Which 4 heads would you put on a cricketing Mount Rushmore?

[Prince EWS]

I'm sure I could sway you

I reckon I could possibly sway you over time from a multitude of different angles.

Did you have a think about it and remember that I was a stubborn bastard?

 

[AldoRaine18]

Sir Don Bradman
Sir Viv Richards
Sir Gary Sobers
Sachin Tendulkar

 

[G.I.Joe]

Oh I agree with your second line. But you're wrong about the first line. Read back a few pages. I don't think Bradman makes this mountain as a 'certain selection', let alone Sobers or Tendulkar.

I have WG Grace and Kerry Packer as my first two certainties on the mountain. I don't even know if Kerry Packer ever even played the game in his backyard.

You do realise that just because you're being consistent by making two mistakes doesn't make the reasoning correct?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Did you have a think about it and remember that I was a stubborn bastard?

Ha.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

You do realise that just because you're being consistent by making two mistakes doesn't make the reasoning correct?

Ha. I do not believe that I am mistaken. Read back if you have time. Mr Mister has put his position on Bradman being a certain selection.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Sir Don Bradman
Sir Viv Richards
Sir Gary Sobers
Sachin Tendulkar

There is already a Hall of Fame.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Steve Austin, The Rock, John Cena and [Redacted]

 

[AldoRaine18]

There is already a Hall of Fame.

I'm not much of a hipster, mate. Those are the four icons of the game, for me, not the only four but we had to pick four.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

If you are talking about 'founding fathers' the name of William Ward should come up. The first man to score an individual 200 so must have been a fine player but also, as Governor of the Bank of England pretty much bank rolled the game in the earlyish 1800s allowing cross county cricket to flourish.

You might also consider the greats of Hambledon, the first major Club - one of the Nyrens perhaps.

Jack Hobbs should be high on the list.

However:

I would float:

WG Grace - So far ahead of his peers and played a huge part in popularising the game. Luck that he came along at the time when railway expansion allowed news to be delivered all around the country with greater ease, unlucky that he was approaching the decline of his physical peak as Test cricket was starting, otherwise his record at that level would have likely been as far ahead of the pack as Bradman's - maybe even more so,

Wilfred Rhodes - Started as arguably the finest slow left arm bowler of all time, gradually moved more towards batting and (having batted in every position in the order) ended up as a very good opening batsman at Test level). Picking up his bowling post WW1 he remained an outstanding county, and pretty good Test, all rounder for many years. The only man to take over 4000 FC wickets despite diminishing use pre 1914 and losing years to that war,

Don Bradman - Had the advantage of playing at a time when pitches were often absolute roads (questions remain about how good he was on rain damaged pitches) but has a record so far ahead of his contemporaries it has to be recognised.

Basil D'Oliveira - A truly amazing story. Had he been able to play at the top level at his peak it is likely he would have been an outstanding Test player. As it was he was in his mid 30s before being able to play that but must have been a great beacon for non whites in South Africa.

 

[honestbharani]

The four I would put in a personal Mt. Rushmore of cricket?



Lara, Warne, Sachin, ABDV....

 

[NUFAN]

Not a single like for my Travis Head suggestion?

I would go Healy, Warne, Nicholls and Botham and the carving would commence on Wednesday with all inductees required to attend.

 

[NZTailender]

James & Hamish Marshall, Steve & Mark Waugh. Will save the carvers some effort as they will invariably get better and quicker at doing the same or similar features the second time round.

 

[Zinzan]

Zinzan, what would it take for an Indian cricketer to be considered iconic (according to your criteria)? Or do you intend to keep trotting out the extremely simplistic 1.25 billion argument for every single hypothetical answer?

I've not once said Tendulkar isn't iconic, clearly he is. Even the sentence you just quoted stated that. I just didn't immediately think of him as being one of the 4 heads to be carved into the mountain, whereas Bradman, Sobers & Grace were immediate locks as far as I'm concerned, and I explained very clearly why and what criteria I used. The 4th choice was not as so easy or clear for me, I initially went for Hobbs, but I could be swayed into selecting the likes of Marshall, Tendulkar, Imran, Richards or Murali, to name a few.

 

[Burgey]

Literally other than Grace and Bradman, no other cricketer should be a shoo-in you'd think.

I don't see why Bradman should be a shoo in for his cricketing prowess tbh. He took batting to a different level, but he did so more with established orthodoxy than necessarily reinventing or redefining the game.

Cricket has a storied history, and he's a huge part of it because of the amount of runs he scored and the average he scored them at. But as a player I don't think you can say he changed cricket through what he did (Bodyline series aside). Maybe if you threw in his work as a selector and administrator you'd nearly get him there, but if you're looking at these things purely on the amount of runs scored and wickets taken, you may as well just build a new monument every ten to 20 years as the next generation comes along, plays more cricket and makes more runs.

If you wanted to look at people who've changed or influenced cricket, I don't reckon Bradman is a shoo in. Grace would be, Ranji as well with his leg side play. Maybe include that lady who bowled over arm for the first time because of the hooped skirt. But I don't think you get a Guernsey just because you were a hero to your country, be it the selfish **** from Bowral or the selfish **** from Mumbai.

 

[Burgey]

3 batsmen (one who was a useful bowler in Sobers) and a bowling all rounder. Cricket is a batsman's game in your mind?

Which bowlers would you have there? Genuine question. You wouldn't want Warne there - his character precludes him from being on a monument, surely? And I don't know if the stone masons would have the energy to carve a giant asterix next to Murali's head to accommodate what a lot of people still, rightly or wrongly, think of his action. McGrath is the leading pace bowling wicket taker of all time, but is he worthy of a spot more than, say, Marshall? It's not an easy choice to make imo. Maybe Sydney Barnes, but again, by a lot of reports he was a shunt. Maybe Bosanquet, who invented the wrong 'un?

 

[cnerd123]

Sarfraz Nawaz for perfecting reverse swing, or Imran Khan for passing it on to a whole new generation of Pakistani quicks.

 

[Burgey]

Almost unanimous. There is a few of us in the Imran greater than Sobers camp. We are outnumbered, but we exist.

I have WG Grace and Kerry Packer as certainties on this mountain.

I am not sure Kerry Packer ever played the game, but he is up there on that mountain for mine. Cricket under lights, players in pyjamas, white balls, players professionally reimbursed, players not retiring so early because they are paid to play, multiple camera angles, great tv product, new rules...

Not an unreasonable suggestion, but KP was, like his modern initial-sake, motivated by money rather than the good of the game. Not saying that should exclude him, but it's worth keeping in mind.

 

[cnerd123]

The 'cricketing community' I refer to is anyone who is well educated on the history of the game, which incidentally refers to pretty much everyone I know on this forum for a start.

You think I'd take the opinion of Amrita Patel of Rajasthan, who could name no more than 10 cricketers on a good day than say your opinion, on a cricket related topic?

Thats my point tho; it's an elitist view of what the 'cricketing community' entails.

To me its anyone who is a fan of the game. The amount of knowledge a fan has on cricketing history, technique, etc is valuable in a discussion or debate about the game, but doesn't make them more important than those who have a passing interest. Much like how a Politic Science professor's vote will carry the same weight as that of anyone elses'.

A billion people view Sachin as a cricketing icon. Doesn't matter how casual of a fan they are. To say otherwise is elitist.

 

[Jono]

I don't see why Bradman should be a shoo in for his cricketing prowess tbh. He took batting to a different level, but he did so more with established orthodoxy than necessarily reinventing or redefining the game.

Cricket has a storied history, and he's a huge part of it because of the amount of runs he scored and the average he scored them at. But as a player I don't think you can say he changed cricket through what he did (Bodyline series aside). Maybe if you threw in his work as a selector and administrator you'd nearly get him there, but if you're looking at these things purely on the amount of runs scored and wickets taken, you may as well just build a new monument every ten to 20 years as the next generation comes along, plays more cricket and makes more runs.

If you wanted to look at people who've changed or influenced cricket, I don't reckon Bradman is a shoo in. Grace would be, Ranji as well with his leg side play. Maybe include that lady who bowled over arm for the first time because of the hooped skirt. But I don't think you get a Guernsey just because you were a hero to your country, be it the selfish **** from Bowral or the selfish **** from Mumbai.

Bodyline aside? Why should that be aside? It almost ruined diplomatic relations for a little while.

Its as big as it gets. The bloke was so good the only other cricket nation worth its salt at the time decided they needed to risk killing players to win, which forever changed the rules of the game.

Add 99.94 and he's done enough.

Ranji can suck it up. You don't get your head on a rock for inventing a leg glance ffs. Lets put Dilshan on their for the dilscoop then.

 

[Burgey]

I think the names who are remembered most closely with cricketing 'revolutions' partly due to them being awesome and partly due to being in the right country at the right time would be ideal.

Grace, Bradman, Viv, Tendulkar.

First two are obvious. Viv due to the whole grovelling thing and averaging 80 and dominating everyone between 76-80 and establishing WI not just as gentlemen having fun but the most formidable team to ever take a cricket field. Other players, especially the bowlers were as important but most importantly, Viv was the symbol that the new WI will take no prisoners and tolerate no nonsense.

Tendulkar's case as a symbol is obvious. You could make arguments that Murali, Kallis and maybe Warne were better test cricketers etc. but due to a combination of India's liberalization and growing middle class leading to increase in the significance of the BCCI and Tendulkar being the excellent ODI cricketer of his generation in a time where ODIs become the most commercially valuable form of a cricket and his career touching four decades, for better or worse and due no small part to fortune, Tendulkar is the representative of post-90s cricket, IMO. People who're taking about an objective assessment of cricketing worth are missing the point of symbols. Just my opinion.

Viv not going to SA on a rebel tour was massive for WI cricket, and he was basically offered an open cheque book. They offered him basically whatever he wanted. There's some great insights into his consciousness in Fire in Babylon, and also a doco from the 80s called something like "Viv Richards, King of Cricket". I think it's on YouTube if anyone's interested in watching it.