Who's in you best after Bradman tier and in your top tier for bowlers

[Coronis]

View attachment 37141

A grown what?

 

[shortpitched713]

A grown what?

Man, I'm guessing. Didn't feel like editing the gif.

 

[kyear2]

This was started a while back.

Interested in @peterhrt , @Line and Length etc takes on the subject.

 

[peterhrt]

This was started a while back.

Interested in @peterhrt , @Line and Length etc takes on the subject.

EW Swanton writing in 1962: As to the relative greatness of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman it is of course fruitless to argue: wickets, bowling, environment, atmosphere - all have varied. It is sufficient to say that each was supreme in his own day.

This was the general view of cricket historians up to that time, who tended to agree on most things. Some also placed Trumper in the same high bracket as a batsman, claiming he was the best of all on a bad wicket. When Sobers matured, he was added to the pantheon as a cricketer, but not necessarily purely as a batsman.

Since then Bradman and Sobers have pulled away from the others in perception as cricketers, with the Australian out in front as a batsman. This was confirmed in the Wisden Top 100 exercise at the turn of the century.

In terms of contemporary reputation and perceived mastery (not simply Test numbers) during the past fifty years or so, perhaps the leading batsmen have been Barry Richards, Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar. Viv and Tendulkar maybe slightly ahead. I think they were better batsmen than Sobers who could take time to settle and didn't always move his feet early on. Once in he exercised the same command. A personal view is that the two Richards were most able to make the best bowling look rubbish.

 

[peterhrt]

Interested in @peterhrt , @Line and Length etc takes on the subject.

The bowlers are more difficult to assess. Before World War Two there were only three bowlers in the discussion for greatest-ever: Spofforth, Barnes and O'Reilly. By 1970 many historians agreed that Lindwall had been the best fast bowler to date.

In 2010 the four specialist bowlers in Cricinfo's all-time World XI received far more votes than any of their rivals. Warne got maximum points, followed by Lillee, then Wasim Akram and Marshall. The 2nd XI included old-timers Barnes and O'Reilly, plus Murali and Trueman, with Imran as all-rounder.

Not many people in Trueman's day thought he had been as good as Larwood, let alone Lindwall.

There are probably a dozen or more bowlers of similar quality near the top. Separating them is very much a personal choice.

 

[Line and Length]

Interested in @peterhrt , @Line and Length etc takes on the subject.

I see the tier below Bradman as being somewhat elite and I would include:
Hobbs. Sobers and Hutton.
Below that trio I would have:
Tendulkar, Lara, V.Richards, Hammond, Sutcliffe, G.Pollock and Headley.
The next tier would be even larger and would include:
Gavaskar, Ponting, Smith, G.Chappell, Barrington, Border, Kallis, Miandad, Weekes, Walcott, Younis Khan and Sangakarra (and others).
I've possibly been a bit harsh on Gavaskar who, on any other day, I might have him higher.
As for Smith, I'm reluctant to rank current players too highly as others are judged on an entire career.

Regarding bowlers, I would have the obvious two categories.
Pace bowlers:
Marshall and Hadlee
Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn, Wasim Akram, Imran, Lillee, Trueman, Lindwall
Donald, Garner, Waqar Younis, Holding, Davidson, S.Pollock, Walsh, Roberts (and possibly current players such as Cummins, Rabada and Bumrah)
Some will find my ranking of McGrath a bit strange, but his bowling didn't excite me like the top two.

Spinners:
Muralitharan, Warne, O'Reilly
Laker, Verity, Tayfield, Grimmett
Ashwin, Gibbs, Kumble, Wardle, Benaud

As I stated regarding Smith, I underrate current players until I see their career in its entirety.

I haven't included Barnes in either category as he is hard to define though his performances equate to top tier.

Thanks for the invitation @kyear2

 

[Coronis]

The bowlers are more difficult to assess. Before World War Two there were only three bowlers in the discussion for greatest-ever: Spofforth, Barnes and O'Reilly. By 1970 many historians agreed that Lindwall had been the best fast bowler to date.

In 2010 the four specialist bowlers in Cricinfo's all-time World XI received far more votes than any of their rivals. Warne got maximum points, followed by Lillee, then Wasim Akram and Marshall. The 2nd XI included old-timers Barnes and O'Reilly, plus Murali and Trueman, with Imran as all-rounder.

Not many people in Trueman's day thought he had been as good as Larwood, let alone Lindwall.

There are probably a dozen or more bowlers of similar quality near the top. Separating them is very much a personal choice.

The cricinfo XIs amused me even as a 16 year old at the time. Somehow Hadlee doesn’t make either XI.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I see the tier below Bradman as being somewhat elite and I would include:
Hobbs. Sobers and Hutton.
Below that trio I would have:
Tendulkar, Lara, V.Richards, Hammond, Sutcliffe, G.Pollock and Headley.
The next tier would be even larger and would include:
Gavaskar, Ponting, Smith, G.Chappell, Barrington, Border, Kallis, Miandad, Weekes, Walcott, Younis Khan and Sangakarra (and others).
I've possibly been a bit harsh on Gavaskar who, on any other day, I might have him higher.
As for Smith, I'm reluctant to rank current players too highly as others are judged on an entire career.

Regarding bowlers, I would have the obvious two categories.
Pace bowlers:
Marshall and Hadlee
Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn, Wasim Akram, Imran, Lillee, Trueman, Lindwall
Donald, Garner, Waqar Younis, Holding, Davidson, S.Pollock, Walsh, Roberts (and possibly current players such as Cummins, Rabada and Bumrah)
Some will find my ranking of McGrath a bit strange, but his bowling didn't excite me like the top two.

Spinners:
Muralitharan, Warne, O'Reilly
Laker, Verity, Tayfield, Grimmett
Ashwin, Gibbs, Kumble, Wardle, Benaud

As I stated regarding Smith, I underrate current players until I see their career in its entirety.

I haven't included Barnes in either category as he is hard to define though his performances equate to top tier.

Thanks for the invitation @kyear2

Nice to see the Hutton love(although I personally don’t have him that high, but he’s very underrated in general. I have him only behind Hobbs, Tendulkar, Richards and Sobers).

 

[shortpitched713]

Mine is

Batsmen

Bradman

Tendulkar
Sobers
Richards
Smith
Lara
Hobbs

Honorary mention
Gavaskar, Hutton, Hammond

Bowlers

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose

Warne
Muralitharan

Honorary mention
Imran, Garner, O'Reilly

Pretty much similar in composition, honestly. No Hobbs or Hammond, yes Weekes and Sanga.

Would only probably replace Donald for O'Reilly among the bowlers.

Which of course means you need to completely rethink all your opinions on cricket alltogether.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Crap forgot about Clarrie but looking at him and Lock, seems that both bullied the lesser teams and were found wanting vs the stronger teams. But the English lineups Grimmet faced were insane and his record vs them was middling not awful, so replace Lock with Clarie.

Laker
Verity
Underwood
Rhodes
Swann
Briggs
Wardle
Blythe
Peel

So yeah, Lock is probably the 10 th best English spinner. He actually was quite terrible away from home also.

 

[Red]

5/10guys from each category I’d be content with in an all time XI-

Bradman, Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, V.Richards, Border, G.Chappell, Ponting, Sangakkara, Kallis

Hobb, Hutton, Gavaskar, Boycott, B. Richards

Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Garner, Lillee, Holding, Steyn

Warne, Murali, OReilly, Grimmett, Tayfield

Gilchrist, Knott, Ames, Healy, Engineer

Miller, Botham, Shakib, Flintoff, Imran

 

[Coronis]

So for mine…

Hobbs
Tendulkar
Sobers
Smith

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Murali
Warne

Honourable mentions to Hammond, Lara, Steyn and Ambrose.