Personally I think Marshall is the greatest fast bowler, followed by my countryman Hadlee in 2nd place, but that might just be my NZ bias coming through
That does not make the two concepts mutually exclusive. In the era of professionalism and broadcasting, he had a more vested interest than most in the good of the game.
Imran, as the best bowling allrounder cricketer and captain. But I wouldn't necessarily have him on this mountain. You and I are on the same page with Bradman not being a certainty on this mountain.
Indeed, there really is an excellent argument for Imran. The more this is being talked about, the more I'm thinking of displacing Hobbs for Imran as my 4th head.
Zinzan, I have written a very long post, due in a large part because of you, in an old Imran v Sobers thread. Please have a look at it. Imran is well ahead of Sobers as an allrounder in my opinion.
What did Bradman do to or introduce into the game of cricket other than score a lot of runs? Clarrie Grimmett and Tiger O'Reilly stories aside, as a batsmen he was fairly orthodox, as compared to WG Grace or Raji. As an administrator he saw the game fall into revolution.
Lillee could be a representative of the Pack revolution. As could Ian Chappell be. Tonry Greig or even Clive Lloyd. But Kerry Packer is the best representative of the Packer revolution. So why beat around the bush? Just put Kerry up there.
For the last time, will you guys get it out of your heads that this is about founding fathers? If you absolutely insist upon founding fathers, slap on the faces of the first great batsman, quick, spinner and tactician and be done with it.
Because Packer wasn't a player. It's not beating around the bush. Without having the best fast bowler in the world behind him actively supporting him, Packer wouldn't have been nearly as successful. Also, Lillee was a big proponent of limited overs cricket.
Well it's the first time someone's called me a hipster, so I will take it, though I'm not sure what exactly it means.
Why Trumper ahead of Don?
First attacking opener/number 3 who was truly successful.
Packer was unique in getting cricket onto commercial television was he not? Certainly was unique and a leader with Day night cricket, coloured pyjamas, white balls, and the way and methods that cricket was broadcast as a television product. We've all been on Youtube to watch classic cricketers. The differences are stark. He made cricket a legitimate career for Australians and West Indians. Ultimately that trickled into NZ too. People may argue the point, but by introducing the tv dollar, he would have made cricket more profitable and professional globally. England may well have been professional before Packer, but I am sure he assisted England ultimately in some manner by making that more professional.
Eh, that's all well and good, but ahead of Bradman? Dont buy it.
If someone wants to interpret Mount Rushmore of cricket as something other than your stick-up-the-butt interpretation, perhaps they can go ahead and do it without having to realize the evolution of the entire history of cricket from an anthropological point of view.
It was a revolution. Revolutions are not assumed to occur, let alone when they will occur. They are revolutions and a fight because there is a difference of opinion. Packer took on Bradman and the ACB. He took on the establishment of the ECB to a lesser degree as well. He got the backing of the WICB. Packer risked millions and millions of dollars. He won the war. The evolution post Packer revolution is far more likely to be assumed.