Worlds greatest team

[Johnners]

Ponting and hayden are the most over rated batsman in the history of cricket.The fact that Malcolm marshall dismissed Gavaskar many times on the flat tracks of India, Ponting and hayden would have been his bunny.

Satyam, you've been warned before and we wont ask you again to not post crap like this that is nothing but an obvious attempt to wind fellow members up.

 

[WindieWeathers]

You're clutching at straws. I know we said we wouldn't make fun of new members; but it is post like these that scream "newb".

Sobers' is not even clearly the best all-rounder of all time for mine. In fact, it's pretty close between him, Miller and Imran. Of course, you can look into the relevant threads to know why.

There is no way Sobers is as important to a side as Bradman. Some argue that Sobers is better because he did more things well; but Bradman is so far ahead in the batting stakes that it makes up every little deficiency he may have.

And you claim i'm "clutching a straws"? , firstly just because Bradman was so important to his team that automatically makes him the better player? yeah ok!! , Bradman played in an era where there was less quality opposition, you can ignore that fact if you wish but not everyone is naive to the truth, is Bradman the best batsman of all time? maybe, but many respectable people in the game (like Geoffrey Boycott for example) believe Sobers is the best cricketer of all time and they have good reason to believe it too.

 

[wpdavid]

Bradman averaged 89.78 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 99.94. ie a drop in average by 10.16%

Lara averaged 51 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 52.88. ie a drop in average by 3.55%

Tendulkar averaged 56.08 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 55.56. ie an increase by 0.93%

Laxman averaged 55.10 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 46.64. ie an increase by 18.13%


Therefore, Laxman >> Tendulkar > Lara >> Bradman

fwiw Bradman only played one series against the best team of his time.
Played several series for them, of course.

 

[Athlai]

So i guess

Haynes>>> your openers

Lara>>> Ponting

Viv>>>>> Chapell

Sobers= the best cricketer on the whole field.

Marshall>>> better than any pacer in your entire line-up.

You really are having an almighty laugh if you think "statistics" is enough to put your bowling line-up anywhere near ours!!

Oh goodness no.

Viv > Chappell at best
Lara >> Ponting at best
Sobers =< Bradman if you're being extremely kind
Marshall > Lillee would be fair but beyond that not so much
Haynes >> is ridiculous

And the spin bowling goes unmentioned?

Would say Australia's professionalism which goes past stats would benefit them greatly as well.

 

[GotSpin]

And you claim i'm "clutching a straws"? , firstly just because Bradman was so important to his team that automatically makes him the better player? yeah ok!! , Bradman played in an era where there was less quality opposition, you can ignore that fact if you wish but not everyone is naive to the truth, is Bradman the best batsman of all time? maybe, but many respectable people in the game (like Geoffrey Boycott for example) believe Sobers is the best cricketer of all time and they have good reason to believe it too.

We just established before that there were a number of quality bowlers...If they were so bad how come batsmen with extremely high averages weren't sprouting forth everywhere

I believe a far far far greater number would feel that Bradman was the greatest cricketer of all time. It's always the same. 'Yeah he was one of the best...after Bradman ofcourse'

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, it's comments like this that generally always lead to the downfall of a thread and for that reason I'd advise you to refrain from making them in future. Just saying you disagreed would have been suffice before you went on to elaborate why.

Apologies.

 

[WindieWeathers]

We just established before that there were a number of quality bowlers...If they were so bad how come batsmen with extremely high averages weren't sprouting forth everywhere

I believe a far far far greater number would feel that Bradman was the greatest cricketer of all time. It's always the same. 'Yeah he was one of the best...after Bradman ofcourse'

The best team the guy played against was England, there wasn't many top sides around back then, also as i said before those stats you put up wasn't enough evidence to prove that the bowlers were anything but decent, not GREAT, and there's no evidence provided to confirm whether the fielding was up to par either, like i said we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Spark]

The best team the guy played against was England, there wasn't many top sides around back then, also as i said before those stats you put up wasn't enough evidence to prove that the bowlers were anything but decent, not GREAT, and there's no evidence provided to confirm whether the fielding was up to par either, like i said we'll have to agree to disagree.

Your logic would make sense if there were a large number of batsmen in the era with 60+, 70+ averages. But there aren't, so it doesn't.

 

[Indipper]

The best team the guy played against was England, there wasn't many top sides around back then, also as i said before those stats you put up wasn't enough evidence to prove that the bowlers were anything but decent, not GREAT, and there's no evidence provided to confirm whether the fielding was up to par either, like i said we'll have to agree to disagree.

Just how familiar are you with pre-war cricket Windie?

 

[GotSpin]

The best team the guy played against was England, there wasn't many top sides around back then, also as i said before those stats you put up wasn't enough evidence to prove that the bowlers were anything but decent, not GREAT, and there's no evidence provided to confirm whether the fielding was up to par either, like i said we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not sure what else I can do to show that there were quality bowlers...You clearly aren't going to change your mind!

Yes the best team he played against was England, and he played them a lot. It'd be like South Africa v India/Australia every second series. Not exactly a average inflating scenario.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Your logic would make sense if there were a large number of batsmen in the era with 60+, 70+ averages. But there aren't, so it doesn't.

So having one great batsman around in an era automatically makes him "the best player ever"? doesn't add up to me, the guy was clearly talented and done wonders at the level he was playing at, but whilst the level he was playing at remains a mystery questions will always be raised.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I'm not sure what else I can do to show that there were quality bowlers...You clearly aren't going to change your mind!

Yes the best team he played against was England, and he played them a lot. It'd be like South Africa v India/Australia every second series. Not exactly a average inflating scenario.

With all due respect G-S as i've said already your stats don't prove anything other than SOME of the bowlers were decent, not in the Marshall class though, and furthermore i struggle to comprehend how people can be so adamant that he was "the greatest" when there's barely any footage of the man, everyone has seen what Sobers did though.

At the end of the day i guess the Aussie cricket fans are more inclined to say Bradman and WI fans are more likely to back Sobers, we can leave it at that.

 

[Howsie]

So having one great batsman around in an era automatically makes him "the best player ever"? doesn't add up to me, the guy was clearly talented and done wonders at the level he was playing at, but whilst the level he was playing at remains a mystery questions will always be raised.

Doesn't add up? The guy averaged more then 40 runs an innings better then anyone else, how doesn't that add up.

 

[Zinzan]

With all due respect G-S as i've said already your stats don't prove anything other than SOME of the bowlers were decent, not in the Marshall class though, and furthermore i struggle to comprehend how people can be so adamant that he was "the greatest" when there's barely any footage of the man, everyone has seen what Sobers did though.

At the end of the day i guess the Aussie cricket fans are more inclined to say Bradman and WI fans are more likely to back Sobers, we can leave it at that.

You can try & make out it's inclusively an Aussie/Windies thing all you like, but the unfortunate reality for you is Bradman's universally regarded as 'the greatest ever cricketer' whether you like it or not & regardless of the odd exception you cite such as Boycott. If we ran a poll on what 'neutral's' think, I'd venture to say Bradman would win hands-down.

 

[Malleeboy]

Wisden cricketers of the century....

Wisden - Five cricketers of the century

Bradman was the only player to get 100%, Sobers was next but not universal.

 

[Hurricane]

I think it is damn difficult to average 99.94.

Against FC bowling instead of International bowling Ponting averages "only" 58. You have acknowledged that the bowling of that era was "decent" but lacking a malcom marshall. If it was so easy to score against "decent" bowling then Ponting would average 80 or more in FC.

For your argument to hold up the standard of cricket back then would need to be well beneath FC level today. Possibly First grade club cricket. If that is what you think then you shouldn't be labelling the bowling as "decent" back then. You are saying that they did not have batsman the quality of Tim Mcintosh or bowlers the quality of Michael Mason.

BTW do the other WI fans on this forum have your back on this.

 

[Athlai]

Did Sobers bat against a Marshall?

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, considering they both played for Barbados.....

 

[Athlai]

Trueman looks like the greatest bowler of that era by someway but the pace stakes look to fall a bit after that. Alan Davidson and Statham hardly mugs with the ball either. Fair few tremendous spinners in that era. Benaud, Gupte, Laker, Bedi, Underwood, Gibbs, Tayfield.

Wouldn't say that era is all that much better than Bradman's in bowling, if better at all.

 

[Malleeboy]

Can any of the Sobers fans explain the 15 av over 7 matches in NZ??

True in the 1st series he was very young, but he should have been able to fix it in the next series.