Kapil Dev vs Ricky Ponting

[kyear2]

So yeah… my post and point still stand. Less funny now though, thanks

You think it's ridiculous how everyone jumps on the Bumrah train when he does the spectacular. But these are the moments that makes careers, that people will be arguing about in 10 years.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I think McGrath was the better bowler, in the tougher bowling era, and he elevated a team from great to arguably the greatest.

Its the other way around.
Australian team made Mcgrath stats better.
Hadlee didn't need that help.

 

[Coronis]

You think it's ridiculous how everyone jumps on the Bumrah train when he does the spectacular. But these are the moments that makes careers, that people will be arguing about in 10 years.

What about that would even make Smith’s career, I’m curious? His is already chock full of great moments.

I do think its ridiculous how much some posters get after one good or bad match for a player and how much they hype/downplay them afterwards (I don’t mean joke/sarcastic posts, I’m talking about the serious ones). I don’t think its ridiculous to think that but it might be.

 

[kyear2]

Its the other way around.
Australian team made Mcgrath stats better.
Hadlee didn't need that help.

I would argue strongly that it was the other way round.

Without him that team isn't close to what it became.

Hadlee had easier conditions his entire career. He had among the very best home conditions, up there with Steyn.

Not disparaging but placing in context.

And for some reason cricket is the only sport where you're almost punished for success.

And again, they are literally rated besides each other.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I would argue strongly that it was the other way round.

Without him that team isn't close to what it became.

Hadlee had easier conditions his entire career. He had among the very best home conditions, up there with Steyn.

Not disparaging but placing in context.

And for some reason cricket is the only sport where you're almost punished for success.

And again, they are literally rated besides each other.

Comparable as bowlers not as cricketers.

 

[kyear2]

Comparable as bowlers not as cricketers.

I don't follow the forum mantra that runs from the tail automatically makes everything better.

How impactful were those runs, how did it contribute to wins or saving matches?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I don't follow the forum mantra that runs from the tail automatically makes everything better.

How impactful were those runs, how did it contribute to wins or saving matches?

Your team chasing 450, only 4 wickets remaining.. 75 more runs needed. Who do you want to see at number 8.. Mcgrath or Hadlee?

 

[kyear2]

Your team chasing 450, only 4 wickets remaining.. 75 more runs needed. Who do you want to see at number 8.. Mcgrath or Hadlee?

McGrath has never batted at no 8 for any team in his career, and there will always be someone above him.

I'm also not saying lower order batting doesn't have its benefits. It can be critically important.

But the notion that it is the is all and be all of all success, and covers all deficiencies isn't quite true and has never been borne out.

That's all I mean, I obviously rate Hadlee very highly.

 

[ma1978]

Ok, the Sobers thing. You and apparently many others see Bradman as practically twice the batsman that everyone else is. I don't remotely see him that way. That doesn't only to Sobers, but Sachin, Hobbs, Richards etc as well.
The likely hood, based on attacks and conditions faced that he averages 100 in latter eras is 0.

And yes, any perusing of cricket literature or opinion has 3 players in that upper echelon, Bradman, Sobers and for those who delve further back in time, Grace. That's not disputable on any level.
I have not disparages Hadlee and I have said that he is the better comp for Sobers because he is also top tier as a bowler. I rate Hadlee top 5 all time and not that far behind those guys.

Re Marshall I think he's the best, but very much in the same tier as the other two. What separates him slightly from the others is his skill set, complete record and intangibles, similarly why I have McGrath slightly over Hadlee, intangibles and conditions faced. But I don't pretend there's a massive gulf between any of them. I do believe that the top 2 do have a small but perceptible advantage over Hadlee. But I rate Hadlee higher than most here.

Also to there being a massive gap after Sobers, I think Marshall is close, Pidge and Paddles not that far behind him, Tendulkar on par as batsmen if not the slightest hair ahead. Think Richards is on par with him as batsman, Hobbs being in that same tier.
But yeah, there are two that stands apart, and if you wish to disagree with that, that's your right as well.

I have and have always said that there have been 4 phenomenons in the history of the game. The Don, Sobers, the WI pace battery and McWarne. Those stand part, again you're free to disagree.

Re Greenidge and Viv, Gavaskar is better than Greenidge. Let's be clear about that, and not sure why it was brought up.
Viv was better than Sunny, and don't think it was particularly close. That I'm not backing down on. Viv averaged a tad over 50 because he had a precipitous decline, but his domination of the pacers he played against, didn't get to play minnows or the fodder that Sunny massacred in '71 or during WSC, in addition to be being the greatest player ever vs pace and his WSC record, just pushes him ahead for me. So with regards to a gap, over Sunny, a bit of one, not massive, but definitely there, but he's very much in phase with the guys in the best after Bradman category, no gaps there.

And I have Sunny as a top 10 batsman of all time (probably the same position as you and everyone else in the forum not named Luffy), same way I have Imran as a top 8 bowler (exact same position as the forum), the pretence here is that I think both are crap, that's never been further from the truth.
With regards to not having to face his attack? Well outside of Border, Sunil or Javed none of the greats did either. Ponting never faced McWarne, Warne didn't have to face the greatest batting line up of all time either, Murali got to play on turners every home test, not everyone had equal footing.

If you want to go to over rated of late though, I can point to quite a bit of players who have been of late, a couple still playing (not Jasprit). But you focus on my guys, and again, not even on positioning, but your perception of my perception of the distances between the positioning. And it's not altogether accurate. I have Hadlee and McGrath rated higher than Viv, and rate Smith is a touch above Lara (though on a separate and a tad unfair note, tonight will impact how I view the former, not in relation to BCL, but in general). The gap to Bradman doesn't exist only for Sobers, he's not even at the top of that list.

Basically you like the players you like and write long emails bereft of analytic consistency to justify it

 

[peterhrt]

The pantheon of cricket isn't and has never been singular. It's always two or 3 names depending on where one falls on the Grace debate.

This is certainly true.

Pelham Warner (1945): Was Grace a better batsman than Bradman? It is, in my opinion, impossible to answer such questions.

EW Swanton (1962): As to the relative greatness of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman it is of course fruitless to argue: wickets, bowling, environment, atmosphere - all have varied. It is sufficient to say that each was supreme in his own day.

Wisden (early 21st century): If Sir Don Bradman was the best batsman ever to grace the cricket field, Sir Garfield Sobers was the best overall cricketer.

Suresh Menon for the BBC (2010): Is Sachin Tendulkar the greatest cricketer ever? Is he the greatest batsman of all time? The glib answer first. Yes.
Because it is in the nature of sport to produce bigger and better champions. In sports where progress can be measured, this is seen in the faster timings, longer jumps and greater heights recorded by modern athletes. Bradman's stature has grown every year that he hasn't played.

Where the careers of Bradman and Tendulkar begin to diverge is in the range and variety of international cricket the Indian has played. There were no one-day internationals in Bradman's time. Bradman toured only England; he only played Tests at 10 venues - five in Australia and five in England. In contrast, Tendulkar has played Tests in 10 countries, one-dayers in 17. He has played at 94 venues.

After 50 [Test hundreds], what? A hundred international centuries (Tendulkar has 96), perhaps a World Cup win, maybe 200 Test matches? Tendulkar has become used to those setting goals on his behalf moving the goalpost as he achieves these with almost monotonous inevitability.

Brian Lara (2013, before Tendulkar's 200th Test): Tendulkar is the greatest cricketer in history. He has had the greatest cricket career of anyone who has ever played the game. His stats speak for themselves. I don't think there is any 16-year-old who is going to embark on the sort of career that Sachin Tendulkar has had and walk away from the game at 40 with such great achievements. He's the Muhammad Ali and the Michael Jordan of cricket.

Among the stats being referred to were international centuries, a measure invented it seemed solely for Tendulkar. Red-ball and white-ball numbers had until then been kept apart. When he scored his 100th international century, Ponting was next with 71, then Kallis 59 and Lara 53. This was used as evidence of Tendulkar's dominance over all-comers.

 

[kyear2]

Basically you like the players you like and write long emails bereft of analytic consistency to justify it

Like does everyone.

My reasoning is as good or as valid as anyone's.

 

[Prince EWS]

Like does everyone.

My reasoning is as good or as valid as anyone's.

Except mine.

 

[kyear2]

Except mine.

View attachment 42690

Have you noted some of your votes recently?