3rd Greatest Cricketer - The Poll

[Shri]

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions like that are dangerously poor".

More like opinions are like assholes. Every body has one but none smells better.

 

[subshakerz]

Neither did Bradman, let alone Grace, let alone even Imran.

Best rate your mate number one then....

Argh, this does my head in. There's no logic here, only opinion. it's the nature of the argument I suppose.

But as someone posted on here a few years back now:

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions like that are dangerously poor".

But that's just my opinion

I understand your frustration since it seems pretty arbitrary. However, I can understand he gut reaction of someone rating Tendulkar ahead of Kallis. Tendulkar was in a different league as a batsman, but Kallis' all-round record is hard to ignore.

Would you rank Shaun Pollock ahead of McGrath as a cricketer on this basis?

 

[Burgey]

I understand your frustration since it seems pretty arbitrary. However, I can understand he gut reaction of someone rating Tendulkar ahead of Kallis. Tendulkar was in a different league as a batsman, but Kallis' all-round record is hard to ignore.

Would you rank Shaun Pollock ahead of McGrath as a cricketer on this basis?

As a cricketer I think I would have to

 

[Zinzan]

WG Grace - in a history class on cricket.

Sachin - for any Indian fan and some world fans who don't know or care much about the history of the game

Nail on the head, as has always been the case, Indian's rate Tendulkar much higher than the rest of the cricketing world - (although same could probably be said for others.

For me personally, I'd rate Murali, Warne, Hadlee, Marshall & Imran all ahead of Sachin if we're talking test cricket as they won far more games for their respective countries.

 

[subshakerz]

As a cricketer I think I would have to

Fair enough. I always thought Kallis and Pollock were the two most underrated cricketers of the modern era, given that one has a record similar to Sobers and the other to Hadlee.

 

[Jono]

Yeah because I've always said he's ****.

Please- Nasser an expert? Come on mate.

Of course it's a great effort, but whether it makes him in the top two or three cricketers of all time is another matter entirely. I'd happily concede he belongs in the argument as the 2nd-5th best batsman of all time, but I don't see him as that high as a cricketer overall.

Meh bowlers can just be replaced with bowling machines tbh

 

[Burgey]

Meh bowlers can just be replaced with bowling machines tbh

Haha true.

Be a great contest, a bowling machine vs one of those machines which tests golf clubs, only modified for cricket bats.

 

[TumTum]

Meh bowlers can just be replaced with bowling machines tbh

You can teach Asimo to bat.

 

[Jono]

Nail on the head, as has always been the case, Indian's rate Tendulkar much higher than the rest of the cricketing world - (although same could probably be said for others.

For me personally, I'd rate Murali, Warne, Hadlee, Marshall & Imran all ahead of Sachin if we're talking test cricket as they won far more games for their respective countries.

You just named a bunch of bowlers. If you view bowlers as better matchwinners immediately than obviously Sachin could never win this argument. Neither could Viv or Lara.

 

[vcs]

Yes, but why? I'm asking people to justify this stance is all. Because at first blush it appears frankly illogical (the argument him being in the top 2 or 3 I mean).

Just asking why people feel this is the case.

I mean, personally as a batsman Tendulkar > Kallis, but as a cricketer Kallis >> Tendulkar, because of what he brings to a team at the top level with bat and ball.

Same with Sobers v Tendulkar as cricketers, though I think in that instance one could argue Sobers at least = Tendulkar as a batsman.

I'm undecided on the Tendulkar vs. Kallis as cricketers thing. Same goes for Ponting/Lara vs. Kallis... I know their numbers are comparable but the intangibles like attacking strokeplay make it a tricky one to judge. How many would rate Kallis as a better cricketer than Richards?

Tendulkar vs. Sobers however seems fairly straightforward, with Sobers having the edge.

 

[TumTum]

You just named a bunch of bowlers. If you view bowlers as better matchwinners immediately than obviously Sachin could never win this argument. Neither could Viv or Lara.

I'd rate Viv just as high as Murali or Warne,

 

[akilana]

I'd rate Viv just as high as Murali or Warne,

but I rate Murali, Sachin, Viv and Warne in that order.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't think you can measure greatness by number of fans, otherwise it depends on which country you come from. And Brett Lee's skill would be somewhat overstated.

I always like to see Kallis's name mentioned, because his stats are so immense compared to everyone else of his generation. Unfortunately he's just not that cool.

 

[Jono]

I'd rate Viv just as high as Murali or Warne,

So do I. What I was pointing out was that Zinzan just named a bunch of all-time great bowlers and said "they won more matches for their team than Sachin". Well we've seen ad nauseum how biased CW is with bowlers being match winners whereas batsman aren't. So how can Sachin win that argument? And not just Sachin, any all-time great batsman.

 

[Slifer]

Well with a SRT vs lets say a Malolm Marshall MM was certainly IMO the better cricketer. MM's bowling>SRT's batting easily. And MM doesnt have a fair to poor record against ne team or in ne country, where as SRT does.

 

[Jono]

Slifer that's not the point I'm making. If you think Marshall was better than Sachin, fine. If you think Imran was better than Sachin, fine.

My point is the specific reason Zinzan used as describing them as better (none of the reasons you gave were in his post) was for their matchwinning ability. And it was quite clear that he only named bowlers or bowling allrounders.

Well then he may as well have the top 25 players be the best bowlers, because by his criteria Sachin, Viv, Lara, Ponting, Chappell and Waugh would never win as many matches as Warne, Marshall, Imran etc.

 

[Uppercut]

So you rate Tendulkar ahead of a man who averaged the same if not more than him with the bat, was a better fielder and took 200 plus test wickets as well, and who played for 15 plus years at the top level?

Everyone does. Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me either...

 

[honestbharani]

Someone who didn't play even a quarter of international matches as Sachin did? Fair enough I think.

Juz hang around till we do get someone who plays 1/4th more games than Sachin, will you?

 

[vcs]

Forgive me if I sound dumb here, but who exactly are Burgey and Sir Alex talking about? I saw Kallis mentioned, but the "hasn't played a quarter of international matches" bit put me off..

 

[honestbharani]

I am sorry, which part of that was cringeworthy? So a guy who managed to get appreciation of an elitist crowd in his country, which is as big as a state in India, is better than someone who turned perfectly sensible people across all strata of society into worshippers?

And what standard of cricket WG had to endure (lol at posts saying he played well into his 50s which rather gives an idea of the competition level than anything) not a patch on what Sachin has in his 20 year Plus career.

Of course elitists will continue to vouch for him based on some ancient manuscripts published on him, which invariably will only spread the cult of personality over time.

Sachin has influenced hundreds of millions of kids wanting to pick the bat across generations, and most importantly by setting a near perfect example of how to play the game, on and off the field. I shall discount the WG love as another example of the romanticism associated with preRadio days.

And what you talk about Sachin is NOT romanticism??????????



Jeez, there is biased and there is blatant one eyed "I clutch at any straw named SRT".....