-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Which 4 heads would you put on a cricketing Mount Rushmore?
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tendulkar wouldn't move from number four even in a team crisis. Imran far more worthy of inclusion IMO.Yeah Tendulkar is arguably the biggest icon of the game. Don't see why he can't be on cricket mt Rushmore
Edit: Imran and Miller to adorn mt Rushmore to add glamor
Bradman has to be there
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah..... unless you mean purely due to India's population of course.
It's sometimes easy to forget India's population of 1.25 billion is nearly 7 times that of Pakistan (182 million), the 2nd most populated cricketing nation.
So if by icon, you mean by number of fans, then sure, there could never be any contest. By if by icon you mean universally recognised as the greatest, then obviously that's Bradman, followed by Sobers.
Personally speaking, basing it on population/number of fans is meaningless when one country's population is 20-30 times more than most others imho.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Grace, Bradman, Worrell, Tendulkar.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gross oversimplification.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
In what respect? Which part do you disagree with or is oversimplified?... The population numbers or the fact Bradman & Sobers are universally regarded as the 2 best cricketers of all time?
Last edited:
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
At current status, it would be Grace, Bradman, Srinivasan, Tendulkar. Big 3 all the way.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The population thing.
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Will be pretty apt if Tendulkar was the fourth head then.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
5 stars
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What about it? The numbers are correct. How is it oversimplifying things? Surely it's easy to see how India's top cricketer (in a country of 1.25 billion people) would have more fans than say Australia's top cricketer (with 21 million people). That's around 60 times the population...hence why I asked smali if by biggest icon he meant, number of fans/people who know of him or by those players who are universally thought of as the finest cricketers.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Grace- acknowledges the early era, apparently was the most recognised face in the British Empire apart from the monarch in his time.
Bradman- for his personal excellence, he captained what was possibly the greatest side ever assembled, and served the game for many years as an administrator.
Worrell- great leader, first full time black leader of the WIs. Great statesman.
Benaud- Great player, captain, and has contributed more to the game's popularity than perhaps anyone.
Bradman- for his personal excellence, he captained what was possibly the greatest side ever assembled, and served the game for many years as an administrator.
Worrell- great leader, first full time black leader of the WIs. Great statesman.
Benaud- Great player, captain, and has contributed more to the game's popularity than perhaps anyone.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
No doubt, but I tried to pick guys who had been great cricketers, but also had something extra.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's fine, my point stands. An iconic/well liked Indian cricketer will naturally have more folks 'love him' than an iconic/well liked cricketer from anywhere else in the world. So by 'icon' do we go by numbers of popularity or by how a given player was rated universally as a cricketer?
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
i'd say sobers over worrell still
trumper came before bradman but bradman is better
sobers is arguably the most valuable cricketer ever. yes bradman is probably number 1 but sobers could bowl
bradman with the bat : 15/10 (and thats being generous)
Sobers with the bat: 10/10 (along with many others who averaged above 50)
Sobers with the ball: 6-7(maybe more)/10
I like the choice for Benaud though. Could go in over Warne, though I liked the idea of a modern player's face getting a chisel. However Richie was the voice of cricket for a long time
trumper came before bradman but bradman is better
sobers is arguably the most valuable cricketer ever. yes bradman is probably number 1 but sobers could bowl
bradman with the bat : 15/10 (and thats being generous)
Sobers with the bat: 10/10 (along with many others who averaged above 50)
Sobers with the ball: 6-7(maybe more)/10
I like the choice for Benaud though. Could go in over Warne, though I liked the idea of a modern player's face getting a chisel. However Richie was the voice of cricket for a long time
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
When India won the world Cup, almost every player admitted that they wanted to win the thing because of their desire to see sachin lift the trophy. That notion is kind of ridiculous if you think about it but it was shared by virtually everyone in the country. Sure it was great to see India win the wc but seeing sachin win it was at the forefront of everybody's minds.
And worldwide there hasn't been a single cricketer who's received the universal love and respect like he has, for a very long time. All those silly standing ovations every ground he went to in the final stretch of his career even though he wasn't even scoring any runs by then, should be proof enough. I haven't seen anything like that for another cricketer.