. I might be the best table tennis player but it's going to be a bit of a challenge if I'm playing with a piece of plywood that I found on the beach that morning.

To be fair, apart from Larwood, I'm not that well read on all the opposing bowlers that Bradman decimated - Maybe someone well read could clue me in. But this same argument works for Sobers too. The only time he faced the best bowlers during his playing time was a nets session since they were on his team.

 

[NZTailender]

If you were going to go by teams actually fielded and not a composite XI, I'd say the Windies would beat out Australia there.

 

[GotSpin]

Not so sure. There are two potential Australian teams that would more than compete

 

[WindieWeathers]

Equipment effects the ability of a batsmen to play said quality opposition. I might be the best table tennis player but it's going to be a bit of a challenge if I'm playing with a piece of plywood that I found on the beach that morning.

To be fair, apart from Larwood, I'm not that well read on all the opposing bowlers that Bradman decimated - Maybe someone well read could clue me in. But this same argument works for Sobers too. The only time he faced the best bowlers during his playing time was a nets session since they were on his team.

At least he actually faced them monsters with the bat even if it was in training!! , but seriously Sobers played against better opposition G-S that can't be disputed, plus we know much more about the pitches in Sobers era than we do about the pitches in Bradman's time.