Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[kyear2]

Weekes lol.

Yeah, that literally invalidates what ever argument he's trying to make..

 

[subshakerz]

To me, attacking batsmen are the ones who really carry on the legacy of Bradman, and are worthy of the BBB claim. These men would completely take the game away from their opponents. That's why my top 5 includes all of Sobers, Weekes, and Lara (Bradman too obviously), with Steve Smith being the only exception of the five for not scoring particularly faster with a more aggressive approach than the modern standard.

The hallmark of this trancsendent talent is that he looks like he's taking too much risk in his strokeplay, and that a wicket could be around the corner, but in actuality he's tough as **** to get out. Out of all of these aggresive batsmen, Sobers has the longest and most impressive career which simply cannot be written off. In fact I'd say there is something of another parallel with Bradmen, in that their careers spanned multiple eras in which the quality of opposition and bowling improved markedly, but their own batting performance did not really decline. This is not really a normal occurence, and for this reason I think it's very reasonable to put Sobers as the BBB. All depending for me though, on how Steve Smith's career shakes out at the end, but regardless Sobers is a standout candidate for mine, especially before Steve Smith was in the picture.

If that is your criteria then why Weekes instead of Viv?

 

[shortpitched713]

If that is your criteria then why Weekes instead of Viv?

I've probably seen a bit too much of late career Viv in footage, if I'm being perfectly honest. He seems much more vulnerable in my mind than the other bats I've mentioned. However I will cede that Viv is much higher ranked for those who saw him live, and I probably should review my rating of him.

 

[shortpitched713]

If that is your criteria then why Weekes instead of Viv?

And aside from the Viv discussion, if you've seen any of Weekes, then you know why Weekes.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, that literally invalidates what ever argument he's trying to make..

Don't think you're in any position to invalidate other people's lists mate

 

[shortpitched713]

I rate Kevin Pietersen much higher than most do for this reason of being able to take matches away from their opponent through what seems like risky (but isn't) attacking strokeplay. Not at all relevant for a BBB discussion, mind, but I really think this attacking playstyle is a key in separating these best of the best, especially if overall run scoring is very close.

 

[kyear2]

Don't think you're in any position to invalidate other people's lists mate

Thanks for your input.

 

[subshakerz]

I slept through most of this discussion this morning, but here's my two cents worth.

Most of us accept that Sachin is the better batsman, I wouldn't contest or argue that, Sachin was better. Yes Lara had his slump, and most of that was his own doing, he frequently fought with the board and at times team, but I'm not offering any excuses for it.
But at the end of al of it he ended up with a similar record, which means despite Sachin's consistency and the slight but tangible boost with facing the minnows a bit more, they ended up at basically the same average. Despite those 47 tests he earned near parity. What does that say about the rest of his career, the stupid heights that he reached, the absolute dominance his displayed that no other batsman ever did. No batsman can do what he did against 3 of the absolute greatest bowlers of all time and not be included in the pantheon. Plus when most batsmen were in a rut, they didn't have to face WWs, white lightning and McWarne.
I think he deserves credit for how he was able to bounce back and remind the world who the **** he was. If you want to place him last in the tier, fine, but he belongs there.
And if end of careers don't count, then let's add Ponting as well, because damn, there were times he was better than both.

Kyear2, wanted to say, we've had our differences but wanted to say I appreciate your thoughtful responses more than other posters.

I think it's a bit reductive to say that Lara ended up with the same average so we can overlook his slump. For one, his away record is worse, but I digress from that point.

Lara's career had three phases:
Early career boom averaging 60 from debut in 90 to 95/96
Mid-career slump averaging 39 from 96 to 2001, career average dropped to 48
Late career peak averaging 60 2001 to 2006, getting his overall average up again to 53

Tendulkar to compare had these phases:
Boy wonder averaging 37 as a teen and scoring tons across the world 89 to 92
10 year peak as the emerging and then clear best batsman in the world from 93 to 2002 averaging 62, career average in late 50s
Mid-career slump averaging mid-40s from 2003 to 2006, career average early 50s
Late career peak averaging 63 from 2007 to 2011, career average around 56/57
Latter career slump averaging 30 odd till 2013, overall average around Lara's

Not only did Tendulkar average slightly more in his first peak, which was longer than both of Lara's peaks combined, he averaged more in his slump, and then had a second peak too where he averaged slightly more than Lara. The only thing that brought Tendulkar average down to Lara's was the last two years when he was a spent force, but for much of his career, he was ahead of Lara.

Lara had a much more worse slump than Tendulkar and other top tiers, but to get his overall record to parity with Tendulkar, it is not that he played much better than Tendulkar outside of that. On the contrary, Tendulkar played better than Lara even during his peaks, and significantly longer. Lara only gets parity by virtue of Tendulkar having a longer career and therefore small dips at the start and end which is what you expect with 200 tests, which basically makes up the 1/3rd of the career of Lara's slump.

My point? Perhaps you can think Tendulkar's early career and latter career dips which give him an average close to Lara's are qualitatively the same as Lara's mid career slump. I don't though. I think in the context of an overall career, it reflects worse on Lara, especially when you consider that Lara himself was the main culprit behind his slump, not aging or inexperience.

Tendulkar, as the case with Smith, Viv, Hobbs, and Sobers, never played bad enough to have his greatness questioned.

 

[Slifer]

Kyear2, wanted to say, we've had our differences but wanted to say I appreciate your thoughtful responses more than other posters.

I think it's a bit reductive to say that Lara ended up with the same average so we can overlook his slump. For one, his away record is worse, but I digress from that point.

Lara's career had three phases:
Early career boom averaging 60 from debut in 90 to 95/96
Mid-career slump averaging 39 from 96 to 2001, career average dropped to 48
Late career peak averaging 60 2001 to 2006, getting his overall average up again to 53

Tendulkar to compare had these phases:
Boy wonder averaging 37 as a teen and scoring tons across the world 89 to 92
10 year peak as the emerging and then clear best batsman in the world from 93 to 2002 averaging 62, career average in late 50s
Mid-career slump averaging mid-40s from 2003 to 2006, career average early 50s
Late career peak averaging 63 from 2007 to 2011, career average around 56/57
Latter career slump averaging 30 odd till 2013, overall average around Lara's

Not only did Tendulkar average slightly more in his first peak, which was longer than both of Lara's peaks combined, he averaged more in his slump, and then had a second peak too where he averaged slightly more than Lara. The only thing that brought Tendulkar average down to Lara's was the last two years when he was a spent force, but for much of his career, he was ahead of Lara.

My point? Lara had a much more worse slump than Tendulkar and other top tiers, but to get his overall record to parity with Tendulkar, it is not that he played much better than Tendulkar outside of that. On the contrary, Tendulkar played better than Lara even during his peaks, and significantly longer. Lara only gets parity by virtue of Tendulkar having a longer career and therefore small dips at the start and end which is what you expect with 200 tests.

Tendulkar, as the case with Smith, Viv, Hobbs, and Sobers, never played bad enough to have his greatness questioned.

And Tendulkar owes his higher average to playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more if we want to go down that rabbit hole.

 

[kyear2]

Kyear2, wanted to say, we've had our differences but wanted to say I appreciate your thoughtful responses more than other posters.

I think it's a bit reductive to say that Lara ended up with the same average so we can overlook his slump. For one, his away record is worse, but I digress from that point.

Lara's career had three phases:
Early career boom averaging 60 from 90 to 95/96
Mid-career slump averaging 39 from 96 to 2001, average dropped to 48
Late career peak averaging 60 2001 to 2006, getting his overall average up again

Tendulkar to compare had these phases:
Boy wonder averaging 37 as a teen and scoring tons across the world 89 to 92
10 year peak as the best batsman in the world 93 to 2002 averaging over 60
Mid-career slump averaging mid-40s from 2003 to 2006
Late career peak averaging over 60 from 2007 to 2011
Latter career slump averaging 30 odd till 2013

Not only did Tendulkar average more in his first peak, which was as long as both of Lara's peaks, he averaged more in his slump, and then had a second peak too. The only thing that brought Tendulkar average down to Lara's was the last two years when he was a spent force, but for much of his career, he was ahead of Lara.

My point? Lara had a much more worse slump than Tendulkar and other top tiers, but to get his overall record to parity with Tendulkar, it is not that he played much better than Tendulkar outside of that. On the contrary, Tendulkar played better than Lara even during his peaks, and significantly longer. Lara only gets parity by virtue of Tendulkar having a longer career and therefore small dips at the start and end.

Well apparently Trundler is still holding a grudge, but genuine thanks for the kind words.

But you seem to maintaining that Sachin is better, I've never disputed that. If you're arguing that he's in a different class, that that's where I object.
Having two peaks averaging 60 in the toughest bowling era ever, is ridiculous. I lived through his entire career, the lows, especially vs South Africa, which carried some what of a deeper cultural blow, the fights with the board, the probationary tag placed on his captaincy, then inner turmoil in the team, the questions towards his dedication. But he came back from all of it. Tom Brady had a decade when he didn't win a ring, we don't bring that up when noting that he's the GOAT, they focus on the comeback, the fortitude required to make it back to the top. He broke the damn world record twice, and I know there are disagreements on that, but it meant something to the region and to his legacy.
I'm not making excuses for BCL nor stating that he's the best or greatest, just that his accomplishments and unparalleled heights warrants consideration if not inclusion to that exclusive club.

 

[trundler]

Well apparently Trundler is still holding a grudge, but genuine thanks for the kind words

Just found that post a touch ironic. Humble yourself, you're not that important.

 

[subshakerz]

Well apparently Trundler is still holding a grudge, but genuine thanks for the kind words.

But you seem to maintaining that Sachin is better, I've never disputed that. If you're arguing that he's in a different class, that that's where I object.
Having two peaks averaging 60 in the toughest bowling era ever, is ridiculous. I lived through his entire career, the lows, especially vs South Africa, which carried some what of a deeper cultural blow, the fights with the board, the probationary tag placed on his captaincy, then inner turmoil in the team, the questions towards his dedication. But he came back from all of it. Tom Brady had a decade when he didn't win a ring, we don't bring that up when noting that he's the GOAT, they focus on the comeback, the fortitude required to make it back to the top. He broke the damn world record twice, and I know there are disagreements on that, but it meant something to the region and to his legacy.
I'm not making excuses for BCL nor stating that he's the best or greatest, just that his accomplishments and unparalleled heights warrants consideration if not inclusion to that exclusive club.

No, no, Tendulkar is only slightly better than Lara.

My point was just to reiterate that Lara's mid-career slump to me reflects worse on him than Tendulkar's early and late career dips which bring parity to their records.

 

[subshakerz]

And Tendulkar owes his higher average to playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more if we want to go down that rabbit hole.

We can bring up their away records too if you want to go there.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara > Tendulkar

 

[kyear2]

Just found that post a touch ironic. Humble yourself, you're not that important.

That's the thing though, never thought or said I did. You're the one that carried on a multi page, multi thread crusade because I had the gumption to rank Imran outside of the top 3 on a list that was even at the time stated that was off the top of my head.
I'm quite humble, but when you base a point on Everton Weekes being the 3rd of 4th best batsman of all time, it tends to alter the perception of the post. I also wasn't the only one who commented on his post.

But I'll try harder to know my place going forward... Is that better?

 

[trundler]

That's the thing though, never thought or said I did. You're the one that carried on a multi page, multi thread crusade because I had the gumption to rank Imran outside of the top 3 on a list that was even at the time stated that was off the top of my head.
I'm quite humble, but when you base a point on Everyone Weekes being the 3rd of 4th best batsman of all time, it tends to alter the perception of the post. I also wasn't the only one who commented on his post.

But I'll try harder to know my place going forward... Is that better?

Ok

 

[kyear2]

No, no, Tendulkar is only slightly better than Lara.

My point was just to reiterate that Lara's mid-career slump to me reflects worse on him than Tendulkar's early and late career dips which bring parity to their records.

But I'm not actively comparing them, only to say they are close enough to be in the same category.
I rate Sachin definite top 3, 4 at worse. If he's "only slightly better" how is Lara not in the same category then?

That's all I'm saying.

Well that and Ponting is somewhat under rated here.

 

[BazBall21]

Kyear Vs Trundler again?

 

[kyear2]

Ok

Some of you guys tend to personalize stuff when really there's no need.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Kyear Vs Trundler again?

@PlayerComparisons next poll idea