CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[salman85]

I haven't really participated in this, TBH I initially CBA to make a list and then plumb forgot, but I will just say it'd be very interesting if we repeated this with a priviso that no-one could vote for players who'd represented their own national side.

Suspect we'd see a quite different list.

Excellent idea this.Someone should start this poll when we get done with the current one.

 

[Sparkley]

He is the most advertised cricketer in the world, probably in history. Heck they might know him more than Bradman or Viv. The fact that his career has coincided with India's rise as an economic power and he has benefitted the most from it hardly qualifies him in my eyes for the same legacy that the aforementioned players have.

More people might know of Beckham than Messi; to use that to add to Beckham's legacy is missing the point of this exercise. I am more concerned with the actions they took, not their PR team.



If you had the same exact player who had the same exact career and he was from NZ do you think the Indians would care about him like they do with Sachin? I find it hard to believe they would.

Why is that so surprising, though? It is human nature to care more about the players from their own country. That is not to say good talent from other countries should not be appreciated but to suggest it is somehow wrong to care more about your own players is utter bollocks. A Pakistani fan would care more about Imran Khan than he would care about Botham or Sobers, an English fan would care more about Botham than he would for Imran, an Australian fan would care more for Warne than they would for Murali, Ikki would care more for Tendulkar if he was Australian, Ikki would have rated Ponting less if he was Indian or English or Sri Lankan, etc. It's just human nature. Not sure why you're getting all uptight over it.

 

[Sparkley]

I doubt it. We had several players who IMO are as great or greater than Tendulkar like Gilchrist, Ponting, McGrath and Border just during Warne's playing time. And they did not garner the same attention that Warne did. If Tendulkar was Australian he'd be rightly classed in with Ponting, Chappell, Border and Waugh in the rung below Bradman of great Australian batsmen. He'd never, ever, ever, be compared to Bradman - as Indians sometimes do - if he were Australian.



Not at all, I don't think Beckham does. At least the way I value transcendence is far less superficial than that. Just being known and well-marketed is not really a reflection of what one brought to the game or brought for the game or the people that viewed it.

Viv refused a blank check to play during the apartheid era, in recognition of his brothers' fights for rights and was striking at a rate the others could only dream of; Warne was a hollywood blockbuster, headlines as improbable on the pitch as when he was off and mastered one of the toughest arts in the game becoming one of cricket's rarest talents; Bradman held the psyche of a nation together as they fought a war and is arguably the most dominant sportsman of all time; Imran commanded together a team, in a country where talent was often ample but leadership fought over; Murali forced people to look at their prejudices and almost reinvented bowling...

Tendulkar was an ATG bat, that's it. It's not like he scored them at a Bradmanish rate over his peers or that he was known as the man for the dire moments. Maybe we're getting to why we differ so much about this player but as I said in my initial post; I think Tendulkar's legacy is very one dimensional.

I expected the backlash from some, but the question was: why do people get in arms about Tendulkar being rated so highly? I think I speak for myself and some others with what I have said. I'll not repeat it again, but I will read people's responses and if I think they've changed my mind I'll comment.

If Murali reinvented bowling does that mean he should be rated higher than Warne as Warne ''only'' rejuvinated the art of leg spinning?

 

[smash84]

I haven't really participated in this, TBH I initially CBA to make a list and then plumb forgot, but I will just say it'd be very interesting if we repeated this with a priviso that no-one could vote for players who'd represented their own national side.

Suspect we'd see a quite different list.

An extremely flawed list that would be.

Voters from the country that sends in the most votes would get penalized the most.

 

[Ikki]

Why is that so surprising, though? It is human nature to care more about the players from their own country. That is not to say good talent from other countries should not be appreciated but to suggest it is somehow wrong to care more about your own players is utter bollocks. A Pakistani fan would care more about Imran Khan than he would care about Botham or Sobers, an English fan would care more about Botham than he would for Imran, an Australian fan would care more for Warne than they would for Murali, Ikki would care more for Tendulkar if he was Australian, Ikki would have rated Ponting less if he was Indian or English or Sri Lankan, etc. It's just human nature. Not sure why you're getting all uptight over it.

I am not surprised over it or uptight about it. I think all cricketers are bigger for their countrymen than others. That's why I see it as no special feat for Tendulkar to be adored by his - even if it is to the point of deification. You're saying the same thing I am.

If Murali reinvented bowling does that mean he should be rated higher than Warne as Warne ''only'' rejuvinated the art of leg spinning?

If you think so, you could. I think Murali's bowling in itself was more impressive than his having to do with the laws being changed. It was my example to show that some players left their mark on the game in more ways than one.

 

[silentstriker]

I haven't really participated in this, TBH I initially CBA to make a list and then plumb forgot, but I will just say it'd be very interesting if we repeated this with a priviso that no-one could vote for players who'd represented their own national side.

Suspect we'd see a quite different list.

TBF, we already have that with all the 'well known' people and their XIs. At least a few people, you can tell, left out a player or two already for purposes other than the fact they rated that player lower than top 25. Not that it matters and people are welcome to vote for whomever they wish, but I am not sure if you'd get a more 'accurate' (whatever that means), if you did it that way.

 

[silentstriker]

I am not surprised over it or uptight about it. I think all cricketers are bigger for their countrymen than others. That's why I see it as no special feat for Tendulkar to be adored by his - even if it is to the point of deification. You're saying the same thing I am.

I am not sure if that's true - from the XIs I've seen, Tendulkar makes AT XIs of non Indian famous people just as much as he makes the AT XIs of people on here. I do not know if he has been elevated more so by the fans which "deify" him.

 

[Sparkley]

meh, you're not saying the same thing as me at all. I think Tendulkar is definitely worthy of a top 10 spot (top 5 is debatable and you'd be splitting hairs anyway). You have no clue about Sachin has to go through in India. Whether that should be a factor in rating him higher is debatable but don't pretend you know what you don't.

 

[smash84]

meh, you're not saying the same thing as me at all. I think Tendulkar is definitely worthy of a top 10 spot (top 5 is debatable and you'd be splitting hairs anyway). You have no clue about Sachin has to go through in India. Whether that should be a factor in rating him higher is debatable but don't pretend you know what you don't.

I think he has addressed "the burden of a billion expectations" earlier

 

[Cevno]

So what Ikki is doing is glorifying everything certain set of cricketers did and dismissing everything Sachin has done subjectively to prove his point.

For example, Warne's off field exploits make him a greater cricketer somehow than Sachin even though many of them were negative too. Why? Because yeah who likes boring people who come from a relatively poor background to become a sensation at 15 years of age and then a great cricketer who contributed heavily in making cricket a money minting machine in their country over 2 decades. All this while keeping on the straight and narrow and mantaining the motivation for so long in this era of all kinds of inducements and distractions alongside having to carry the burden of the cricket crazy following of his country who had gotten their first true sports star in a weakish cricket team. Would have been more interesting and glamorous i guess, had he had off the field liaisons to rival Warne and Richards ?

And that is discounting his cricketing exploits which Teja explains well in this post -

It's scary that, IMO, If Tendulkar retired in 2003 after 14 years of cricket, lots of people, of whom I would not be one, would rate him higher than they do now. That was the time when most of the comments about him being the second best after Bradman started flooding in and it seems logically insane to penalize him for having another decade of merely excellent batsman-ship in addition to the initial period of era-defining batsmanship.

His achievements in the 90s are heavily understated IMO. In the decade, only three other batsmen averaged fifty(Waugh, Lara and Gooch). he averaged a clear five runs ahead of anyone else averaging 58 which is pretty crazy considering he was but a kid for four years of the decade and had not matured to his complete batting prowess yet. What is more remarkable is that he played only 69 games as opposed to many others who played close to hundred and yet scored 22 tons in the decade four clear of Waugh who played 89 games(!) and Lara who played 65 games, around the same, managed only 13 tons! Stuff of absolute legend IMO.

I think a large amount of the underrating perception surrounding Tendulkar being an accumulator is based on his last decade of batsmanship. I would ask people who do that a question - If say, Greg Chappell or Viv Richards decided to stay back and 'accumulate' runs for 7-8 years more beyond in the 80s and the 90s at an average of 45-50, which would be a ridiculous help to the team, Would you not consider it valuable?

This picture in the other thread is absolutely brilliant and I believe it requires reposting, I did not do the circling btw,-

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8669/homeawayi.jpg


Well, anyway, long story short, Without a shadow of doubt, the best batsman of my time of watching cricket and there's something ridiculously romantic about someone in their 22nd year of batsmanship scoring 1500 runs @ 78 and It is unthinkable to imagine that such an event will ever happen again in my lifetime.

He was comfortably ahead of the rest in the 90'S in a decade which is regarded tougher for batsman than the next decade too. He has had 2 great careers with different type of approaches, combined into one after being able to rejuvenate his game when his body was not the same. That alone is a x factor if you are looking at one.

And btw, i didn't know "Flat Track Bully" Sehwag worried you more than Sachin as opposition?

 

[Ikki]

Nah, that was a complete ****-up of what I said.

I don't think Tendulkar's performances in the 90s were well ahead of the pack. If you actually look at the attacks of the runs scored against I think Waugh was even better.

And sure, when Sehwag gets going the game is almost three quarters over.

 

[Spark]

Personally Laxman worried me more than both.

 

[Jono]

I doubt it. We had several players who IMO are as great or greater than Tendulkar like Gilchrist, Ponting, McGrath and Border just during Warne's playing time. And they did not garner the same attention that Warne did. If Tendulkar was Australian he'd be rightly classed in with Ponting, Chappell, Border and Waugh in the rung below Bradman of great Australian batsmen. He'd never, ever, ever, be compared to Bradman - as Indians sometimes do - if he were Australian.



Not at all, I don't think Beckham does. At least the way I value transcendence is far less superficial than that. Just being known and well-marketed is not really a reflection of what one brought to the game or brought for the game or the people that viewed it.

Viv refused a blank check to play during the apartheid era, in recognition of his brothers' fights for rights and was striking at a rate the others could only dream of; Warne was a hollywood blockbuster, headlines as improbable on the pitch as when he was off and mastered one of the toughest arts in the game becoming one of cricket's rarest talents; Bradman held the psyche of a nation together as they fought a war and is arguably the most dominant sportsman of all time; Imran commanded together a team, in a country where talent was often ample but leadership fought over and is arguably the greatest all-rounder of all time; Murali, like Warne was one of the rarest kinds of cricketer (a spin bowler who could hold his own against ATG greats) and forced people to look at their prejudices and almost reinvented bowling...

Tendulkar was an ATG bat, that's it. It's not like he scored them at a Bradmanish rate over his peers or that he was known as the man for the dire moments. Maybe we're getting to why we differ so much about this player but as I said in my initial post; I think Tendulkar's legacy is very one dimensional.

I expected the backlash from some, but the question was: why do people get in arms about Tendulkar being rated so highly? I think I speak for myself and some others with what I have said. I'll not repeat it again, but I will read people's responses and if I think they've changed my mind I'll comment.

Right, so your definition of transcending the sport is not what most people here think.

McEnroe transcended tennis. More than Bjorn Borg. Part of that is because McEnroe was a whiny **** on the court, but that's life.

That Viv blank cheque fact is completely irrelevant to the general view of transcending a sport. Its just because you like what he did.

 

[Spark]

Frankly I have no idea what Ikki means by "transcending the sport". I would not say Warne, Richards etc. etc. transcended the sport. I'd say Tendulkar probably transcended it to some degree, Bradman definitely, someone like Basil d'Oliviera also a definite. Because they actually transcended the sport in the proper meaning of the word in that their actions on the cricket field or as cricketers meant more to people or did more than merely achievements on a cricket field. Tendulkar because of his importance to the rise of "middle India", Bradman for being a beacon of light during the Depression (not because he averaged 99.94), and d'Oliviera for obvious reasons. It doesn't actually have that much to do with how good they were as cricketers - d'Oliviera was most definitely not a better cricketer than Ponting, for example, even if he may have been more... "transcendetal".

 

[Ikki]

Right, so your definition of transcending the sport is not what most people here think.

McEnroe transcended tennis. More than Bjorn Borg. Part of that is because McEnroe was a whiny **** on the court, but that's life.

That Viv blank cheque fact is completely irrelevant to the general view of transcending a sport. Its just because you like what he did.

It means they were people of great talent who in the field of being a cricketer took it to new meanings and new perspectives. They had an active role in that; they didn't just happen to do it because they were born somewhere. And it wasn't as passive as merely being a great cricketer whilst your country economically flourished - you had no hand in that. He didn't change the game nor was his talent rare enough nor far surpassing of his peers to justify that kind of praise.

Anyway, I've explained my position enough that it should be clear. Obviously, it is going to grate on some people who view him differently because I am pointing out things I feel other cricketers had over him where he lacked. It doesn't change the fact that he was an ATG bat and arguably the 2nd best batsman ever. In my view, it just doesn't stack up enough against the others in the top 10 and some outside it.

 

[ankitj]

This debate has gone on for far too long. Effectively, what I hear is that Ikki is not against using subjective parameters to rate a player. But he thinks his subjective parameters are more objective.

 

[Spark]

What I hear is that Ikki seems to be a completely and utterly different definition of "transcend" to the result of us.

 

[ankitj]

Which is alright, so long as he doesn't find it 'unfathomable' that someone could use other definitions to put Tendulkar in top 5.

 

[NUFAN]

Should start a thread on players that our Mum's know. Mine is clued up on the main NZ players and then a handful of overseas players from the 80s.

We should really. Just get everyone who speaks to there mum to name 5 Cricketers of all time from outside their country.

Smali and the like would be very happy that my mums favourite was always Imran Khan, she just thought he was so handsome.

I think she would probably say Tendookar (I think that's how she says it) she might say Hadlee too, I'll call her tomorrow.

 

[silentstriker]

Asked my mom to name five non Indian cricketers off the top of her head, she said in this order: Marshall, Merv Hughes (?), Gatting (?), Border, Miandad....


Not quite what I expected. But she watched cricket in the 80s and early nineties before we moved here so it makes sense that it's 80s heavy. Still...wtf?