Battle of the Cricketers

[andyc]

Yeah I'll vote for Bradders.

I voted for Warne over him because I'd seen Warnie play and I really admire his talents, and also because I knew he was going to lose anyway (though I wasn't far from being proved wrong).

 

[Jamee999]

17-6 to Bradman.

THE 3RD PLACE PLAYOFF

BC Lara(West Indies) (LHB,LBG)

IVA Richards (West Indies) (RHB,RAS)

Just a little side vote for this one, I'm thinking about making the voting period for the final 48 hours long, instead of the usual 24, any thoughts?

Vote!

 

[open365]

lara.

 

[The Baconator]

Richards, never seen him bat live but the footage I've seen of him at his best and my dad's description of his 290 odd somewhere in England put him above Lara fer me, as much as I love watching him bat.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It is a tough one, but I suppose that's only as it should be. Two magnificent players & both capable of utterly destroying a bowling attack. Really tho, because there's no one better to watch & his advancing years do not seem to have dimmed his genius as they did a bit with Sir Viv, I have to go for

Lara

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Surprisingly, none of those battles were as close as Warne V Bradman.

I think one of the reasons Warne ran the Don so close is because he's almost done as much for cricket as the Don did, comtemporarily. He's inspired a generation, maybe more than one. I voted for Shane because I've just about seen or listened to every Ashes delivery he's ever bowled (apart from the inevitable nodding off at "167-6 at Perth/wherever here we go again" when 4am sort of thing) and he is a living legend. I suspect this is why a fair few other Englishmen voted for him too. It's right that Bradman won, but it's also right that he won narrowly IMO when faced with M.Warne.

Call me a romantic fool and call me naive, I care not.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Voted against him once already and have been lashing myself ever since; Sir Viv.

 

[archie mac]

I am going with Lara, because I think he has had to carry the batting line up. And as a result he has been targeted more by opposition bowling attacks.

I also have the feeling he has faced, over all better bowling attacks than Viv.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lara is a great, but it's Richards for me, by... well a decent margin.

 

[Dasa]

Richards.

 

[Slifer]

Viv by the smallest of margins

 

[andyc]

Lara for me, easily. Like Archie said, he's had to essentially carry the West Indies, and face the best bowling attack in the world (Australia), while Richards had the advantage of playing with the best bowling attack in the world.

 

[Jono]

Viv for me.

Lara is an absolute legend and one of my favourite cricketers of all time, but the footage of Viv I've seen and the stories I've heard from my dad and uncles who have seen him play have to make me vote for Sir Viv. The aura he had is the difference really.

 

[nick-o]

Sir Viv

The best I've ever seen live -- The Don and Sobers I've only seen in highlights.

Lara don't compare

 

[chaminda_00]

Lara, but just

 

[Anil]

lara...

 

[honestbharani]

Lara. For carrying a rather weak batting line up all by his own (wtih some help from Chanderpaul at times) and facing the best bowlers all the time, not having the advantage of facing his own attack. I mean, the Windies attack of the past few years was a joke.

 

[Burpey]

Richards. To me he is better to watch

 

[shaka]

BC Lara

 

[marc71178]

Viv for me as well.

Would've loved to see those 2 together in full flow though - pretty close to as good as it could get?