The best after the Don? CW ranked 25 contenders, here is the countdown thread

[Victor Ian]

IIRC Ravi Shastri also hit six 6s in a first class over.

Yeah, but shastri sux so doesn't count.

 

[Zinzan]

Good effort MM, even if it did drag on a bit towards the end.

The top 5 rankings were probably about right in the end, although Hobbs could be a little stiff coming behind Sobers, but many including Ian Chappell still maintain Sobers was the best bat they ever saw, even forgetting about his all-round ability, so probably fair enough.

 

[Daemon]

The first and to date only person to hit 6 sixes in an a FC over, Sobers would have seemingly been a terrific ODI player, unfortunately retiring right around the time they became in vogue. His test averages make for interesting reading, averaging over 80 against India and Pakistan, only 23 against NZ(from 12 tests too no less), a very solid 60 against England(from a whopping 36 tests) and only 43 against Australia.

Had no idea. What a minnow bashing hack.

 

[Starfighter]

Sobers' average of 23 against NZ is one of those little cricket mysteries. He did mention being put off by NZ pitches on his first visit there in 1956 but he only averaged 36 in the 72 series that was played on generally flat West Indian pitches. He actually did worse on his second NZ visit in 1969

 

[Zinzan]

Sobers' average of 23 against NZ is one of those little cricket mysteries. He did mention being put off by NZ pitches on his first visit there in 1956 but he only averaged 36 in the 72 series that was played on generally flat West Indian pitches. He actually did worse on his second NZ visit in 1969

Some big match players like that find it hard to get up mentally against minnow opposition, which NZ was in the 50s & 60s, so I think we can forgive Sobers for that, and it's not such a mystery when you look at it like that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's a pathetically small sample anyway.

 

[mr_mister]

12 tests isn't that small imo

 

[Zinzan]

12 tests isn't that small imo

Yeah 18 innings is more than a decent sample size, especially across 3 separate series, with 7 of the innings home & 11 away.

 

[Zinzan]

The most depressing thing about checking that was discovering NZ played a 5 match series in the Windies in '72.

Sounds like horrible wickets too since it was a 0-0 draw, with Glenn Turner scoring 672 runs @ 96.

 

[a massive zebra]

Interestingly, the top three includes the same players in the same order as the cricketer of the century vote conducted by Wisden in 2000. They asked 100 of the most famous names in cricket to vote for their five cricketers of the century, and the top five most popular choices were:

Don Bradman 100 votes
Garry Sobers 90 votes
Jack Hobbs 30 votes
Shane Warne 27 votes
Viv Richards 25 votes

When comparing the number of votes garnered by each player, we need to remember this vote was in relation to their status as a cricketer, not just a batsman, which would explain why Sobers was so far ahead of Hobbs.

 

[harsh.ag]

I still have no clue which 10 ****s didn't vote for Sobers.

 

[AndrewB]

The 1969 tour of NZ followed on from a gruelling series in Australia, and by all accounts the WI players just wanted to go home, especially with a tour of England coming up shortly afterwards. Nurse - who had much the best series - had announced beforehand that it was going to be his last one, so maybe felt less weary and pressured as a result.

 

[ankitj]

I still have no clue which 10 ****s didn't vote for Sobers.

Or which 87 ****s didn't vote for Imran Khan.

Wisden - Five cricketers of the century

 

[Bolo]

Warne is truly insane choice in that Wisden 5. Career wise, maybe (although I'd still disagree), but to put him ahead of someone like Imran (with more than twice as many votes) on the basis of a 8ish year career is madness.

Hadlee had more wickets, better average, better strike rate, better batsman, more critical to wins, career twice as long..., and even he probably doesn't deserve a place in this 5.

 

[weldone]

Warne is truly insane choice in that Wisden 5. Career wise, maybe (although I'd still disagree), but to put him ahead of someone like Imran (with more than twice as many votes) on the basis of a 8ish year career is madness.

Hadlee had more wickets, better average, better strike rate, better batsman, more critical to wins, career twice as long..., and even he probably doesn't deserve a place in this 5.

Yes that was mainly a 'top 5 popular cricketing superstars' kind of result.

 

[Bolo]

There is some clear voting by nationality, and loading the panel with too many English in particular clearly produced some odd results, but mostly the top names are legitimate.

 

[stephen]

It's important to remember that Murali's career hadn't really blossomed at that stage and Warne was simply spectacular before around 1998 when his shoulder was injured.

The Warne most people remember these days is the Warne of 04-07 who was a top shelf bowler but mostly because he out-thought his opponents. The Warne of 93-97 was stunning in his capabilities. He could do things with the cricket ball that nobody had dreamed of. His flipper was insanely dangerous and he would run through sides with it.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yet he didn't have a googly.

 

[Burgey]

Warne is truly insane choice in that Wisden 5. Career wise, maybe (although I'd still disagree), but to put him ahead of someone like Imran (with more than twice as many votes) on the basis of a 8ish year career is madness.

Hadlee had more wickets, better average, better strike rate, better batsman, more critical to wins, career twice as long..., and even he probably doesn't deserve a place in this 5.

Hadlee was just the bowling version of Chanderpaul. Top shelf player in a mostly dud side apart from a few years.

 

[Burgey]

Yet he didn't have a googly.

He didn't need one.