Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan

[DrWolverine]

30 years ago, Dennis Lillee was called as the greatest fast bowler in many cricket magazines, newspaper articles etc. What happened since then?

 

[sayon basak]

30 years ago, Dennis Lillee was called as the greatest fast bowler in many cricket magazines, newspaper articles etc. What happened since then?

30 years passed since then.

And guess majority of those magazines and newspapers were Australian?

 

[DrWolverine]

30 years passed since then.

And guess majority of those magazines and newspapers were Australian?

Indian magazines. But I remember Bob Simpson and maybe Richie Benaud were one of those who used to write every week.

 

[sayon basak]

Indian magazines. But I remember Bob Simpson and maybe Richie Benaud were one of those who used to write every week.

@capt_Luffy @Thala_0710 what's your country doing? Overrating the Bad Aussies?

 

[capt_Luffy]

@capt_Luffy @Thala_0710 what's your country doing? Overrating the Bad Aussies?

Just following the English like obedient servants did.

 

[Thala_0710]

@capt_Luffy @Thala_0710 what's your country doing? Overrating the Bad Aussies?

More of shredding Gambhir to pieces

 

[subshakerz]

30 years ago, Dennis Lillee was called as the greatest fast bowler in many cricket magazines, newspaper articles etc. What happened since then?

I think you can make a case 40 years ago before Marshall and others peaked, Lillee was the best.

 

[Migara]

When Lillee retired he was seen as the greatest ever, taking over the mantle from Lindwall.

How is that crazy?

Oh when WG Grace retired he was the greatest. Didn't matter whether Bradman existed or not.

 

[kyear2]

Huh? Are you making stuff up now? I never said that. I always said that general cricket consensus is he is a top 10 cricketer of all time. I just rate him in top 5 which isn't much of a jump.


Marshall isn't even top 10 in general cricket consensus. I am fine putting him there but top 3 seems way too high.

He has the numbers but greatness is numbers plus what else you bring to the table. Did he bring a new brand of cricket, a new type of play, some genius? Not really so hard to put him even top 5.


Lillee was original in his aggressive style and was the godfather of modern fast bowlers. Warne was original in his wizardly style of play and revived interest in spin outside Asia.

Lillee gets rated top 10, Warne top 5. Both are overrated because pundits look past their flawed records, and I would also adjust as I do with Imran and Marshall to push Lillee out of the top 10 and barely give Warne space in top 10.

Make sense? In order words, I am fine with diverging from cricket consensus but only to a certain extent because I do think there is some 'wisdom of the crowds' a person should respect.

How about taking a team with transitioning stars and elevating it from the best team in the world to the greatest team ever? Oh, and keeping them there after the retirement of Lloyd, Kallicharan, Holding etc. Viv wasn't the same and Greenidge was well into his decline.

I knows it's not as important as Lillee's agro or Warne's wizardry but McGrath and Marshall' elevating their teams into the realms of the greatest ever deserves a shout. No?

But cricket consensus that has him as the greatest bowler, but behind Warne and Lillee in the top 10 makes sense? It's crazy when the two greatest match winners in the sport aren't locks for the top 5, but no they're not batsmen nor all rounders so .

 

[Coronis]

How about taking a team with transitioning stars and elevating it from the best team in the world to the greatest team ever? Oh, and keeping them there after the retirement of Lloyd, Kallicharan, Holding etc. Viv wasn't the same and Greenidge was well into his decline.

I knows it's not as important as Lillee's agro or Warne's wizardry but McGrath and Marshall' elevating their teams into the realms of the greatest ever deserves a shout. No?

But cricket consensus that has him as the greatest bowler, but behind Warne and Lillee in the top 10 makes sense? It's crazy when the two greatest match winners in the sport aren't locks for the top 5, but no they're not batsmen nor all rounders so .

Didn’t realise you ranked Murali so highly.

 

[subshakerz]

How about taking a team with transitioning stars and elevating it from the best team in the world to the greatest team ever? Oh, and keeping them there after the retirement of Lloyd, Kallicharan, Holding etc. Viv wasn't the same and Greenidge was well into his decline.

Nothing groundbreaking there.

I knows it's not as important as Lillee's agro or Warne's wizardry but McGrath and Marshall' elevating their teams into the realms of the greatest ever deserves a shout. No?

Not by just being normal great fast bowlers.

But cricket consensus that has him as the greatest bowler, but behind Warne and Lillee in the top 10 makes sense? It's crazy when the two greatest match winners in the sport aren't locks for the top 5, but no they're not batsmen nor all rounders so .

Cricket consensus has him as the best fast bowler of his era. But that doesn't equal greatness for a top 3 slot.

 

[kyear2]

Nothing groundbreaking there.


Not by just being normal great fast bowlers.


Cricket consensus has him as the best fast bowler of his era. But that doesn't equal greatness for a top 3 slot.

Nothing ground breaking about winning or elevating a team to greatness.

Gotcha

Being the best bowler ever isn't worthy of the no. 3 spot, but being the best batsman does, and let me guess. Because he carried the hopes of a billion fans?

None of the makes the slightest amount of sense.

 

[subshakerz]

Nothing ground breaking about winning or elevating a team to greatness.

Gotcha

Marshall didn't though. It was already the no.1 team when he came into the side as main bowler. And folks associate WIs rise more with Lloyd, Viv and the original quartet.

Being the best bowler ever isn't worthy of the no. 3 spot, but being the best batsman does, and let me guess. Because he carried the hopes of a billion fans?

None of the makes the slightest amount of sense.

I think you are deliberately evading my point.

Marshall was technically the best. But didn't add anything new to the game or scale new ground which is what many associate with greatness. He is just skills and stats without legacy or broader influence.

Tendulkar on the other hand was a teen prodigy the likes of which cricket has never seen, and had the most longevity of any bat ever. His emergence as a truly global superstar was associated with India's development into a new cricket power. Tendulkar elevated the game in ways Marshall simply did not.

To be brutal about it, if Marshall never existed, cricket wouldn't have missed him that much compared to the other greats who regularly make most pundits top 10 lists. That's the extra sauce for greatness.

I know you really want him to be no.3, but let it go.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall didn't though. It was already the no.1 team when he came into the side as main bowler. And folks associate WIs rise more with Lloyd, Viv and the original quartet.


I think you are deliberately evading my point.

Marshall was technically the best. But didn't add anything new to the game or scale new ground which is what many associate with greatness. He is just skills and stats without legacy or broader influence.

Tendulkar on the other hand was a teen prodigy the likes of which cricket has never seen, and had the most longevity of any bat ever. His emergence as a truly global superstar was associated with India's development into a new cricket power.

To be brutal about it, if Marshall never existed, cricket wouldn't have missed him that much compared to the other greats who regularly make most pundits top 10 lists. That's the extra sauce for greatness.

I know you really want him to be no.3, but let it go.

The rise to the best in the world was Lloyd, Richards and the quartet, yes, but they didn't scale to the greatest, until the 80's, and they maintained that after Lloyd retired, Viv no longer at his best, Greenidge declining and Holding's injuries etc. And that was due to the ridiculous peak of one player more than anything or anyone else.

But you're saying that because Tendulkar played 4 more years than Kallis, Bradman or Sobers, motive aside, and that he was a "superstar" was sufficient to place him undisputedly above Marshall.

One was the best at his discipline, the discipline that according to you is slightly more important than the other, and elevated his team to immortality. The other very arguably the 2nd best at his discipline and was a global superstar for an emerging cricket power.

So one was arguably the greatest match winner, but the other was popular and that is the extra sauce for greatness.

And no, I don't want one to be no. 3, I rate one as no. 3, what others do is up to them.

I do especially like the "just skills and stats without legacy or broader influence line"

Apparently winning is less important than popularity.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Bradman
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Sachin(very close between Hadlee, Sachin and Hobbs)
Hobbs
Marshall
Miller
Steyn
Viv
Mcgrath
Murali

Top tier golden ATGs

 

[capt_Luffy]

Bradman
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Sachin(very close between Hadlee, Sachin and Hobbs)
Hobbs
Marshall
Miller
Steyn
Viv
Mcgrath
Murali

Top tier golden ATGs

I think Miller is getting a tad bit overrated here. Like, was he that much of a better bat than Polly to not only cover their already significant bowling difference but push him two tiers ahead??

 

[subshakerz]

The rise to the best in the world was Lloyd, Richards and the quartet, yes, but they didn't scale to the greatest, until the 80's, and they maintained that after Lloyd retired, Viv no longer at his best, Greenidge declining and Holding's injuries etc. And that was due to the ridiculous peak of one player more than anything or anyone else.

You are going into the weeds, my friend. Nobody denies that WI was already an ATG team before Marshall became a permanent fixture.

But you're saying that because Tendulkar played 4 more years than Kallis, Bradman or Sobers, motive aside, and that he was a "superstar" was sufficient to place him undisputedly above Marshall.

Yes, 200 tests and a ridiculously long stretch of world-class performance are Tendulkar hallmarks that make him special. But also the other factors I mentioned which you don't address.

One was the best at his discipline, the discipline that according to you is slightly more important than the other, and elevated his team to immortality. The other very arguably the 2nd best at his discipline and was a global superstar for an emerging cricket power.

Marshall just kept the success of WI already established going but at the end of the day was just a slightly better fast bowler in an era of many of them and nothing more.

The latter treaded new ground and had something more than just a great record.

So one was arguably the greatest match winner, but the other was popular and that is the extra sauce for greatness.

Yeah but Tendulkar was popular for being unique, almost like a chosen one, a teen sensation with monk-like dedication to be an absolute master. Nothing can match the feeling of anticipation of Tendulkar in the late 90s coming to the crease. Heck, Bradman called Tendulkar the closest to him. That all contributed to his aura, his mass appeal and he transcended cricket.

Tendulkar wasn't just popular, he was an icon, something Marshall was definitely not, sorry.

And no, I don't want one to be no. 3, I rate one as no. 3, what others do is up to them.

I do especially like the "just skills and stats without legacy or broader influence line"

Apparently winning is less important than popularity.

Your ranking is for the better cricketers not the greater cricketers. Just accept greatness is more than just pure performance.

 

[Slifer]

You're free to say Lillee is better than Marshall you know.

Lillee was excitement, Lille had the backing of the establishment. Marshall exemplified what was hated about the WI and their success. Benaud and many others resented how they played, the aggression etc, which was the height of hypocrisy. They changed the rules to stop them, multiple actually.

No our pacers weren't admired.

Very very true

 

[kyear2]

You are going into the weeds, my friend. Nobody denies that WI was already an ATG team before Marshall became a permanent fixture.


Yes, 200 tests and a ridiculously long stretch of world-class performance are Tendulkar hallmarks that make him special. But also the other factors I mentioned which you don't address.


Marshall just kept the success of WI already established going but at the end of the day was just a slightly better fast bowler in an era of many of them and nothing more.

The latter treaded new ground and had something more than just a great record.


Yeah but Tendulkar was popular for being unique, almost like a chosen one, a teen sensation with monk-like dedication to be an absolute master. Nothing can match the feeling of anticipation of Tendulkar in the late 90s coming to the crease. Heck, Bradman called Tendulkar the closest to him. That all contributed to his aura, his mass appeal and he transcended cricket.

Tendulkar wasn't just popular, he was an icon, something Marshall was definitely not, sorry.


Your ranking is for the better cricketers not the greater cricketers. Just accept greatness is more than just pure performance.

We can simply agree to disagree.

Lara was every bit the global superstar that Tendulkar was, so was Warne and Richards before them.

Moat of what you mentioned above for Tendulkar you said should be disregarded for Warne and led to him being over rated.

But we can agree to disagree and end this discussion here.

 

[kyear2]

Very very true

There's no doubt, I very much lived through that era.

But some want to say that it is fabricated and whining. They were not going to allow the domination to continue and took drastic moves to ensure it didn't.