Kallis Vs Ambrose

[Coronis]

There's a wide open gap for players to enter into the top 3 position. For the record I also have McGrath and Hadlee in the top 6.

If you go according the Wisden votes, the candidates are Richards, Hobbs and Warne

If you go by the boring for the Cricinfo team the top vote getters would be Warne and Sachin.

Can you tell me that Marshall doesn't have as good an argument as any of them for 3rd.

A quarter of the forum are arguing that bowlers are more valuable, yet they are mostly ignored. Outside of Bradman no one had a massive advantage over anyone else, so why can't the best bowler, a certified match winner and objectively a better bowler than Warne, be no. 3?

Bradman
Sobers
Marshall
Hobbs
McGrath / Hadlee
Richards
Tendulkar

That's my absolute top tier.

They’re not in the argument for third, neither is Marshall.


Its Imran vs Kallis.

 

[BazBall21]

I'd take Curtly.

 

[kyear2]

They’re not in the argument for third, neither is Marshall.


Its Imran vs Kallis.

That's interesting.

And which side do you gravitate to?

And by this I assume that any top 10 list, Bradman apart just mirrors the all rounder rankings list?

And for the record, I do believe that if you rate Imran as highly as some here do, that it follows that Kallis is just as high if not higher as an overall cricketer. The catches, the man of the match awards, his average and sustainability over time.

 

[Coronis]

That's interesting.

And which side do you gravitate to?

And by this I assume that any top 10 list, Bradman apart just mirrors the all rounder rankings list?

And for the record, I do believe that if you rate Imran as highly as some here do, that it follows that Kallis is just as high if not higher as an overall cricketer. The catches, the man of the match awards, his average and sustainability over time.

You assume wrong.

 

[kyear2]

You assume wrong.

Care to share?

 

[Coronis]

Care to share?

For tests only and for 20th century onwards I’d have:

Bradman, Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Hobbs, Marshall, Tendulkar, Hadlee, Gilchrist

 

[kyear2]

For tests only and for 20th century onwards I’d have:

Bradman, Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Hobbs, Marshall, Tendulkar, Hadlee, Gilchrist

One of the best parts about this game, and having a large diverse community is divergent perspectives and views.

I know my rating process is different from most, but I see it differently. For me the ultimate honor in the sport would be if we were to collect all of the best players ever and choose an XI to take the field to play said game.
If you can't make such an XI, I don't see how you can be among the top 5 players ever.

Everyone has different names for their top tier of performers in their primary skills, and mine would be way different to yours, but if someone doesn't make that top 8 in either, don't see how they can make a top 5.

What I appreciate though about your list, which is missing from many others is that you're consistent with your philosophy. If you include Imran, you have to include Kallis, and even ahead of him. If we're doing accumulative skills, and not weighting primary skills that heavily, he's right there if not ahead.

Someone was making the argument that Imran wasn't statistically far from the others as a bowler, but Kallis equally wasn't and not objectively that far from Tendulkar either. So the same way that Imran beings more value than Steyn for instance, don't know how Kallis doesn't provide more value than Sachin (in his or an ATG team). The consistency isn't there.

Re your list, a little surprised Not to see Hammond, but I know you rate Gilly higher than most.

 

[kyear2]

For tests only and for 20th century onwards I’d have:

Bradman, Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Hobbs, Marshall, Tendulkar, Hadlee, Gilchrist

Longevity aside, which is used way too often and beyond a certain point, not an indicator of quality.

If you had to choose between McGrath and Miller for your average test team, not bad, but not great either, for a test, series or even a year... Which are you choosing?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Longevity aside, which is used way too often and beyond a certain point, not an indicator of quality.

If you had to choose between McGrath and Miller for your average test team, not bad, but not great either, for a test, series or even a year... Which are you choosing?

Disagree heavily. The criteria of a Great player should be an honest assessment of their career, not fitting them in arbitrary AT teams....... And on that criteria, longevity is VERY important.

 

[subshakerz]

Wisden's all time cricket team

Grace
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Knott
Akram
Marshall
Warne
Barnes

Cricinfo all time team

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Akram
Marshall
Warne
Lillee

The highlighted names are the ones who made both teams.

I don't see how you can be the theirs best player ever and can make neither.

You must be kidding yourself if you think anyone who voted for those teams thinks Akram is a better cricketer than Imran / Pakistan's greatest cricketer. I would wager no pundit or former cricketer on Earth believes that.

It's pretty obvious that they chose one AR and preferred Akram as a left-armer pacer. Why dishonestly ignore that and not refer to the ESPN or Wisden lists where Marshall isn't close to top ten?

With regards to Sachin and Hobbs, Sachin was better, Hobbs was the one Bradman passed to be the GOAT, and was the original Master, and deserves to be revered as the 2nd highest batsman behind Bradman. Nothing sinister about it, I have him above Richards as well, who I also have rated as a batsman above him.

If you want to make the difference between better vs greater, Marshall clearly then is not the no.3 greatest cricketer as he was nowhere nearly as feted as either Hobbs or Tendulkar or any of the others.

 

[subshakerz]

Disagree heavily. The criteria of a Great player should be an honest assessment of their career, not fitting them in arbitrary AT teams....... And on that criteria, longevity is VERY important.

Yes. This is such a weird contradictory way to shoehorn Marshall because he knows Marshall was never see as quite as celebrated as others.

 

[Coronis]

Longevity aside, which is used way too often and beyond a certain point, not an indicator of quality.

If you had to choose between McGrath and Miller for your average test team, not bad, but not great either, for a test, series or even a year... Which are you choosing?

Its difficult. I’m not much of a gambler (definitely not a good one) but its a gamble of (almost) guaranteed bowling success vs probable bowling success and possible batting success. Given a team with 10 other average players, my mind says McGrath definitely, but my heart is saying go for Miller, theres a chance he’ll turn the match around with both bat and ball.

 

[subshakerz]

What I appreciate though about your list, which is missing from many others is that you're consistent with your philosophy. If you include Imran, you have to include Kallis, and even ahead of him. If we're doing accumulative skills, and not weighting primary skills that heavily, he's right there if not ahead.

Not really. Imran was a better bowler than Kallis was a bat, and a better bat than Kallis was a bowler, plus an ATG captain.

 

[subshakerz]

I know my rating process is different from most, but I see it differently. For me the ultimate honor in the sport would be if we were to collect all of the best players ever and choose an XI to take the field to play said game.
If you can't make such an XI, I don't see how you can be among the top 5 players ever.

So you don't think Hadlee can even be considered in the top 5 ever? That's nonsense.

Please tell me why to guide your judgement on a greater ever list, you ignore Wisden and ESPN's elite panel lists below:

Five cricketers of the century

The selection of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year has always been the perquisite of the Almanack's editor of the day

www.espncricinfo.com

ESPN's Legends of Cricket

ESPN'S LEGENDS OF CRICKET (www.legendsofcricket.tv) This was a TV series which asked several judges: Wasim Akram, Sunil Gavaskar, Richie Benaud, Sir Richard Hadlee, Dickie Bird, Michael Holding, Allan Border, John Knowles, Ian Botham, Robin Marlar, Ian Chappell, Christopher Martin-Jenkins...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

For tests only and for 20th century onwards I’d have:

Bradman, Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Hobbs, Marshall, Tendulkar, Hadlee, Gilchrist

Near perfect list apart from one specimen

 

[kyear2]

You must be kidding yourself if you think anyone who voted for those teams thinks Akram is a better cricketer than Imran / Pakistan's greatest cricketer. I would wager no pundit or former cricketer on Earth believes that.

It's pretty obvious that they chose one AR and preferred Akram as a left-armer pacer. Why dishonestly ignore that and not refer to the ESPN or Wisden lists where Marshall isn't close to top ten?


If you want to make the difference between better vs greater, Marshall clearly then is not the no.3 greatest cricketer as he was nowhere nearly as feted as either Hobbs or Tendulkar or any of the others.

What ever you tell yourself dude.

I think Wasim is rated higher as a bowler than Imran as an all-rounder.

We can disagree, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter either way.

 

[kyear2]

You must be kidding yourself if you think anyone who voted for those teams thinks Akram is a better cricketer than Imran / Pakistan's greatest cricketer. I would wager no pundit or former cricketer on Earth believes that.

It's pretty obvious that they chose one AR and preferred Akram as a left-armer pacer. Why dishonestly ignore that and not refer to the ESPN or Wisden lists where Marshall isn't close to top ten?


If you want to make the difference between better vs greater, Marshall clearly then is not the no.3 greatest cricketer as he was nowhere nearly as feted as either Hobbs or Tendulkar or any of the others.

You'll say I love to make definitive comments, but it's you that makes a habit of our making these proclamations as if they have to be true

None of these are definitive of anything, but neither is your though process.



Stop pretending that you speak for everyone. You don't.

So in Ataraxia's poll he just did asking for the best trio, was everyone who didn't vote for Imran just choosing one all-rounder as well?

He was 4th for the bowling vote, so again by my logic, how's that the 3rd best ever if you don't walk into a team as easily as Bradman or Sobers. Explain that one to me, you keep telling I'm wrong and everyone else knows this...

The ones who walks into such teams are
Bradman, Sobers, Marshall, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Gilchrist.

Let's make this more relatable. You have 14 youngsters trying to make a team, you're telling me that there's going to be one you think is the 3rd best, and he's either not going to make it or struggles to make it by agreement by the selectors?

Come on. There's no way the 3rd best player doesn't walk into any team regardless. So yes, Tendulkar, Marshall, Hobbs, for me, and not claiming to speak for anyone else, easily ahead of him.

 

[kyear2]

Oh, @subshakerz in one of those threads you said being the best bat after Bradman is a higher achievement than being the best bowler ever, please explain, if you don't mind of course.

 

[kyear2]

Near perfect list apart from one specimen

I don't know, it's closer to ranking the top all rounders, then the rest.

But definely legitimate.

 

[subshakerz]

What ever you tell yourself dude.

I think Wasim is rated higher as a bowler than Imran as an all-rounder.

We can disagree, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter either way.

The problem is you are suggesting that internationally Wasim is regarded as a better cricketer than Imran. That is just so patently absurd and contrary to reality that I am beginning to wonder if you even care about your rep when making such statements.

Forget his Cricinfo profile or every second article where he is introduced as Pakistan greatest cricketer or multiple cricket lists or the opinion of virtually every peer or pundit.

Yes, Wasim is regarded as a better bowler only, which is my point why he was selected. You want to squirm from this.

So in Ataraxia's poll he just did asking for the best trio, was everyone who didn't vote for Imran just choosing one all-rounder as well?

He was 4th for the bowling vote, so again by my logic, how's that the 3rd best ever if you don't walk into a team as easily as Bradman or Sobers. Explain that one to me, you keep telling I'm wrong and everyone else knows this...

The ones who walks into such teams are
Bradman, Sobers, Marshall, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Gilchrist.

Let's make this more relatable. You have 14 youngsters trying to make a team, you're telling me that there's going to be one you think is the 3rd best, and he's either not going to make it or struggles to make it by agreement by the selectors?

Come on. There's no way the 3rd best player doesn't walk into any team regardless. So yes, Tendulkar, Marshall, Hobbs, for me, and not claiming to speak for anyone else, easily ahead of him.

Whenever you get desperate, you start to cite polls as if they are concrete fact. Of course you won't cite polls here that put Imran as no.3 because it doesn't suit your point.

Anyways, you entirely miss the point. Tendulkar, Warne, Viv etc were universally hailed by peers, public and pundits in their time with hype that Marshall never got. That is why people are more comfortable putting them as no3. You never denied that btw so I assume you agree. Marshall then by your standards isn't a good fit for no.3 by defying cricketer consensus.

And yeah, if we have a roster of cricketers, then it depends completely on the make up of the team. If no.3 is an AR and there we decide that only one AR can make the team, then he doesn't play. Which is exactly how Wisden and Cricinfo picked their XI and why Imran is the AR in Cricinfos second XI. Are you just trying to deceive us.

Oh, @subshakerz in one of those threads you said being the best bat after Bradman is a higher achievement than being the best bowler ever, please explain, if you don't mind of course.

Yes because there are more bats to compete with than bowlers. Simple logic that you also use to value a no.7 bat like Lara with a number 4 bowler like Steyn.