WHY do they say this?

[bagapath]

Lolling at the idea that Ian Botham is the best all rounder.

it is like saying mcgrath is the greatest bowler of all time. may not be agreeable but certainly not laughable.

 

[Spark]

I would say the gap between Botham and Sobers or Imran is pretty big tbh. It literally looks to me that Cork just forgot about them. After all they come under the category of "great all-rounder".

 

[dhillon28]

I hide none of my disdain for this comparison. The day people seriously start discussing this all over the cricket world is the day the sport is dead and we are pandering to the masses. Tendulkar is not even clearly the best batsman of his own era, let alone even being near Bradman. The difference between the players is so large it is akin to comparing Darrent Bent with Pele.

This is the poll on the fox-sports site with the Hughes article:

A ****ing travesty.

u need to get an education mate- i think that is the main travesty here

 

[GotSpin]

u need to get an education mate- i think that is the main travesty here

*looks at your AT XI*

 

[Daemon]

u need to get an education mate- i think that is the main travesty here

 

[dhillon28]

tbh honest, im kinda disgusted by the stupid logic being floated around here and some idiots on this forum sitting on a 'self bestowed high horse' claiming that the suggestion that anyone alive is better than bradman is ludicrous. another stupid comment I keep on hearing that sachin's longevity doesnt count for anything.

ok then, if u fools who believe bradman was easily better than because of batting average and because longevity doesnt count for anything. lets see how consistent you fools really are:

using your logic the best bowler of all time is:

Bruce Murray of New Zealand! Even though he was an opening batsmen as he has a bowling average of ZERO runs per wicket and the fact that he only played 13 games shouldn't count against him as it doest count against Bradman.

So clearly we can see that by taking the arguements supporting Bradman over Sachin to the purest extent, we can arrive at some pretty dumb ass conclusions like Bruce Murray is a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Glenn Mcgrath, Deniss Lillee etc.
But if we take the arguments supporting Sachin being better than Don Bradman to the purest extent, e.g.most centuries scored, most runs scored, record around the world, then you arrive at players like Lara, Ponting, Border, Gavaskar, Kallis etc which is not too far off the truth. I feel this post shows just why the notion of Sachin being the greatest of all time has so much validity to it.

Time for Sachin fans to sit on a 'high horse"- a well deserved one I might add.

 

[four_or_six]

u need to get an education mate- i think that is the main travesty here

Insulting other members, and that includes comments such as this, or calling them 'idiots' or 'fools' is unacceptable. Just keep to the cricket debate.

 

[Howe_zat]

I would say the gap between Botham and Sobers or Imran is pretty big tbh. It literally looks to me that Cork just forgot about them. After all they come under the category of "great all-rounder".

You can say so, but I think there's fair cause for rating Botham in the same league if you look at the cricketer they were at their best, rather than the entireity of what they achieved (which is what we usually look at when judging cricketers).

For at least a few years at his peak, Botham was an international standard middle order batsman in his own right but managed it while simulateneously being one of the best opening bowlers in the world. How many cricketers can be said to have done that?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Bruce Murray of New Zealand! Even though he was an opening batsmen as he has a bowling average of ZERO runs per wicket and the fact that he only played 13 games shouldn't count against him as it doest count against Bradman.

So clearly we can see that by taking the arguements supporting Bradman over Sachin to the purest extent, we can arrive at some pretty dumb ass conclusions like Bruce Murray is a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Glenn Mcgrath, Deniss Lillee etc.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Neil Pickup]

You can say so, but I think there's fair cause for rating Botham in the same league if you look at the cricketer they were at their best, rather than the entireity of what they achieved (which is what we usually look at when judging cricketers).

For at least a few years at his peak, Botham was an international standard middle order batsman in his own right but managed it while simulateneously being one of the best opening bowlers in the world. How many cricketers can be said to have done that?

Yeah, I agree, at his peak, Botham was arguably an all-rounder of the same calibre of Sobers or Khan (or Kallis) - for me, it's one of those debates which I wouldn't wade into, like Warne/Murali or Tendulkar/Lara at their peak, all down to aesthetics and personal preference - however the fact that the two other players maintained their excellence for a far longer period ultimately tilts the long game in their favour.

 

[Spark]

Right but my point was that Cork had more or less forgotten about the other great all rounders. Or at least I hope he did (because there are a few more great all-rounders than just Botham).

And dhillon, just wow.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Right but my point was that Cork had more or less forgotten about the other great all rounders. Or at least I hope he did (because there are a few more great all-rounders than just Botham).

And dhillon, just wow.

Corky has never struck me as the most cerebral of cricketers. Talksport here he comes...

 

[Spark]

Yeah it was really the "the only great all-rounder comment" which had me going "er...."

 

[keeper]

Yeah it was really the "the only great all-rounder comment" which had me going "er...."

Think we can just be grateful he didn't nominate himself for the title...

 

[smash84]

Think we can just be grateful he didn't nominate himself for the title...

@Spark......btw the idea of IT Botham being the best all rounder ever is not ludicrous but yes i do agree that the way Cork said it in the interview seems to suggest that there is no contest.

 

[dhillon28]

Insulting other members, and that includes comments such as this, or calling them 'idiots' or 'fools' is unacceptable. Just keep to the cricket debate.

fair enough, point taken, but please be consistent and offer me the same level of protection when others post, because I feel a lot of ppl are out of hand against me as well- and just for the sake of it.

 

[Borges]

@Spark......btw the idea of IT Botham being the best all rounder ever is not ludicrous but yes i do agree that the way Cork said it in the interview seems to suggest that there is no contest.

I have not heard anything more ludicrous in several years. Har har har.

 

[smash84]

 

[GotSpin]

tbh honest, im kinda disgusted by the stupid logic being floated around here and some idiots on this forum sitting on a 'self bestowed high horse' claiming that the suggestion that anyone alive is better than bradman is ludicrous. another stupid comment I keep on hearing that sachin's longevity doesnt count for anything.

ok then, if u fools who believe bradman was easily better than because of batting average and because longevity doesnt count for anything. lets see how consistent you fools really are:

using your logic the best bowler of all time is:

Bruce Murray of New Zealand! Even though he was an opening batsmen as he has a bowling average of ZERO runs per wicket and the fact that he only played 13 games shouldn't count against him as it doest count against Bradman.

So clearly we can see that by taking the arguements supporting Bradman over Sachin to the purest extent, we can arrive at some pretty dumb ass conclusions like Bruce Murray is a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Glenn Mcgrath, Deniss Lillee etc.
But if we take the arguments supporting Sachin being better than Don Bradman to the purest extent, e.g.most centuries scored, most runs scored, record around the world, then you arrive at players like Lara, Ponting, Border, Gavaskar, Kallis etc which is not too far off the truth. I feel this post shows just why the notion of Sachin being the greatest of all time has so much validity to it.

Time for Sachin fans to sit on a 'high horse"- a well deserved one I might add.

People this stupid shouldn't be allowed to post.

 

[gvenkat]

The problem with most of the cricket fans is their inability to come out of the shell and think outside the box. What is even more apalling is that most of them have not seen Bradman bat. I have never seen a football or a tennis fan deny the fact that Maradaona or Federer is the greatest ever even though we have seen the likes of Pele, Laver, Newcombe etc. I'm sure they will surely embrace the likes of Messi or any other Tennis star in the future. What always grinds my gears is this inability of the cricket fans to come to term with the future and the living in the past.

Anyone who says that the pressure of billion people is nothing ought to get a life. Seriosly, The constant media scrutiny, the constant pressure will get to you. If there is no pressure in playing the game ask SA why they choke so consistently.

Another thing is comparing eras just does not work. You just cannot do that. People should agree that Bradman was the greatest before the 50's Sobers before modern cricket took over and Tendulkar is the greatest that we have seen of the modern era. However a comment like that would evoke either a stupid response or could be termed blasphemy. rest my case

P.S : One thing that Bradman has no other cricketer can dream of is his average is twice as good as his peers which neither Sobers nor Tendulkar have done.