Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[Bolo.]

Neither was I.

I'm saying that the arguments that can be used for Sobers can't be necessarily used for Kallis.

And technically the SA team was no more, so....

Subs is pointing out the fact that you made a post disqualifing Kallis on the basis of a high bowling average, and dont do the same for Sobers with a worse bowling average. He doesnt believe Kallis is better.

Anyway, in 70, the best country was RSA. The best team was ROW. Either those games are FC, or Sobers was playing for the the best test team.

Kallis does have a series that is comparable to this anyway. 98 WI, who went into the series as the number 2 side. I reckon Sobers is a bit ahead, but definitely comparable.

 

[subshakerz]

Every time I unblock you I see why I shouldn't.

It's beguiling to me that you should need to ask that question considering you were making the same arguments agaist Kallis not a year ago.

You claimed his batting had little to no impact compared to Sachin, he was selfish and an accumulator. His bowling output was around half of Sobers's and that not only did he now bowl enough, you questioned if he was e enough actually an all rounder. You claimed that the 200 catches number was irrelevant and that it shouldn't be even brought up. You also claimed that his ranking as an all rounder only came into play at the end of his career when people relaised the totality of the numbers he accumulated, rather than the impact of them during his career.

All your arguments, not mine, yours.

I would question how you got so many to go along with your argument but I see that it's the usual crowd.

But I shall answer, yet again.

Sir Garfield Sobers is a top 5 bat, seen by many to be the absolute best since Bradman and overall very much in that discussion. He was a match winner with the bat with iconic innings and series vs the very best of his era.

I assume you can see how he already differs from Kallis.

As a bowler he had match winning and series defining performances. Probaly his best performance was stripped of test status only after it was played, and was against the team belived to be at that time the best in the world.

What are Kallis's similar performances?

As a slip fielder as great and as solid as Kallis was, Sobers was in a different tier. I posted a video just above this post, and the only other cricketers that I've seen or read about who were at or above that level were Hammond (only one I have no video evidence to corroborate), Simpson, Sobers, Waugh and Hooper. Barlow bears mention and du Plessis from the modern era was special as well, even if not quite in that tier. Kallis was top 10, but didn't quite have the range.

But finally, in the spirt that we all very much love and revere, there are 3 players and 3 players alone that find themselves into the pantheon of the sport. If it is reduced purely to the test version of the game those names are reduced to two. Sir Donald Bradman and Sir Garfield Sobers, that's it. The discussion for anyone else starts at 3.

So you're telling me that the only person in the same pantheon as Bradman, and note, there was no minimum amount of crickets who were allowed to be considered in such rarefied air, doesn't have claim or even warrant a discussion to be considered at least alongside the great batsman?

I don't know how you haven't as yet grasped that cricket is much more than a collection of accumulated numbers.

I was underrating Kallis. I admitted this and it’s been some time since I maintain Kallis should be ranked quite high.

Nobody is suggesting Kallis is better than Sobers.

It’s just an objective fact that Sobers has more of a distance to climb to be Bradman level than Kallis to overtake Tendulkar. Kallis and Tendulkar had overlapping careers, his batting record and longevity is near enough to Tendulkar to make his slip and bowling relevant factors.

You need to deal with the actual argument.

 

[kyear2]

Subs is pointing out the fact that you made a post disqualifing Kallis on the basis of a high bowling average, and dont do the same for Sobers with a worse bowling average. He doesnt believe Kallis is better.

Anyway, in 70, the best country was RSA. The best team was ROW. Either those games are FC, or Sobers was playing for the the best test team.

Kallis does have a series that is comparable to this anyway. 98 WI, who went into the series as the number 2 side. I reckon Sobers is a bit ahead, but definitely comparable.

Where did I, in that entire post mention averages? Please go back and show me.

Anyways, not even a strawman argument, but a dishonest one.

After SA was removed from the test arena, they chose the next best team to play the ROW. And at the time it was designated as tests.

I know what you were doing by saying they went into the series as the world no. 2, but let be honest about who and what that team and batting line up was.

Sobers had multiple series with 20 wickets and was integral in multiple others as the 4th bowler or higher, as he was even in that great '63 team.

They aren't comparable.

 

[subshakerz]

Where did I, in that entire post mention averages? Please go back and show me.

Unless you think that Kallis's 35 bowling average gets him there.

 

[Bolo.]

Where did I, in that entire post mention averages? Please go back and show me.

Anyways, not even a strawman argument, but a dishonest one.

After SA was removed from the test arena, they chose the next best team to play the ROW. And at the time it was designated as tests.

I know what you were doing by saying they went into the series as the world no. 2, but let be honest about who and what that team and batting line up was.

Sobers had multiple series with 20 wickets and was integral in multiple others as the 4th bowler or higher, as he was even in that great '63 team.

They aren't comparable.

Unless you think that Kallis's 35 bowling average gets him there.

*32.65 FTR

As opposed to the 34 bowling average of Sobers?

It is beguiling that you can claim that Sobers bowling and fielding can help bring him to Bradman level yet you can’t see Kallis bowling and fielding bringing him ahead of Tendulkar.

This is where this converstation started. Subs is pointing out some double standards. I understand forgetting posts. But you have a certain level of cognative dissonance on the go when you dont believe you would have posted something like this.

No problem with calling the ROW series tests. Really dont care. But if you want to, Eng are definitionally playing against a test side. Who were the best in the world. And you have a better team sitting on the sidelines. RSA getting banned doesnt make magically make Eng a stronger one.

I didnt watch the ROW series. I agree that Eng prob played better. Im saying Sobers prob had a better series. But they are comparable. Kallis averaged 17.5 with the ball (17 wickets) and 69 with the bat.

You dont need to sidetrack into Sobers being a better player. We can agree on that, if not on magnitude. We are discussing specific parts of it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

*32.65 FTR

This is where this converstation started. Subs is pointing out some double standards. I understand forgetting posts. But you have a certain level of cognative dissonance on the go when you dont believe you would have posted something like this.

No problem with calling the ROW series tests. Really dont care. But if you want to, Eng are definitionally playing against a test side. Who were the best in the world. And you have a better team sitting on the sidelines. RSA getting banned doesnt make magically make Eng a stronger one.

I didnt watch the ROW series. I agree that Eng prob played better. Im saying Sobers prob had a better series. But they are comparable. Kallis averaged 17.5 with the ball (17 wickets) and 69 with the bat.

You dont need to sidetrack into Sobers being a better player. We can agree on that, if not on magnitude. We are discussing specific parts of it.

Like the question here is simply, how can Sobers' bowling and fielding make him arguably better than Don, but Kallis' doesn't than Tendulkar. Makes no sense anyway you spin it.

 

[honestbharani]

Like the question here is simply, how can Sobers' bowling and fielding make him arguably better than Don, but Kallis' doesn't than Tendulkar. Makes no sense anyway you spin it.

I actually dont think Sobers is a better cricketer than The Don but I do happen to think in tests, Kallis is a better cricketer than Sachin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I actually dont think Sobers is a better cricketer than The Don but I do happen to think in tests, Kallis is a better cricketer than Sachin.

I mean, naturally. Sobers and Don has a difference of 42 runs in their batting averages. Sachin and Kallis have of 2..... In the opposite direction

 

[kyear2]

*32.65 FTR

This is where this converstation started. Subs is pointing out some double standards. I understand forgetting posts. But you have a certain level of cognative dissonance on the go when you dont believe you would have posted something like this.

No problem with calling the ROW series tests. Really dont care. But if you want to, Eng are definitionally playing against a test side. Who were the best in the world. And you have a better team sitting on the sidelines. RSA getting banned doesnt make magically make Eng a stronger one.

I didnt watch the ROW series. I agree that Eng prob played better. Im saying Sobers prob had a better series. But they are comparable. Kallis averaged 17.5 with the ball (17 wickets) and 69 with the bat.

You dont need to sidetrack into Sobers being a better player. We can agree on that, if not on magnitude. We are discussing specific parts of it.

This is the level of dishonest posting I'm talking about.

In the post where I was making the case for the distinction between Kallis and Sobers, which I can repost if you so desire, no reference was ever made to average.

The post which you have quoted was a totally separate discussion which holds for both.

To be clear, that reply was to a post saying that catching alone can't make you an all time great, and I said neither does a rpi of 26, nor a bolwing average of over 30. It's all in conjunction with the primary skill.

Do you get the difference or do I have to spell it out for you?

The second point is also a matter of semantics and of no consequence. In 1970, after SA was banned the ROW team went up agaist the best team of those that were eligible and available at said time. Hence the original purpose of said series. That's all that meant.

There's a reason why Kallis's series isn't normally rated among the great all round performances. That series, for all here who watched it, which I imagine was near all of us, was a complete disaster and the low point for WI cricket, that started before a ball was bowled.

And that was one series compared to more and consistent contributions by Sir Garry in series over his career with the ball.

If you want to have a comparison with regards to which was better with the ball or was more impactful, we can have that.

You can argue magnitude all you wish, but one is rated with Grace and Bradman and one is multiple tiers below.

I think Kallis was a great player, I've called him damn near the personification of, role wise, the perfect player. I think Steyn was a better cricketer, I think Hammond was a better cricketer and that's not including the top tier ones I have over him.

Why? Even in rating him the perfect player, and let me touch that first. He's and ATG no. 4, and ATG slip and a test standard 5th bowler who can easily be a competent 4th. That's like a modern amalgamation of Tendulakr, Waugh and, well possibly himself.

But he's not as good as Sachin, nor Waugh and he wasn't a willing nor eager participant as a bowler as his career progressed.

Steyn was who.elevated that team to elite and the best in the world.

 

[subshakerz]

I think Kallis was a great player, I've called him damn near the personification of, role wise, the perfect player. I think Steyn was a better cricketer, I think Hammond was a better cricketer and that's not including the top tier ones I have over him.

Why? Even in rating him the perfect player, and let me touch that first. He's and ATG no. 4, and ATG slip and a test standard 5th bowler who can easily be a competent 4th. That's like a modern amalgamation of Tendulakr, Waugh and, well possibly himself..

Nobody was comparing Kallis to Steyn. Dont bring that red herring.

We were comparing Kallis to Tendulkar and you have given perfect reasoning for why he should be rated higher.

 

[Bolo.]

This is the level of dishonest posting I'm talking about.

In the post where I was making the case for the distinction between Kallis and Sobers, which I can repost if you so desire, no reference was ever made to average.

The post which you have quoted was a totally separate discussion which holds for both.

To be clear, that reply was to a post saying that catching alone can't make you an all time great, and I said neither does a rpi of 26, nor a bolwing average of over 30. It's all in conjunction with the primary skill.

Do you get the difference or do I have to spell it out for you?

The second point is also a matter of semantics and of no consequence. In 1970, after SA was banned the ROW team went up agaist the best team of those that were eligible and available at said time. Hence the original purpose of said series. That's all that meant.

There's a reason why Kallis's series isn't normally rated among the great all round performances. That series, for all here who watched it, which I imagine was near all of us, was a complete disaster and the low point for WI cricket, that started before a ball was bowled.

And that was one series compared to more and consistent contributions by Sir Garry in series over his career with the ball.

If you want to have a comparison with regards to which was better with the ball or was more impactful, we can have that.

You can argue magnitude all you wish, but one is rated with Grace and Bradman and one is multiple tiers below.

I think Kallis was a great player, I've called him damn near the personification of, role wise, the perfect player. I think Steyn was a better cricketer, I think Hammond was a better cricketer and that's not including the top tier ones I have over him.

Why? Even in rating him the perfect player, and let me touch that first. He's and ATG no. 4, and ATG slip and a test standard 5th bowler who can easily be a competent 4th. That's like a modern amalgamation of Tendulakr, Waugh and, well possibly himself.

But he's not as good as Sachin, nor Waugh and he wasn't a willing nor eager participant as a bowler as his career progressed.

Steyn was who.elevated that team to elite and the best in the world.

I dont feel like dealing with paragraphs of waffle. You actually have real points in there. One that looks like it might be a decent one.

But you are being disrespctful when you reply like this to a post asking you to confine posts to what we are discussing. I am going to give your post the same level of respect that you did for mine.

 

[subshakerz]

I dont feel like dealing with paragraphs of waffle. You actually have real points in there. One that looks like it might be a decent one.

But yoy are being disrespctful when you reply like this to a post asking you to confine posts to what we are discussing. I am going to give your post the same level of respect that you did for mine.

@kyear2 is just projecting when he is calling you dishonest. We have all engaged him to answer a simply point, how Kallis is inferior to Tendulkar, yet he goes in circles to avoid a simple conclusion. He lacks the ability to directly address arguments.

 

[peterhrt]

Like the question here is simply, how can Sobers' bowling and fielding make him arguably better than Don, but Kallis' doesn't than Tendulkar.

In 1966 Neville Cardus wrote an article with the title “Gary Sobers: The Greatest Cricketer Ever?” It was a response to a question that began to be asked during that English summer. Until then there had been a fairly even three-horse race between The Champion (Grace), The Master (Hobbs) and The Don (Bradman).

Cardus did not appear to like the fourth candidate entering the stage. In a rather catty piece, he belittled Sobers’ versatility with one of his frequent musical allusions. Violinist Yehudi Menuhin would not have become a greater musician by playing the trombone as well. In any case Hammond was a superior batsman and slip fielder, and Hirst a better left-arm bowler. A year later Cardus wrote a more complimentary article. “He [Sobers] is, in fact, even more famous than Bradman ever was; for he is accomplished in every department of the game, and has exhibited his genius in all climes and conditions.”

Sobers was established. During the 1980s the indoor school at Lord’s displayed four large photographs of Grace, Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers. In 2000 Wisden's Cricketers of the Twentieth Century revealed that Bradman had received the maximum 100 votes from judges around the world, Sobers 90, with Hobbs in third place with 30. Hobbs had fallen away. Belonging to the previous century, Grace was not eligible, but he too had faded somewhat into the past.

When Bradman died the following year, his standing was at an all-time high. A dozen years later a new challenger emerged. Sachin Tendulkar was nearing retirement, and a new measure was introduced solely for his benefit. The records of all three international formats were combined. Tendulkar’s hundredth international century left him well clear of Ponting in second place on 71. A similar margin that Bradman had achieved in the Test averages. Several Indian writers argued that the multiple variety of challenges he had met over a long career rendered Tendulkar the greatest cricketer of all time. Brian Lara agreed. There were parallels with Hobbs, not least with the focus on centuries and talk of "mastery".

Combining all international records produced another quietly-accumulating beneficiary, if not quite an all-round challenger to Sobers. Jacques Kallis lies in sixth place for both runs and outfield catches, in addition to claiming 577 wickets.

Alec Bedser once said that the last bowler to be knighted was Francis Drake. Bowlers have been notable by their absence during the course of this discussion. With one exception. Shane Warne’s premature death in 2022 prompted many to confirm that he belonged at the top table, where there are once again four occupants.

 

[subshakerz]

In 1966 Neville Cardus wrote an article with the title “Gary Sobers: The Greatest Cricketer Ever?” It was a response to a question that began to be asked during that English summer. Until then there had been a fairly even three-horse race between The Champion (Grace), The Master (Hobbs) and The Don (Bradman).

Cardus did not appear to like the fourth candidate entering the stage. In a rather catty piece, he belittled Sobers’ versatility with one of his frequent musical allusions. Violinist Yehudi Menuhin would not have become a greater musician by playing the trombone as well. In any case Hammond was a superior batsman and slip fielder, and Hirst a better left-arm bowler. A year later Cardus wrote a more complimentary article. “He [Sobers] is, in fact, even more famous than Bradman ever was; for he is accomplished in every department of the game, and has exhibited his genius in all climes and conditions.”

Sobers was established. During the 1980s the indoor school at Lord’s displayed four large photographs of Grace, Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers. In 2000 Wisden's Cricketers of the Twentieth Century revealed that Bradman had received the maximum 100 votes from judges around the world, Sobers 90, with Hobbs in third place with 30. Hobbs had fallen away. Belonging to the previous century, Grace was not eligible, but he too had faded somewhat into the past.

When Bradman died the following year, his standing was at an all-time high. A dozen years later a new challenger emerged. Sachin Tendulkar was nearing retirement, and a new measure was introduced solely for his benefit. The records of all three international formats were combined. Tendulkar’s hundredth international century left him well clear of Ponting in second place on 71. A similar margin that Bradman had achieved in the Test averages. Several Indian writers argued that the multiple variety of challenges he had met over a long career rendered Tendulkar the greatest cricketer of all time. Brian Lara agreed. There were parallels with Hobbs, not least with the focus on centuries and talk of "mastery".

Combining all international records produced another quietly-accumulating beneficiary, if not quite an all-round challenger to Sobers. Jacques Kallis lies in sixth place for both runs and outfield catches, in addition to claiming 577 wickets.

Alec Bedser once said that the last bowler to be knighted was Francis Drake. Bowlers have been notable by their absence during the course of this discussion. With one exception. Shane Warne’s premature death in 2022 prompted many to confirm that he belonged at the top table, where there are once again four occupants.

Sir, please write a book someday. I will purchase it.

 

[kyear2]

I dont feel like dealing with paragraphs of waffle. You actually have real points in there. One that looks like it might be a decent one.

But you are being disrespctful when you reply like this to a post asking you to confine posts to what we are discussing. I am going to give your post the same level of respect that you did for mine.

I dont feel like dealing with paragraphs of waffle. You actually have real points in there. One that looks like it might be a decent one.

But you are being disrespctful when you reply like this to a post asking you to confine posts to what we are discussing. I am going to give your post the same level of respect that you did for mine.

Yes it was disrespectful, and apologies.

There's a reason I'm avoiding some people and that question was one of then. The quote clearly had nothing to do with the point I was making.
And besides me explaining why, he knew that.

And the point remains that being an elite slip, or decent 5th bowling option with an average over 30 or even a 26 rpi lower order batsman can't make you great on it's own.

Think it was @Jane Austen said it better than I did, the main goal is the primary. The rest is wrapping.

So I know you disagree, but let's look at my rankings. There's Bradman and Sobers, but for me, and everyone is different, you have to be special in your primary to be in that tier with or just below them.

For the batsmen, best after Bradman candidate, and for the bowlers, GOAT candidate.

For the batsmen it's easy, Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar.

For the bowlers, for me it's Marshall and McGrath, but I acknowledge that for others that also includes Barnes and Warne. And as much as I may not align with that perspective, he was one of the Wisden 5, he was a unanimous selection to the Cricinfo team and actually regularly makes top 5's.

For me, and again you can and likely will disagree, how can you be top 5 or just top tier if you're not a candidate to be the best in your individual discipline.

And for the record my rankings are a combination of stats, peer rating, eye test and my personal valuations, and none of the names mentioned are in the least controversial.

Your argument is that Imran has a whole other disciple to add that elevates him to that category, but....

1. Sobers already starts in that category.

2. Any argument for Imran counts for Hammond, Kallis, Hadlee and all. And even with Hadlee, he was the better bowler and had an substantive rpi 3 less than Imran. Hammond was likely a better bat than Imran the bowler, an infinitely better slip than Imran the bat and he had his bowling.

3. As valuable as some believe it to be, a 26 rpi bat or a less than 2 wpm bowler IMO does not a two in one player make, nor is it impactful enough to elevate a player like that.

Wasn't to be that long, but hey.

 

[subshakerz]

Your argument is that Imran has a whole other disciple to add that elevates him to that category, but....

Dude he was asking you about Kallis and Sobers.

He didn’t mention Imran.

 

[Jane Austen]

Sir, please write a book someday. I will purchase it.

He already has and 5 star recommended!!
An absolute gem of a post peterhrt---may I pass on the book details---more royalties for you.
Just to add to peterhrt's post.
I can't remember the book or article but,circa,the mid-sixties,Neville Cardus was asked to compare Sobers and Wilfred Rhodes as all-rounders.Completely ignoring the already fabulous Test career created by Sobers,he referred Rhodes first-class career---- 4187 wickets (subsequently amended by The ACS to 4204),a record which will never be broken,more than 30000 runs and 16 doubles ie 1000 runs +100 wickets in the same seaon,another unbreakable record.
He then dissmissed Sobers in comparison saying words to the effect of "Your modern Sobers pants to chase after the achievements of Rhodes",
But then Cardus,gifted writer though he was,could be as fickle as a certain US President.For example,when extolling the virtues of the young Walter Hammond after he had played a dazzlingly dynamic innings of 167 against the great Ted MacDonald--a bowler very similar in style to Michael Holding----in a game v Lancashire in the early 1920s Cardus made a comparison with what he considered to truly be The Golden Age of cricket--the turn of the century,Trumper,Ranji,Jessop---which reached its apotheosis in 1902.
However,come the late fifties and The Golden Age was now moved forward by Cardus some 25-30 years and the first golden age had slipped from the consciousness as deftly as melted ice.
Then again,don't we all do this?
By the way,the innings referred to above was studded with Hammond continually hooking McDonald's usually devastating bouncers for boundary after glittering boundary.The more pragmatic Hammond of mammoth Test scores would later give away the hook on a risk/reward evaluation.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes it was disrespectful, and apologies.

There's a reason I'm avoiding some people and that question was one of then. The quote clearly had nothing to do with the point I was making.
And besides me explaining why, he knew that.

And the point remains that being an elite slip, or decent 5th bowling option with an average over 30 or even a 26 rpi lower order batsman can't make you great on it's own.

Think it was @Jane Austen said it better than I did, the main goal is the primary. The rest is wrapping.

So I know you disagree, but let's look at my rankings. There's Bradman and Sobers, but for me, and everyone is different, you have to be special in your primary to be in that tier with or just below them.

For the batsmen, best after Bradman candidate, and for the bowlers, GOAT candidate.

For the batsmen it's easy, Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar.

For the bowlers, for me it's Marshall and McGrath, but I acknowledge that for others that also includes Barnes and Warne. And as much as I may not align with that perspective, he was one of the Wisden 5, he was a unanimous selection to the Cricinfo team and actually regularly makes top 5's.

For me, and again you can and likely will disagree, how can you be top 5 or just top tier if you're not a candidate to be the best in your individual discipline.

And for the record my rankings are a combination of stats, peer rating, eye test and my personal valuations, and none of the names mentioned are in the least controversial.

Your argument is that Imran has a whole other disciple to add that elevates him to that category, but....

1. Sobers already starts in that category.

2. Any argument for Imran counts for Hammond, Kallis, Hadlee and all. And even with Hadlee, he was the better bowler and had an substantive rpi 3 less than Imran. Hammond was likely a better bat than Imran the bowler, an infinitely better slip than Imran the bat and he had his bowling.

3. As valuable as some believe it to be, a 26 rpi bat or a less than 2 wpm bowler IMO does not a two in one player make, nor is it impactful enough to elevate a player like that.

Wasn't to be that long, but hey.

Broooooo........ This feels like an eternal dance. Just want to ask, how many tiers behind Don would you put Sobers as a batsman, given Ig you have one between Sachin/Sobers and Kallis. Nothing else.

 

[kyear2]

In 1966 Neville Cardus wrote an article with the title “Gary Sobers: The Greatest Cricketer Ever?” It was a response to a question that began to be asked during that English summer. Until then there had been a fairly even three-horse race between The Champion (Grace), The Master (Hobbs) and The Don (Bradman).

Cardus did not appear to like the fourth candidate entering the stage. In a rather catty piece, he belittled Sobers’ versatility with one of his frequent musical allusions. Violinist Yehudi Menuhin would not have become a greater musician by playing the trombone as well. In any case Hammond was a superior batsman and slip fielder, and Hirst a better left-arm bowler. A year later Cardus wrote a more complimentary article. “He [Sobers] is, in fact, even more famous than Bradman ever was; for he is accomplished in every department of the game, and has exhibited his genius in all climes and conditions.”

Sobers was established. During the 1980s the indoor school at Lord’s displayed four large photographs of Grace, Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers. In 2000 Wisden's Cricketers of the Twentieth Century revealed that Bradman had received the maximum 100 votes from judges around the world, Sobers 90, with Hobbs in third place with 30. Hobbs had fallen away. Belonging to the previous century, Grace was not eligible, but he too had faded somewhat into the past.

When Bradman died the following year, his standing was at an all-time high. A dozen years later a new challenger emerged. Sachin Tendulkar was nearing retirement, and a new measure was introduced solely for his benefit. The records of all three international formats were combined. Tendulkar’s hundredth international century left him well clear of Ponting in second place on 71. A similar margin that Bradman had achieved in the Test averages. Several Indian writers argued that the multiple variety of challenges he had met over a long career rendered Tendulkar the greatest cricketer of all time. Brian Lara agreed. There were parallels with Hobbs, not least with the focus on centuries and talk of "mastery".

Combining all international records produced another quietly-accumulating beneficiary, if not quite an all-round challenger to Sobers. Jacques Kallis lies in sixth place for both runs and outfield catches, in addition to claiming 577 wickets.

Alec Bedser once said that the last bowler to be knighted was Francis Drake. Bowlers have been notable by their absence during the course of this discussion. With one exception. Shane Warne’s premature death in 2022 prompted many to confirm that he belonged at the top table, where there are once again four occupants.

An excellent post as always.

The one part of the post that's surely to be ignored is that Hobbs was rated equal to Bradman and Grace and as late as the 70's, ie when those who had seen both were still around, Hobbs and Bradman were seen to be near equals as batsmen.

With regards to Cardus's reluctance to allow in a 4th member to the pantheon, especially one from outside the establishment duopoly, it would be understandable. The most exclusive of clubs requires the most exclusive prerequisites. And Hammond at the time was ranked as behind only Hobbs as England's greatest batsman, ahead of Hutton, and he's still recognized as the games greatest slip fielder.

With regards to Bedser's comments, for some reason fast bowlers are indeed largely absent from these discussions, despite being unquestionably the match winners of the sport. Surely something needs to be done about that, and the greatest of them all deserves a spot.

 

[kyear2]

Broooooo........ This feels like an eternal dance. Just want to ask, how many tiers behind Don would you put Sobers as a batsman, given Ig you have one between Sachin/Sobers and Kallis. Nothing else.

Bradman

Hobbs | Sobers | Richards | Tendulkar
Half tier to...
Hutton | Lara | Smith

Hammond | Headley | Pollock | Richards | Chappell | Gavaskar | Ponting

Then Kallis's tier.

Waugh | Kallis | Dravid | Sangakkara | Root

My top 20, and there's at least a tier betwen Sobers/ Tendulkar etc and Kallis.