3rd Greatest Cricketer - The Poll

[Uppercut]

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?

Are you seriously contemplating a choice between attacking strokeplay and 200 test wickets?

If you have any sense of logic at all there's not really any doubt that Kallis brings more to a side than any pure batsman since Bradman. That's just not really what people mean when they talk about who the greatest cricketers ever are. Personally I have a lot of respect for someone who just churns out copious amounts of runs and wickets (and hence helps churn out copious amounts of victories for his team) but there's nothing wrong with ranking Richards ahead of him for his pure magic. Same goes for Ponting and Lara. Kallis really doesn't have much magic.

 

[honestbharani]

Filling up BCCI coffers was just one part of my arguement. The other part is that, while India has always loved cricket, nobody really had the kind of worshippers that Sachin has had. I don't see how a booming economy can explain such a phenomenon across the nation. As it seems to have transcended even economic barriers.

Anyone doubting Sachin's appeal only need to watch last year's IPL. Articles were written on the great Indian confusion, as to whether to cheer for her greatest sporting son, or the local team.

We are talking humans here, not animals, and if a billion different mindsets, beliefs, cultures, opinions can merge into one, that requires some stuff.

Don't make it sound too special. I have watched games when Lara got that kind of reception and so did Warne.. And this is not just in Chennai, btw... Don't sprout out blatant lies.


Yes, Sachin is bigger than any of the biggest stars from any sport here in India. No, that doesn't make him a better cricketer than someone who actually seems to have been a better batsman, bowler and fielder than him (by all accounts)... And as for impact on game, it is a bit rich of you to talk about an era you know nothing of and to dismiss the standards as woeful. By that account, every cricketer who plays in the next era is better than the one who played in the previous era. In other words, nonsense. A great can only play with what is put in front of him. And get one thing clear in your head. Grace was the best player (note player, not just batsman) in the world by a distance during his time. Sachin can't even be called the best batsman of his generation without argument.

 

[honestbharani]

Intriguing how Nasser Hussain and other experts can call Sachin perhaps the 2nd best ever, but someone on CW can't.

Ftr I don't quite think Sachin is the 3rd best ever. But Jeez, having the most runs ever in the two major forms of the game at amazing averages and playing for 20 years would get him pretty close you'd think mate

Other experts? Nasser, Sunil and who else? Juz out of curiosity... And we all know that Sunny wears the same glasses SA does when talking about Sachin...

 

[honestbharani]

Tbf, Even Greg Chappell felt Tendulkar was one of the top 2-3 cricketers of all-time, and that was back in an interview in 2002.

My list would be something like:-

1.Bradman
2.Grace
3.Murali
4.Sobers
5.Tendulkar

Link plz?

 

[vcs]

Are you seriously contemplating a choice between attacking strokeplay and 200 test wickets?

If you have any sense of logic at all there's not really any doubt that Kallis brings more to a side than any pure batsman since Bradman. That's just not really what people mean when they talk about who the greatest cricketers ever are. Personally I have a lot of respect for someone who just churns out copious amounts of runs and wickets (and hence helps churn out copious amounts of victories for his team) but there's nothing wrong with ranking Richards ahead of him for his pure magic. Same goes for Ponting and Lara. Kallis really doesn't have much magic.

Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I do get the feeling though, that Kallis is generally underrated. I also underrate him, but that's because I haven't watched enough South African cricket. Out of non-Indian matches, I've tended to follow and watch Australia's matches most closely and hence tend to rate their cricketers a bit higher.

I'm interested to know why he's generally under-rated in the wider cricketing community. As you said, going by stats, he would be feted as easily the best cricketer of his generation. But why isn't that the case? Why do you think his batting lacks magic?

 

[GotSpin]

Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I do get the feeling though, that Kallis is generally underrated. I also underrate him, but that's because I haven't watched enough South African cricket. Out of non-Indian matches, I've tended to follow and watch Australia's matches most closely and hence tend to rate their cricketers a bit higher.

I'm interested to know why he's generally under-rated in the wider cricketing community. As you said, going by stats, he would be feted as easily the best cricketer of his generation. But why isn't that the case? Why do you think his batting lacks magic?

Because he's ultimately a very boring player to watch

 

[vcs]

Don't make it sound too special. I have watched games when Lara got that kind of reception and so did Warne.. And this is not just in Chennai, btw... Don't sprout out blatant lies.


Yes, Sachin is bigger than any of the biggest stars from any sport here in India. No, that doesn't make him a better cricketer than someone who actually seems to have been a better batsman, bowler and fielder than him (by all accounts)... And as for impact on game, it is a bit rich of you to talk about an era you know nothing of and to dismiss the standards as woeful. By that account, every cricketer who plays in the next era is better than the one who played in the previous era. In other words, nonsense. A great can only play with what is put in front of him. And get one thing clear in your head. Grace was the best player (note player, not just batsman) in the world by a distance during his time. Sachin can't even be called the best batsman of his generation without argument.

Again, who are we talking about here?

 

[vcs]

Because he's ultimately a very boring player to watch

Elaborate pls.

 

[archie mac]

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.

Usually enjoy reading your posts, but if this is not tongue in cheek then it is silly

I think Grace the only man who can be considered a greater player then Bradman, and in fact I am happy to rank him as such. He was so clearly better then everyone else of his time that as fine a player as Sachin is, this is a non contest.

 

[vic_orthdox]

With reference to Kallis:

I think that he suffers a bit because South Africa have pretty much been "almost theres" throughout his whole career, so he hasn't been a Ponting-like figure, the dominant force of the best team in the world, nor the Tendulkar/Lara effect where there's been the tragic hero notion where the team rides on the back of one man.

There's no doubt that how he makes his runs makes a difference, and while all players respect him I don't think that there's ever been a stage where he's been regarded by his peers as the number one batsman on the world stage. Teams don't experience a helplessness against him that they would at times to Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting, and feel as though he can be controlled.

 

[honestbharani]

Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I do get the feeling though, that Kallis is generally underrated. I also underrate him, but that's because I haven't watched enough South African cricket. Out of non-Indian matches, I've tended to follow and watch Australia's matches most closely and hence tend to rate their cricketers a bit higher.

I'm interested to know why he's generally under-rated in the wider cricketing community. As you said, going by stats, he would be feted as easily the best cricketer of his generation. But why isn't that the case? Why do you think his batting lacks magic?

Kallis is different. I do think Sachin (and Ponting/Lara, for that matter) are better cricketers than him. It is like saying why Bradman was better than Sobers. Sure, in this case the stats are closer in terms of batting, but I don't think Bradman would have done TOO much better than Sobers had he played in that era either. It comes down to who you will rather have in your team.. And for me, there is a X factor and match winning ability as a batsman ( lets not go down the bowlers/batters, match winners stuff again) from these 3 that is not present with Kallis. There is his record against McWarne and I have seen him flop against other great bowlers in difficult conditions too.


Maybe going from memory is not the best, but I have a pretty sharp memory on cricket and I think personally I would rather back any of the Ponting/Sachin/Lara trio to do better (and even score a match turning/setting up/winning knock) than Kallis in those conditions. And his bowling, though useful, is not at a level that I can give up this loss in terms of batting. There ya go. My opinion.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Again, who are we talking about here?

Sobers.

In reference to when someone said that Tendulkar was the second greatest cricketer of all time.

 

[honestbharani]

Again, who are we talking about here?

I am sure Burgey was initially talking about Sobers (or at least SA thought that way)... Guess UC means Kallis. In my post, I am talking about Grace.

 

[Ikki]

Has to be Imran.

Imran was an all-time great based on his bowling alone. When you factor in the fact that he was a very good batsman and an all-time great captain, I believe the choice is obvious.

After Sobers and Bradman, no cricketer has had the impact on their country's fortunes the way Imran has.

Definitely up there. Has as strong a case as Sobers IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

With reference to Kallis:

I think that he suffers a bit because South Africa have pretty much been "almost theres" throughout his whole career, so he hasn't been a Ponting-like figure, the dominant force of the best team in the world, nor the Tendulkar/Lara effect where there's been the tragic hero notion where the team rides on the back of one man.

There's no doubt that how he makes his runs makes a difference, and while all players respect him I don't think that there's ever been a stage where he's been regarded by his peers as the number one batsman on the world stage. Teams don't experience a helplessness against him that they would at times to Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting, and feel as though he can be controlled.

Which to me differentiates the genius from the talented players. And mostly, all the guys we talk about in contention for the top 10 or 20 spots as ATGs would belong to the former category.

 

[vcs]

With reference to Kallis:

I think that he suffers a bit because South Africa have pretty much been "almost theres" throughout his whole career, so he hasn't been a Ponting-like figure, the dominant force of the best team in the world, nor the Tendulkar/Lara effect where there's been the tragic hero notion where the team rides on the back of one man.

There's no doubt that how he makes his runs makes a difference, and while all players respect him I don't think that there's ever been a stage where he's been regarded by his peers as the number one batsman on the world stage. Teams don't experience a helplessness against him that they would at times to Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting, and feel as though he can be controlled.

Kallis is different. I do think Sachin (and Ponting/Lara, for that matter) are better cricketers than him. It is like saying why Bradman was better than Sobers. Sure, in this case the stats are closer in terms of batting, but I don't think Bradman would have done TOO much better than Sobers had he played in that era either. It comes down to who you will rather have in your team.. And for me, there is a X factor and match winning ability as a batsman ( lets not go down the bowlers/batters, match winners stuff again) from these 3 that is not present with Kallis. There is his record against McWarne and I have seen him flop against other great bowlers in difficult conditions too.


Maybe going from memory is not the best, but I have a pretty sharp memory on cricket and I think personally I would rather back any of the Ponting/Sachin/Lara trio to do better (and even score a match turning/setting up/winning knock) than Kallis in those conditions. And his bowling, though useful, is not at a level that I can give up this loss in terms of batting. There ya go. My opinion.

Sobers.

In reference to when someone said that Tendulkar was the second greatest cricketer of all time.

I am sure Burgey was initially talking about Sobers (or at least SA thought that way)... Guess UC means Kallis. In my post, I am talking about Grace.

Thanks for that.

 

[GotSpin]

Elaborate pls.

With regards to his batting, he tends to accumulate his runs rather than dominate opposing teams and his bowling, while nothing flash, is effective but neither highly entertaining.

 

[vcs]

With regards to his batting, he tends to accumulate his runs rather than dominate opposing teams and his bowling, while nothing flash, is effective but neither highly entertaining.

So the question is... if you had someone who could bat like Dravid and bowl like, say, Srinath (feel free to substitute a more suitable choice), and catch like Flintoff in the slips, would that make him a better cricketer than Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting?

 

[GotSpin]

So the question is... if you had someone who could bat like Dravid and bowl like, say, Srinath (feel free to substitute a more suitable choice), and catch like Flintoff in the slips, would that make him a better cricketer than Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting?

Perhaps. But Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting all have/had this ability to completely dominate and overwhelm other attacks, leaving opposing bowling attacks with what could be best described as helplessness when other batsmen like Kallis and Dravid tended to grind out and accumulate more often than not.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He can't really bowl like Srinath, because he can't bust out 20 overs a day. He can't really bowl like any specialist bowler; nor should he be expected to, though.