Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan

[Thala_0710]

Richards yeah, Lara not quite imo.

I have it as

Bradman | Tendulkar | Sobers | Richards | Hobbs
Lara | Smith | Hutton

Re the argument as a quick. I wouldn't call him great, but I would say that he averaged possibly around 28 as a pacer and wouldn't have got the new ball opportunities that many of those in that grouping would have received, and bowled a lot more of the dog overs than they would have as well.

And I know nothing about soccer, so I wouldn't.

Just a quick article about the great man

View attachment 42411

I have it as
Bradman | Tendulkar | Hobbs | Lara | Richards
Sobers | Smith
As for the great man as a pacer, I just said rating him as ATVG pacer was overrating him. ATVG to is Philander-Bedser to Anderson-Roberts level and Sobers wasn't that imo

 

[kyear2]

Not high enough. Tendulkar, Lillee, Hobbs, Richards are frequently ranked higher which is ridiculous.

Why, because he was an all rounder?

So basically the top 5 should be Bradman and all rounders?

 

[kyear2]

Those are ridiculous choices, and only show nationalistic bias.

Please stop. You just referenced a west Indian, an Indian, and Australian and a brit. So the only Nation being snubbed is Pakistan? And for the record, Wasim was also highly rated.

 

[kyear2]

Isn't Imran Khan universally (even outside CW) recognized as one of the top 5 Greatest Cricketers?

No Sir.

 

[kyear2]

Really? I thought this list overall summarized the general consensus of people outside CW.

BBC - The Greatest Cricketer of All Time – your votes revealed!

You voted for your favourite from a list 30 all-time greatest cricketers.

search.app

Absolutely terrible list, but you get the point.

That's the worst list I've ever witnessed tbh.

 

[Bolo.]

Why, because he was an all rounder?

So basically the top 5 should be Bradman and all rounders?

Bingo.

If you want to make an exception and sneak 800 wickets@23 in there too, I will allow it.

 

[kyear2]

Malcolm Marshall is the automatic pick as the first choice fast bowler and yet his name barely comes up when the names of greatest cricketers are mentioned

Bowlers, despite their accepted importance among the CW faithful, are generally disregard by the media and cricketing lists. Unless you're an all rounder you don't get mentioned.

Batsmen are seen as the alpha males of the game, crazy how it's the exact opposite on CW.

 

[Thala_0710]

Bowlers, despite their accepted importance among the CW faithful, are generally disregard by the media and cricketing lists. Unless you're an all rounder you don't get mentioned.

Batsmen are seen as the alpha males of the game, crazy how it's the exact opposite on CW.

Both sides go to extreme versions of it imo. The wider audience have batsmen as their heroes unless a Warne type personality arrives. Whereas on CW, there is somehow a belief that bowlers are inherently more valuable than batsmen and are favoured in comparisons with batsmen just for being a bowler

 

[subshakerz]

Bowlers, despite their accepted importance among the CW faithful, are generally disregard by the media and cricketing lists. Unless you're an all rounder you don't get mentioned.

Batsmen are seen as the alpha males of the game, crazy how it's the exact opposite on CW.

This is just BS. Warne, Lillee and Wasim are rated to the stars.

Marshall isn't, yet you harp on Imran who has better ratings than him and never critique Marshall for the same thing.

Absolutely hypocritical.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Both sides go to extreme versions of it imo. The wider audience have batsmen as their heroes unless a Warne type personality arrives. Whereas on CW, there is somehow a belief that bowlers are inherently more valuable than batsmen and are favoured in comparisons with batsmen just for being a bowler

Somewhat agree, but I do think bowlers are generally bigger match winners than batsmen, and well as there are 4 bowling slots for 6 batsmen, they do have a slight pound for pound advantage. Though imo, it mostly gets nullified for most once we bring longevity to the table, as batsmen tends to play longer.

 

[Thala_0710]

Somewhat agree, but I do think bowlers are generally bigger match winners than batsmen, and well as there are 4 bowling slots for 6 batsmen, they do have a slight pound for pound advantage. Though imo, it mostly gets nullified for most once we bring longevity to the table, as batsmen tends to play longer.

Exactly with the availability and longevity of batsmen are on avg quite higher than bowlers who are expected to have a higher impact in a shorter duration, but somehow that is seen as much more important. MOS are won more by bowlers because of this, but awards such as player of the year/decade generally go to batsmen.
My only point is while comparing batsmen and bowlers, just saying that the bowler wins because he is a bowler makes no sense to me

 

[Migara]

Please stop. You just referenced a west Indian, an Indian, and Australian and a brit. So the only Nation being snubbed is Pakistan? And for the record, Wasim was also highly rated.

Anyone suggesting Lillee was a better cricketer than Imran (or infact Sobers or Hadlee) has surely got a bias.

 

[subshakerz]

Why, because he was an all rounder?

So basically the top 5 should be Bradman and all rounders?

Really depends on how you judge them.

I would argue that outside Bradman, no cricketers have ever matched the impact that Imran and Sobers had on their teams. Imran especially with his fast bowling and captaincy legacy.

However, I don't think greatness can just be measured on those merits.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Really depends on how you judge them.

I would argue that outside Bradman, no cricketers have ever matched the impact that Imran and Sobers had on their teams. Imran especially with his fast bowling and captaincy legacy.

However, I don't think greatness can just be measured on those merits.

Sir Dick

 

[subshakerz]

Sir Dick

Yes him too.

 

[kyear2]

Don Bradman is the greatest cricketer of all time. That is the only thing that is objectively a fact.

Sobers. Kallis. Marshall. Hadlee. Imran. Sachin. Murali. Mcgrath. All of them have a decent argument to be called second greatest cricketer ever.

There may be some names I may have missed because they are less hyped or may have played much in the earlier eras so may have got forgotten

I will say Bradman 1, Sobers 2.

No. 3 is open as far as I'm concerned

Marshall, Hobbs, Hadlee, McGrath, Richards, Tendulkar

being the primary contenders, the next tier of guys being

Imran, Warne, Steyn, Murali, Smith, Lara, Hutton, Kallis, Hutton, Wasim, Ambrose, Gavaskar, O'Reilly, Headley

Before the screaming starts, as Subz says, primary skills takes precedence and the guys who for me are in contention for the no. 3 spot are either in the goat discussion for bowling or in the best bat after Bradman discussion. And I don't add points, otherwise Kallis is no 4, and don't think anyone believes that.

For me Marshall is no. 3. He's the greatest bowler in the history of the game and and don't know why that's generally excluded from the conversation.

Hobbs is my no. 4 as he's the original GOAT of the test game and even still now in contention as the greatest ever opener.

McGrath and Hadlee are basically level and come next. McGrath is a bit ahead for me due to the tougher conditions he played under. Hadlee then has his batting while McGrath was the key to arguably the greatest team ever, and they wouldn't have been without him.

Sachin and Viv are up next and again Sachin has his longevity and Vivian the greatest fielder of his era and a great in the cordon.

I'm not saying Warne, Imran nor Murali doesn't has a claim. Warne made the Widen top 5, Murali has the wickets record and Imran the 2nd greatest all rounder in the history of the game. Just for me personally, to be no. 3, you should at least be in contention for the best in your disciple.

Not all of us would ever agree and none may agree with him at 3, but Maco has a good a claim as anyone.

 

[smash84]

none may agree with him at 3, but Maco has a good a claim as anyone.

I agree with this statement. You might be the only person I have ever seen who ranks Marshall as the 3rd greatest cricketer of all time.

 

[Migara]

I will say Bradman 1, Sobers 2.

No. 3 is open as far as I'm concerned

Marshall, Hobbs, Hadlee, McGrath, Richards, Tendulkar

being the primary contenders, the next tier of guys being

Imran, Warne, Steyn, Murali, Smith, Lara, Hutton, Kallis, Hutton, Wasim, Ambrose, Gavaskar, O'Reilly, Headley

Before the screaming starts, as Subz says, primary skills takes precedence and the guys who for me are in contention for the no. 3 spot are either in the goat discussion for bowling or in the best bat after Bradman discussion. And I don't add points, otherwise Kallis is no 4, and don't think anyone believes that.

For me Marshall is no. 3. He's the greatest bowler in the history of the game and and don't know why that's generally excluded from the conversation.

Hobbs is my no. 4 as he's the original GOAT of the test game and even still now in contention as the greatest ever opener.

McGrath and Hadlee are basically level and come next. McGrath is a bit ahead for me due to the tougher conditions he played under. Hadlee then has his batting while McGrath was the key to arguably the greatest team ever, and they wouldn't have been without him.

Sachin and Viv are up next and again Sachin has his longevity and Vivian the greatest fielder of his era and a great in the cordon.

I'm not saying Warne, Imran nor Murali doesn't has a claim. Warne made the Widen top 5, Murali has the wickets record and Imran the 2nd greatest all rounder in the history of the game. Just for me personally, to be no. 3, you should at least be in contention for the best in your disciple.

Not all of us would ever agree and none may agree with him at 3, but Maco has a good a claim as anyone.

I'd put Sobers and Imran at 1 and 2, and Bradman at 3.

Bradman is at maximum worth two batters averaging 50. (that is also debatable in the face of varied conditions and oppositions). Sobers with 57 with bat and 32 with ball easily comes close to it, and with versatility and fielding nails it. Imran averages sub 23 which is par with a batsman averaging in late 50s and with the bat averages 38. And then he nails it with captaincy. An average bowler has impact 1.75 times than an average batsmen given they are in 7:4 ratio, helps bowling all rounders more.

My top 10 would be;
Imran, Sobers, Bradman, Hadlee, Marshall, Kallis, Sangakkara, Gilchrist, McGrath and Muralitharan

 

[kyear2]

Sure early career.


Yes and between 81 to 83 it was Imran.

So "82

 

[subshakerz]

For me Marshall is no. 3. He's the greatest bowler in the history of the game and and don't know why that's generally excluded from the conversation.

Not all of us would ever agree and none may agree with him at 3, but Maco has a good a claim as anyone.

I love how easily you are able to throw your logic (if XYZ player is so great why doesn't feature is so many rankings, etc) out the window just to fit in your favorites.