1. This is not true
2. Even so, it doesn't take away from his greatness. To be able to rediscover yourself and become a test class batsman almost through willpower alone is a story like none other in history of test cricket. It makes him worthy of top 3. No one cares if that makes him ineligible for a fictitious ATG XI.
1. Yes it was, that's not even an argument
2. No one's trying to take away anything
3. Pretty sure Rhodes, and Sobers along with Worrell, who were all at short periods front line batsmen and bolwers. Worrell and Sobers are various points opening the batting and the bowling.
4. No one says he's not in an argument for no.3, he's not mine, but hey ours are all different. I'll also say, that outside of CW, I've never seen him in the argument for no. 3
5. With regards to the fictitious AT team, it's used in all sports, including cricket, as the ultimate honor. In the NBA and NFL, there's all pro teams, just like the cricket team of the year. And no one is ineligible. What is a greater honor than from all of the players to have ever played the game, to be selected as one of the greatest ever?
In my mind, and I'm well aware than few agree, but if you're the no. 3 player, you make the team, it's a slam dunk. Forget Wisden and Cricinfo (which we shouldn't) but even in ataraxia's poll he's a distant 4th and not that far from 5th. Even here where he's ranked higher than anywhere else, he isn't a slam dunk, if he's making it at all.
I can't be the only person that doesn't make sense to.
If you're not one of the three best bowling options, even when factoring in batting, and even ranked 8th in our latest rankings, how are you 3rd overall.
This isn't anti anyone, because Kallis isn't top 3 either