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

[Jono]

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.

Actually Dilshan's head would be awesome on the rock the more I think of it. Let them chisel that ****ty goatee and his bandana #pirate

 

[Burgey]

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.

GFC. Why does Dilshan get he rap for that when Dougie Marillier played that shot out here years before the Little Linkan imposter.

 

[Burgey]

Actually Dilshan's head would be awesome on the rock the more I think of it. Let them chisel that ****ty goatee and his bandana #pirate

Dilshan contemplating the Marillier scoop....

 

[Zinzan]

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.

You can use the term 'elitist' where I use 'educated', that's fine. If you think one's opinion a topic/subject is equally important whether they're educating on that given topic or not, that's up to you. I respect the opinion of those educated on a certain subject much more than someone who merely has a passing interest. To me that's just obvious and is a case of 'education', not 'elitism'.

And if you were honest about it, you know just how quickly someone who joined this forum with a poor understanding of cricket would be put in their place if they started spouting off opinions which made it patently clear that they were fairly ignorant regarding cricket history.

Also, I've never once said Tendulkar wasn't an 'icon', seems I'm being misunderstood on this point.

 

[Zinzan]

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'.

.

Furthermore, I'd guess 99% of this forum would disagree with you on the point that everyone's opinion is equally valid/important, whether they're educated on a given topic or not.

I mean how could the view of a young Indian fan who has merely a passing interest in the sport, yet has never even heard of Don Bradman (as an example), be as valid as an educated cricket lover, the likes of who frequent this forum? Because that's essentially what you're saying. (in bold)

It's actually quite insulting to your fellow educated cricket fans on this forum to suggest their opinions/knowledge aren't any more valid than some guy with merely a passing interest. One of the reasons I so respect the views of the Fred's & Archie's of this world when it comes to less-known players of yesteryear.

I really don't think you believe what you typed there.

 

[cnerd123]

Ok if you agree Tendulkar is iconic thats fine.

 

[Zinzan]

Ok if you agree Tendulkar is iconic thats fine.

Yes & I've maintained this throughout the thread.

Not sure what's so strange with thinking Tendulkar is a cricketing icon without being necessarily convinced he's one of the 4 heads to be carved into cricketing Mt Rushmore. There's a lot more than 4 cricketing icons in history.

 

[Jono]

I really don't think you believe what you typed there.

haha, that's a good line.

 

[Zinzan]

haha, that's a good line.

I prefer...

 

[Gnske]

Four Srinivasans would do just fine.

 

[mr_mister]

haha, that's a good line.

its something ive uttered to myself a few times this topc

 

[bagapath]

For me Grace Bradman Sobers and Imran represent different nationalities, different cricketing cultures, colonists, colonized, orientals, uprooted africans, victorians, establishment, commoners, visionaries, box office champions, cricketing gods, covering about 120 years of First class and Test cricket history. good combo of four names that really matter.

 

[Zinzan]

For me Grace Bradman Sobers and Imran represent different nationalities, different cricketing cultures, colonists, colonized, orientals, uprooted africans, victorians, establishment, commoners, visionaries, box office champions, cricketing gods, covering about 120 years of First class and Test cricket history. good combo of four names that really matter.

Whilst there's a decent enough argument for Imran to be the 4th name after Bradman, Sobers & Grace, there's so many other cricketing icons you could make a good argument for as the 4th head. From Hobbs, Marshall, Tendulkar, Richards, Murali, Hadlee to name a few.

 

[smash84]

As good as Marshall was i don't think there's a very strong argument to put him on cricket more

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Lillee and Miandad nose to nose

 

[Riggins]

Not a single like for my Travis Head suggestion?

Full disclosure: I didn't get it. Appreciate it now though.

 

[Zinzan]

As good as Marshall was i don't think there's a very strong argument to put him on cricket more

Wouldn't be my choice, but there could be a reasonable argument made given he's almost unanimously considered the greatest fast bowler of all-time, certainly in modern times.

I think a valid argument could be made for several cricketers outside the big 3 of Bradman, Sobers & Grace tbh, and probably comes down to personal preference and where one's from (in some cases).

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I think Marshall is probably the most popular fast bowler of modern times, but nowhere near unanimous, too many people love cricket to have that or even close to it. Let's just say he's really popular
Sorry to troll a bit but unanimous is a word that's misused around me a lot so it bugs me.

 

[smash84]

Wouldn't be my choice, but there could be a reasonable argument made given he's almost unanimously considered the greatest fast bowler of all-time, certainly in modern times.

I think a valid argument could be made for several cricketers outside the big 3 of Bradman, Sobers & Grace tbh, and probably comes down to personal preference and where one's from (in some cases).

yeah, I'd agree with Schearzie here.

Also there isn't really that much to separate Marshall from McGrath, Ambrose, Holding, Imran, Hadlee, or Lillee on bowling alone, let alone other facets of the game. So Marshall would be quite far down the pecking order for mine. I don't see how you can make a strong case for him.

 

[Zinzan]

I think Marshall is probably the most popular fast bowler of modern times, but nowhere near unanimous, too many people love cricket to have that or even close to it. Let's just say he's really popular
Sorry to troll a bit but unanimous is a word that's misused around me a lot so it bugs me.

Fair point. I don't use the word 'unanimous' lightly, but I do think it applies to 3 players in test cricket and that's Bradman - best test batsman, Sobers - greatest all-round cricketer & Marshall - best fast bowler (certainly in modern times).

Especially on this forum, if you look at many of votes/polls over the years, you'll see Marshall is fairly clearly regarded as the best fast bowler and this is much clearer than say the best batsmen of modern times, of which opinions seem more divided and across the board.