Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[harsh.ag]

Not true. Imran was a pretty decent batsman and bowler at the same time as well for a significant part of his career. And I'll list some series for you too.

Against India 1982-83
Against England 1981-82
Against WI 1987-88
Against England 1986-87

Plus there were other series where he was awesome with the ball but didn't get much chances to cash in since the batsmen just ran away with the batting otherwise Imran would have probably scored loads of runs (Australia in Pakistan 1982-83, Sri Lanka vs Pakistan 1981-82)

Dude, we have been down this road before!

Imran has just one instance of a 5-fer and century in the same match, compared to Botham's 5. He doesn't have 250 runs and 20 wickets in the same series (Came very close in the 82-83 India series, which was his best no doubt, brilliant performance, especially with the ball, also with the bat) (But as another aside, that series did have 6 tests, which is a rarity).

 

[Coronis]

Its got to be the Don. If you had to pick an all time side, and he was available, he would be your first pick. Not to mention nobody, in the 70 years before and after his test career has come close to his records.

52 matches, 80 innings
6996 runs
99.94 average
29 centuries (better than 1 in every 2 matches)
12 double centuries
2 triple centuries

People have beaten his run total, but of those, Hammond has played the least matches, at 85. Just 10 batsmen have scored more centuries than him, but every single one has played more than 100 matches. He still holds the joint record for triple centuries. He made his hundred 29 times, and 41% of the time, he'd go on to make another hundred. He is the only man to score more than 300 runs in a day. He was the fastest to 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs, and the 3rd fastest to 1000. In a game where 50 is considered a great average, he almost averaged 100. In fact, only 3 batsmen who have played more than 20 innings have averaged over 60, and none of them managed to average over 61.

The fact that he dominated everyone before and after him, and by such a huge margin easily makes him the greatest batsman to ever play the game. Because of this dominance, I believe he is the best player to play the game. He was also an excellent fielder. Of course, there are those who would say that the best player must be an allrounder. I don't think we've had a truly great all rounder in the game. someone who bats like Sobers, and bowls like Imran. Maybe we never will. That man, may give Bradman a run for the top position.

But seriously, if you were choosing an all time team, and you had first pick, would you not choose Bradman first, knowing that meant another team would have him on their roster?

 

[harsh.ag]

Of course, there are those who would say that the best player must be an allrounder. I don't think we've had a truly great all rounder in the game. Someone who bats like Sobers, and bowls like Imran. Maybe we never will. That man, may give Bradman a run for the top position.

But seriously, if you were choosing an all time team, and you had first pick, would you not choose Bradman first, knowing that meant another team would have him on their roster?

Man, I hope we see that

 

[smash84]

Dude, we have been down this road before!

Imran has just one instance of a 5-fer and century in the same match, compared to Botham's 5. He doesn't have 250 runs and 20 wickets in the same series (Came very close in the 82-83 India series, which was his best no doubt, brilliant performance, especially with the ball, also with the bat) (But as another aside, that series did have 6 tests, which is a rarity).

We have been down this road before and I keep arguing the same points over and over but what exactly is a good all round series for you? In most of the series that Imran played he had a very good batting average (At least the ones in the 1980s). What would that suggest?

 

[smash84]

Its got to be the Don. If you had to pick an all time side, and he was available, he would be your first pick. Not to mention nobody, in the 70 years before and after his test career has come close to his records.

52 matches, 80 innings
6996 runs
99.94 average
29 centuries (better than 1 in every 2 matches)
12 double centuries
2 triple centuries

People have beaten his run total, but of those, Hammond has played the least matches, at 85. Just 10 batsmen have scored more centuries than him, but every single one has played more than 100 matches. He still holds the joint record for triple centuries. He made his hundred 29 times, and 41% of the time, he'd go on to make another hundred. He is the only man to score more than 300 runs in a day. He was the fastest to 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs, and the 3rd fastest to 1000. In a game where 50 is considered a great average, he almost averaged 100. In fact, only 3 batsmen who have played more than 20 innings have averaged over 60, and none of them managed to average over 61.

The fact that he dominated everyone before and after him, and by such a huge margin easily makes him the greatest batsman to ever play the game. Because of this dominance, I believe he is the best player to play the game. He was also an excellent fielder. Of course, there are those who would say that the best player must be an allrounder. I don't think we've had a truly great all rounder in the game. someone who bats like Sobers, and bowls like Imran. Maybe we never will. That man, may give Bradman a run for the top position.

But seriously, if you were choosing an all time team, and you had first pick, would you not choose Bradman first, knowing that meant another team would have him on their roster?

Dude, such a cricketer will leave any other in the dust. Even Bradman. I don't think we'll be seeing such a cricketer any time soon

 

[Satyanash89]

It's Bradman. Even if you want to hold to the logic that the best player must be an allrounder(which I don't agree with at all), I say Bradman WAS an all rounder whose two core strengths were batting and batting.

FFS, he's statistically worth two ATG batsmen.

 

[harsh.ag]

It's Bradman. Even if you want to hold to the logic that the best player must be an allrounder(which I don't agree with at all), I say Bradman WAS an all rounder whose two core strengths were batting and batting.

FFS, he's statistically worth two ATG batsmen.

 

[harsh.ag]

We have been down this road before and I keep arguing the same points over and over but what exactly is a good all round series for you? In most of the series that Imran played he had a very good batting average (At least the ones in the 1980s). What would that suggest?

That he was a very good all-rounder. But he didn't add an extra batsman to the side when he was a great bowler, and when he did add an extra batsman to the side, he wasn't a great bowler anymore.

 

[Jono]

It's Bradman. Even if you want to hold to the logic that the best player must be an allrounder(which I don't agree with at all), I say Bradman WAS an all rounder whose two core strengths were batting and batting.

FFS, he's statistically worth two ATG batsmen.

 

[Satyanash89]

That he was a very good all-rounder. But he didn't add an extra batsman to the side when he was a great bowler, and when he did add an extra batsman to the side, he wasn't a great bowler anymore.

Yup. Sobers was far more an actual all rounder than Imran in that sense.

Edit: stupid spellcheck

 

[smash84]

That he was a very good all-rounder. But he didn't add an extra batsman to the side when he was a great bowler, and when he did add an extra batsman to the side, he wasn't a great bowler anymore.

I would have a different take on things. That whatever chance he got with the bat he did very well and his average would indicate that. In case you point out his not outs I might add that I wouldn't count a not out against a batsman

 

[smash84]

Yup. Sobers was far more an actual all rounder than I mean in that sense.

Sobers bowling was very ordinary

 

[Satyanash89]

Sobers bowling was very ordinary

Well so was imran's batting then.
Sobers played the actual all-rounder role of doing well with both bat and ball together more often than Imran, I'd guess

 

[harsh.ag]

I would have a different take on things. That whatever chance he got with the bat he did very well and his average would indicate that. In case you point out his not outs I might add that I wouldn't count a not out against a batsman

I have nothing against not-outs. But when I pick Imran, I have to contend with the very real possibility that most probably, either the great-bowler-okay-batsman Imran or the limited-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran is going to show up, not the great-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran.

And, if as you said, Sobers' bowling was ordinary (which in the 60s it really wasn't), but if we take that, then would I be hesitant to put Imran in my all time side at number 8 after Gilchrist? Hell yes. Much rather have Hadlee or Marshall there.

 

[smash84]

I have nothing against not-outs. But when I pick Imran, I have to contend with the very real possibility that most probably, either the great-bowler-okay-batsman Imran or the limited-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran is going to show up, not the great-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran.

And, if as you said, Sobers' bowling was ordinary (which in the 60s it really wasn't), but if we take that, then would I be hesitant to put Imran in my all time side at number 8 after Gilchrist? Hell yes. Much rather have Hadlee or Marshall there.

How wasn't Sobers bowling ordinary? Have you checked out his bowling record? I'll try and pull out some really interesting posts from Ikki in a bit

 

[smash84]

Well so was imran's batting then.
Sobers played the actual all-rounder role of doing well with both bat and ball together more often than Imran, I'd guess

I have nothing against not-outs. But when I pick Imran, I have to contend with the very real possibility that most probably, either the great-bowler-okay-batsman Imran or the limited-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran is going to show up, not the great-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran.

And, if as you said, Sobers' bowling was ordinary (which in the 60s it really wasn't), but if we take that, then would I be hesitant to put Imran in my all time side at number 8 after Gilchrist? Hell yes. Much rather have Hadlee or Marshall there.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Other than against India where Sobers strikes at 73 balls per wicket against no other team does he even strike at 85 balls per wicket. Not only that have you checked his SR against Pakistan. He strikes every 356 deliveries which would mean 1 wicket a day. If that is not ordinary than what is?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Bradman still top for me though WG is right up with him just didn't get to play international cricket properly at his peak and his records are way better than anyone else at his time despite his age and the standard of equipment/pitches. The more you think of WG he was a freak before his time. As for allrounders i'd probably place Imran top above Sobers and Botham so my top 3 would be Bradman, WG and Imran.

 

[hendrix]

Imran Khan IMO.

On Sobers vs Khan, IMO Imran's bowling (i.e. his strength) was better than Sobers' batting (his strength). I'd say Imran's batting was probably about equal to Sobers' bowling.

 

[harsh.ag]

How wasn't Sobers bowling ordinary? Have you checked out his bowling record? I'll try and pull out some really interesting posts from Ikki in a bit

Dude, I am agreeing with you about Sobers! What are you on about? Now look at what I wrote:

But when I pick Imran, I have to contend with the very real possibility that most probably, either the great-bowler-okay-batsman Imran or the limited-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran is going to show up, not the great-bowler-reliable-batsman Imran.

And, if as you said, Sobers' bowling was ordinary (which in the 60s it really wasn't), but if we take that, then would I be hesitant to put Imran in my all time side at number 8 after Gilchrist? Hell yes. Much rather have Hadlee or Marshall there.

What would be your views on this.

 

[The Sean]

So how come Bradman's stats drop but the others don't?

A thousand times this.

I know I've said it before, but this obsession that a few people seem to have with inventing reasons or criteria to mark down Bradman - and only Bradman - just to somehow bring him back to the field is beyond ludicrous. I suppose it must seem easier to artificially create some sort of level playing field than to acknowledge that there was a bloke so good that statistically he shouldn't exist.