The Greatest Cricketer Ever

[Jono]

What a conspiracy. They praise Lara over Ponting to make Sachin better.

 

[bagapath]

Sachin's fans are more willing to put Lara on a pedestal because he stacks up better statistically to him than Ponting.

Don't know why you feel so. Actually both Lara and Ponting are statistically equally inferior to Sachin. Tendulkar has no holes in his resume whereas Lara has been comparatively weaker overseas than at home. And it is well known that Ponting is a flop in India. Sachin has been a success story in every major test playing nation he has taken guard.

So I dont think there is any ulterior motive in Sachin fans placing Lara above Ponting. It could simply be because Lara was a clearly superior batsman to Ponting. I place Lara above Sachin as well because there was more magic in his batsmanship, numbers be damned.

Ponting is never going to match Lara's artistry; also he has fallen so far behind Sachin in the stats race that he is not a contender on that front either. So it will always be Sachin and Lara on one plane and Ponting on a lower lever, which is where I knew Ponting would end up in in even when he was considered their equal for a brief period.

Of course, even those two top batters of this age (S-L) can not stake any claim to the title this thread is dealing with.

 

[Burgey]

This is rubbish. Tendulkar > Ponting, not by a massive gulf and there's an argument, but he is. Lara is, IMO, closer to Ponting. Both had amazing highs as batsmen.

For me it's not statistical. Watch them play over the years. Same way people say Kallis is as good as Ponting. I don't care that their records are one or two points either way, watch them bat FFS, over their careers. Same reason Barrington isn't considered as great as Sobers as a batsman, by those who saw them, despite being so close statistically.

Jesus, it gets ridiculous. Watch them play FFS. Like people can't get why Viv is regarded so highly, apropos even GC or Miandad. I watched them bat. They're all great players, but Viv had something the other two didn't. IMO Viv > Chappell > Miandad. But that's just me. Even though Chappell and Miandad (iirc) finished with higher averages.

 

[Teja.]

Lol @ all the Sachin fan conspiracy theories. Special mention to 'using Lara as a buffer'

Tendulkar>Ponting>Lara, IMHO.

I've watched them bat for most of their careers. Most people disagree with me but while Lara had the tendency to look better and play an awesome Innings against very good bowling attacks more often, Ponting was way more consistent in his peak. Don't think I've seen a batsman who I just knew was going to score big in the first Innings always than Ponting in his peak. ****ing awesome bat. Underrated heaps.

 

[bagapath]

This is rubbish. Tendulkar > Ponting, not by a massive gulf and there's an argument, but he is. Lara is, IMO, closer to Ponting. Both had amazing highs as batsmen.

For me it's not statistical. Watch them play over the years. Same way people say Kallis is as good as Ponting. I don't care that their records are one or two points either way, watch them bat FFS, over their careers. Same reason Barrington isn't considered as great as Sobers as a batsman, by those who saw them, despite being so close statistically.

Jesus, it gets ridiculous. Watch them play FFS. Like people can't get why Viv is regarded so highly, apropos even GC or Miandad. I watched them bat. They're all great players, but Viv had something the other two didn't. IMO Viv > Chappell > Miandad. But that's just me. Even though Chappell and Miandad (iirc) finished with higher averages.

I cant disagree with anything in this post burgey. even the last line of yours, about viv > greg > javed, is something I have been saying for years in this forum. if you look just at the numbers, sachin still remains ahead of ricky comfortably. if you **** the numbers and watch them play then it is obvious that ponting < sachin, lara.

 

[Burgey]

I cant disagree with anything in this post burgey. even the last line of yours, about viv > greg > javed, is something I have been saying for years in this forum. if you look just at the numbers, sachin still remains ahead of ricky comfortably. if you **** the numbers and watch them play then it is obvious that ponting < sachin, lara.

I'd have them Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting myself. Doesn't mean I think Ponting is poor. It's a personal thing, always is. They would form the middle order of the past 20 years for me. Fwiw (nothing) I would put Tendulkar further ahead of Lara, by a fair margin, than I would Lara over Ponting.

Others will see it differently of course, and that's fine. As I've said so often before, if someone puts those three in any order, it isn't like they're saying Graeme Wood is better than the one they put third.

 

[Spark]

Lol @ all the Sachin fan conspiracy theories. Special mention to 'using Lara as a buffer'

Tendulkar>Ponting>Lara, IMHO.

I've watched them bat for most of their careers. Most people disagree with me but while Lara had the tendency to look better and play an awesome Innings against very good bowling attacks more often, Ponting was way more consistent in his peak. Don't think I've seen a batsman who I just knew was going to score big in the first Innings always than Ponting in his peak. ****ing awesome bat. Underrated heaps.

So true. Truly godlike in the middle of the last decade. Utterly imperious.

 

[Howe_zat]

Seriously laughing at the idea that praising Sachin is some kind of meticulously planned operation. Come on.

I've always said that ranking players at this level is a personal thing. On the "greatest cricketer of the last 20 years" poll, one of my first posts here was me trying to decide whether it was Ambrose or Wasim, just based on who I loved to see play.

I seem to remember reading an excellent post (can't remember who made it, sorry) justifying why for them, Graeme Hick was the best batsman they had ever seen. And they were more than welcome to it.

I think all of us try to justify having a solid opinion on players we weren't there to see - we all have pretty hefty opinions on Bradman, Grace, Jardine, etc. The only thing we've got to go on is anecdotes and records, and so when it comes to current players we end up doing the same thing.

So I can't feasibly contradict any of you, and I especially can't pick between GC, Viv and Miandad. I can have an opinion, sure, but the idea that it might be unarguable is ludicrous. I didn't watch them. Long story short, you had to be there.

 

[Burgey]

Jake tells it.

 

[Howe_zat]

Jake tells it.

With the way people talk about him despite his record, I really think I must have missed out on something special by not watching Viv bat live.

But then, you could say the same about Trumper and the like.

And, hey, it was the past, you probably all had ringworm and ****.

 

[Teja.]

With the way people talk about him despite his record

Tbf, Viv did have a spectacular record, average just a couple runs this side or that side of the other ATG bats and was immense against the ATG pacers too.

Tbh, I'm pretty sure I'd have rated Chappell ahead of Viv if I lived through his career too. The main criterion for Viv being rated the best is contemporary opinion and I disagree thoroughly with it for this era(Pollock>Tendulkar/Warne, for me), so i don't see why I wouldn't disagree for another era. It's by a minuscule(the Viv thing i.e.) margin and that's a different topic though.

 

[Jono]

Contemporary opinion in rating allrounders higher or lower than players is different to contemporary opinion regarding bowler vs. bowler and batsman vs. batsman though.

I can see (though I disagree) why some would find it plainly wrong to rate a Pollock or Kallis lower than McGrath, Murali or Warne, considering that they both were strong at bowling and batting (to various levels) whereas McGrath only had one suit (discarding fielding for a second).

But when contemporary opinion is comparing a batsman to a batsman, it's a more consistent ideology. Yes there are slight differences, but not as much.

 

[vcs]

I find it plainly wrong to rate Pollock higher than McGrath, Warne or Murali. Same applies to Kallis also, but to a slightly lesser extent.

 

[Teja.]

Contemporary opinion in rating allrounders higher or lower than players is different to contemporary opinion regarding bowler vs. bowler and batsman vs. batsman though.

I can see (though I disagree) why some would find it plainly wrong to rate a Pollock or Kallis lower than McGrath, Murali or Warne, considering that they both were strong at bowling and batting (to various levels) whereas McGrath only had one suit (discarding fielding for a second).

But when contemporary opinion is comparing a batsman to a batsman, it's a more consistent ideology. Yes there are slight differences, but not as much.

Yeah, fair point, Jono. I still disagree with contemporary opinion usually for other reasons as well though. For the lack of time atm, The most important one would be that most opinions admit that they are rating players based on 'skill sets'. For me the only thing that matters is the ability to make runs.

A batsman with the strokes to hit the ball all over the wicket will naturally usually be a better run-maker than one who gets most of his runs with 3-4 strokes. However those things are only means to the end of run-making, If the second batsman is able to overcome his disadvantage in array of strokes and score as many(on average, not a strictly face value statistical term in this context) runs as the first batsman, He should be rated alongside him.

However, This is rarely acknowledged in contemporary opinions which usually focus on things like 'genius' and 'ability to hit a good ball for four' which might make a batsman a more skillful batsman than the other but not necessarily a more valuable(and in my world, better) one.

 

[Teja.]

I find it plainly wrong to rate Pollock higher than McGrath, Warne or Murali.

Yeah, Most people do.

Agree to disagree etc.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think Warne's batting is often underrated in these sorts of discussions. He didn't so much bat like a burgeoning all rounder but played very intelligently in partnership. He was almost always coming in off the back of an outstanding batting lineup, would likely have a Waugh or Gilchrist still there, and knew it wasn't about him.

 

[Spark]

I find difficulty labelling Warne's batting as "intelligent" given his shot in that knock at Perth, and his mode of dismissal in that test in Edgbaston.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, fair point, Jono. I still disagree with contemporary opinion usually for other reasons as well though. For the lack of time atm, The most important one would be that most opinions admit that they are rating players based on 'skill sets'. For me the only thing that matters is the ability to make runs.

A batsman with the strokes to hit the ball all over the wicket will naturally usually be a better run-maker than one who gets most of his runs with 3-4 strokes. However those things are only means to the end of run-making, If the second batsman is able to overcome his disadvantage in array of strokes and score as many(on average, not a strictly face value statistical term in this context) runs as the first batsman, He should be rated alongside him.

However, This is rarely acknowledged in contemporary opinions which usually focus on things like 'genius' and 'ability to hit a good ball for four' which might make a batsman a more skillful batsman than the other but not necessarily a more valuable(and in my world, better) one.

Such as?

Who do most experts and former players rater higher than other batsman yet have such a clearly worse record?

 

[sudhindra9]

When people talk about the greatest cricketer its always about Sach and the Don. What about Kallis? Who would score a hundred spending two hundred minutes at the crease Then comes and bowls medium pace at 140kph for about twenty overs. Thats just GREAT.

 

[Spark]

Because Sobers is better, basically.