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

[Biryani Pillow]

Packer was more interested in gaining power, getting his face out there and making money than cricket.

The changes in the game were a by product.

The best fast bowler I have seen is Lillee, my top West Indian one is Roberts. best fast medium bowler Hadlee.

For an all rounder I'd take Botham. The wrong man when the pickings were easy or the game dead but turned so many games, often dramatically, in more than one way.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It was a revolution. Revolutions are not assumed to 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.

The evolution of cricket has shown us that Packers are much much more likely than Bradmans. Dalmiya exists. Modi exists. The only difference between Packer and Subhash Chandra is that Packer enjoyed a greater war chest advantage over the cricketing establishment than Chandra did. People give far too much credit to Packer. He wasn't unique. Get over it.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Packer was more interested in making money.

And he made the players money. We live in a capitalist society. Packer risked a fortune in his investment into cricket. He did good by the game.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

Are you parodying the hipster mentality here or is this really you?

 

[ankitj]

What if we think of selecting one iconic player each from 4 different geographic regions: Britain, Australasia, Caribbean, South Asia (with apologies to Africa). Candidates:

Britain: Grace, Hobbs, Botham
Australasia: Trumper, Bradman, Miller, Lillee, Hadlee, Warner
Caribbean: Headley, Worrel, Sobers, Lloyd, Viv
South Asia: Gavaskar, Imran, Tendulkar, Ranatunga, Murali

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Being the first of conceivably many to something doesn't make you unique. It just makes you the first. A fortuitous wedding of birth and circumstance to ability.

If not Packer, someone else would have brought in those changes. You just have to look at the evolution of the game to realise that.

But you probably know who Edmund Hillary is. And you probably know of Captains Scott and Amundsen. Let alone Rutherford, Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Pasteur, Ford, Earhart, Gates, Jobbs or Ted Turner. I agree that the rationale you express above does not mean that you personally think that they should be celebrities for the acts they made them famous, iconic or enshrined richly into history. And yet there they are. You may have even heard of Dolly the sheep.

Adventurers, scientific and technological visionaries, champions of industry with novel thinking, broadcasters, who did something first. I could go on and on. Economists who explain or promote a particular monetary way of life, Judges with novel and championed precedent, Politicians with novel reform and peace promoters. Sure, they may have inherited wealth and means, but so do many rich people who achieve nothing with their lives. They nevertheless still did something that makes them well known by many today. They took a calculated risk with their fortune, their standing in society for the scientists, econmists, judges and politicians, or the adventurers, with their lives. They paved the way. Trail blazers. Pioneers. Those who inspire others to follow in their footsteps and stand on their shoulders. They may have evolved society or improved our leisure. They left their mark on the world.

Rosa Parks and Aurelia Browder refused to move from their seats on buses. They weren't the first to say no, I'm not giving up my seat, but they said you may take me to court and I will fight the case. They are famous, for being one of the first few to refuse to move out of her comfy seat and succeed in having the law confirm that their actions were lawful.

 

[harsh.ag]

Are you parodying the hipster mentality here or is this really you?

Don't even know Hipster wannabeism has got to me.

But really, WG, Ranji/Don/Trumper, Sobers, and Lillee for me. Imran a good shout too, with reverse swing.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Imran a good shout too, with reverse swing.

Doesn't he give credit to Sarfraz Nawaz for that?

 

[harsh.ag]

Doesn't he give credit to Sarfraz Nawaz for that?

Yeah, he does. Meant Imran for his overall qualities, and his passing down of skills to the Ws. Anyway, I'm out of this.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Might as well put Chris Pringle in there because he was the first Kiwi to figure out how they actually got it to reverse was to tamper the **** out of it.

 

[cnerd123]

GI Joe killing it.

Cricket's Founding Fathers would be the guy who invented the first bat, the guy who first bowled overarm, the guy who formalised the first set of rules, and maybe chuck Wisden in there for all he has done.

Can't have Grace up there and not have Bradman. That's insane.

 

[Flem274*]

i skipped to the end in the hope id get past all the boring bits

ross taylor, bj watling, stephen fleming, mathew sinclair and michael mason ftr

 

[AldoRaine18]

First attacking opener/number 3 who was truly successful.

That argument surely favours those who performed the best when the game was at it's early stages, and there was a lot more scope of learning new techniques? I don't see how that makes them any greater, perfecting a technique is a far greater achievement than being the first one to think of doing it, which was inevitable as the game evolved.

 

[cnerd123]

I'd argue the inverse tbh.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I'd argue the inverse tbh.

Of course you would, it is a common misconception.

 

[cnerd123]

I think the perfecting a new method can be said to be inevitable. Not the creation of a new one.

At the worst, they're both equally inevitable. In which case you have to credit the bravery/ingenuity/creativity of the inventor over the skill of the perfecter.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I think the perfecting a new method can be said to be inevitable. Not the creation of a new one.

At the worst, they're both equally inevitable. In which case you have to credit the bravery/ingenuity/creativity of the inventor over the skill of the perfecter.

It is not universal, the difficulty of creating or innovating something correlates with the stage of evolution of the game. It is rather difficult and something that indeed deserves massive credit to create something once the game has seen most of the things that can be done, whereas it is all the more easier to do so when anyone barely knows anything, and you just happen to be the first one to think of it.

 

[harsh.ag]

It is not universal, the difficulty of creating or innovating something correlates with the stage of evolution of the game. It is rather difficult and something that indeed deserves massive credit to create something once the game has seen most of the things that can be done, whereas it is all the more easier to do so when anyone barely knows anything, and you just happen to be the first one to think of it.

Yeah, current MIT superstar > Copernicus

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yeah, current MIT superstar > Copernicus

Only 3 heads and that of the Big 3 Bosses.

 

[AldoRaine18]

Yeah, current MIT superstar > Copernicus

These random analogies never help haha.