Sobers vs Viv vs Lara

[Slifer]

Here's a logical question, were any of the so called second string England attacks weaker than RSA or India of that era? Thanks

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Here's a logical question, were any of the so called second string England attacks weaker than RSA or India of that era? Thanks

May be you are right but India in 1930s attack consisted of Nissar,Singh,Amarnath.You are underrating our 30s attack imho.

 

[Slifer]

May be you are right but India in 1930s attack consisted of Nissar,Singh,Amarnath.You are underrating our 30s attack imho.

Possibly but I'd gander that they weren't stronger than some of the second English attacks Headley faced.

 

[JBMAC]

Also, as you've surely seen the other 3 bat, who is your pick between them?

Sir Garfield Sobers

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Sir Garfield Sobers

You saw Gary sobers at his peak.I never saw sobers at his peak,only towards the end of his career.So,was peak sobers better than peak viv richards?
It’s really interesting that among the people I have met.3 people who started to watch cricket from early-mid 20s believe that the 3 best batsman they saw were bradman,hobbs,sobers in that order.And this was around mid 90s.For me viv is the best I have seen .

 

[Coronis]

You saw Gary sobers at his peak.I never saw sobers at his peak,only towards the end of his career.So,was peak sobers better than peak viv richards?
It’s really interesting that among the people I have met.3 people who started to watch cricket from early-mid 20s believe that the 3 best batsman they saw were bradman,hobbs,sobers in that order.And this was around mid 90s.For me viv is the best I have seen .

Still my top 3.

 

[kyear2]

I obviously need to reevaluate my perception of Sir IVA Richards.

 

[Coronis]

I obviously need to reevaluate my perception of Sir IVA Richards.

In which way?

 

[kyear2]

In which way?

I've always held Viv in high regard, but on the lower scale of the Lara, Sobers, Tendulkar, Smith tier. And again, that is partially due to when I started watching him live and watching Lara and the rest during their prime.

But Viv, even among those here who has watched cricket far longer than I and as far back as Sobers, rate Viv as better than his contemporaries and those who has followed him.

I know you're not a fan and lean much heavier towards Hammond etc, but even he had his shortcomings

 

[Chrish]

Viv was far ahead of his contemporaries. Never wore helmet despite being the main target of opposition pace bowlers; particularly Australians such as Lillie and Pasco repeatedly tried bouncing him off. His SR in test is 70 irrc and 90 in odi which just boggles the mind considering the era he played in. Lara was tonked by Akhatar; Smith was bulldozed by Archer.. I don’t see something similar happening to Viv despite not wearing helmet.

 

[CricAddict]

You saw Gary sobers at his peak.I never saw sobers at his peak,only towards the end of his career.So,was peak sobers better than peak viv richards?
It’s really interesting that among the people I have met.3 people who started to watch cricket from early-mid 20s believe that the 3 best batsman they saw were bradman,hobbs,sobers in that order.And this was around mid 90s.For me viv is the best I have seen .

It is very likely that they would have followed cricket much more during their childhood and hence, remember Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers more fondly than Viv, Lara or Sachin.

And the same goes for you with Viv.

However a Kane or Kohli bats now, I can never ever say that they are better than Sachin, since I have a thousand more memories about Sachin than them.

In summary, people opinions are purely subjective and while valuing them, only a minimum value should be placed on it.

 

[The Sean]

It is very likely that they would have followed cricket much more during their childhood and hence, remember Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers more fondly than Viv, Lara or Sachin.

To be fair, that's a Peter Pan level childhood right there.

 

[CricAddict]

To be fair, that's a Peter Pan level childhood right there.

Ha ha, I assumed and meant different people with childhood in different eras since he mentioned about 3 people.

 

[kyear2]

It is very likely that they would have followed cricket much more during their childhood and hence, remember Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers more fondly than Viv, Lara or Sachin.

And the same goes for you with Viv.

However a Kane or Kohli bats now, I can never ever say that they are better than Sachin, since I have a thousand more memories about Sachin than them.

In summary, people opinions are purely subjective and while valuing them, only a minimum value should be placed on it.

But to be fair, Sachin is also objectively better than Kane and Kohli

 

[Red]

Sachin was the most technically perfect batsman. That doesn't mean that much, but what it does mean in his case is that he succeeded in most environments against most opponents. Good on all wickets, against pace or spin. Whatever. The most complete batsman in terms of adapdability because of a near perfect technique. Coming in at 4 and setting up a score, there's nobody more perfect or reliable.

Viv was amazing. Ultra aggressive, and frightening to opponents. Probably my favourite cricketer of all time. Comparable to Gilly only in his ability to completely clutch a session and a game as a result, while averaging 50ish. My fave cricketer, along with MWaugh.

Sobers was clearly next level. Plenty name him second best bat of all time, regardless of his all-rounder-ness. Imagine a guy batting like Brian Lara and bowling like Chaminda Vaas. Just phenomenal.

These three will always be my ATG middle order. They're a perfect combo.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

((Imagine a guy batting like Brian Lara and bowling like Chaminda Vaas. Just phenomenal.))

This is totally wrong.Vaas was a far superior bowler.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I always name Viv as the best batsman I’ve seen, including Sobers. Of course others had longer and more consistent peaks and if that’s your thing fair enough.

 

[Red]

This is totally wrong.Vaas was a far superior bowler.

you got the idea

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin was the most technically perfect batsman. That doesn't mean that much, but what it does mean in his case is that he succeeded in most environments against most opponents. Good on all wickets, against pace or spin. Whatever. The most complete batsman in terms of adapdability because of a near perfect technique. Coming in at 4 and setting up a score, there's nobody more perfect or reliable.

Viv was amazing. Ultra aggressive, and frightening to opponents. Probably my favourite cricketer of all time. Comparable to Gilly only in his ability to completely clutch a session and a game as a result, while averaging 50ish. My fave cricketer, along with MWaugh.

Sobers was clearly next level. Plenty name him second best bat of all time, regardless of his all-rounder-ness. Imagine a guy batting like Brian Lara and bowling like Chaminda Vaas. Just phenomenal.

These three will always be my ATG middle order. They're a perfect combo.

Yes, I completely agree. But I would put Sachin at 5. I think Viv should have an earlier crack at the bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

I've always held Viv in high regard, but on the lower scale of the Lara, Sobers, Tendulkar, Smith tier. And again, that is partially due to when I started watching him live and watching Lara and the rest during their prime.

But Viv, even among those here who has watched cricket far longer than I and as far back as Sobers, rate Viv as better than his contemporaries and those who has followed him.

I know you're not a fan and lean much heavier towards Hammond etc, but even he had his shortcomings

I dont get it, why Viv should be anything less than top 5 batsmen of all time. For me, I only put Sachin and maybe Sobers above him.