The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[capt_Luffy]

For me Don is clear of everyone else (of course), followed by Grace due to how he changed cricket forever (him being able to or not score runs nowadays isn't really his problem).
Following them, I have Hobbs and Tendulkar around equal for their unprecedented longevity and consistency throughout that, with Hobbs slightly ahead as conditions>opposition after a certain level. I have Sobers slightly behind them, behind only due to minor blemishes (mainly NZ and him batting down the order) and ahead slightly of the other group due to longevity and bowling load.
Then I have Smith, Lara, Gavaskar, Richards and Hutton; all around equals. Everyone of them have their own unique strengths and weaknesses over the others; and I think the order can be pretty much down to personal preference.
And in the batch of next batsmen, I have Hammond slightly ahead of the pack; leading ahead of Headley and Sutcliffe.
Then I have 3 probably controversial players ahead of others, in Pollock, Ranji and Trumper. They lack on exclusive stats (okay, mainly Trumper, Pollock on longevity and Ranji on being too old), but makes up with being ahead of the pack. Slightly behind I have Chappell, Border, Kallis, Sanga, Barry, Waugh, Ponting and Dravid in that order. And behind them, Weekes, Barrington, Miandad, Nourse, Walcott, ABD, Root, Kohli, Younis, Williamson, Harvey, Kanhai, Boycott, Flower, Worrell, May, MaCartney and Shrewsbury. That pretty much ends a tier for me.

 

[Coronis]

NZ was an unexplainable anomaly, the Pakistan tour was after the record setting one, and I've posted a couple articles which pointed out that the umpires targeted him.

Sobers also took over, and had the ability to turn matches in a session, while Hutton was criticized even during his time for the inability to take over games or dominate attacks, even inferior ones.

Trueman, Lindwall, Miller, Snow, Underwood, quartet, Davidson, Benaud, Fazal, Lillee... And the burden of almost 40 overs a match.

Hutton was a run machine, I wouldn't place him above any of the more assertive members of this tier. But that's just me.

Many of the great Windies batsmen have a subpar record against New Zealand, and particularly in New Zealand also extends to some of their bowlers. (good thing there isn’t a big Cowie-Headley trophy huh)

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

NZ was an unexplainable anomaly, the Pakistan tour was after the record setting one, and I've posted a couple articles which pointed out that the umpires targeted him.

Sobers also took over, and had the ability to turn matches in a session, while Hutton was criticized even during his time for the inability to take over games or dominate attacks, even inferior ones.

Trueman, Lindwall, Miller, Snow, Underwood, quartet, Davidson, Benaud, Fazal, Lillee... And the burden of almost 40 overs a match.

Hutton was a run machine, I wouldn't place him above any of the more assertive members of this tier. But that's just me.

I still rate Sobers as a candidate for best after Bradman.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

For me Don is clear of everyone else (of course), followed by Grace due to how he changed cricket forever (him being able to or not score runs nowadays isn't really his problem).
Following them, I have Hobbs and Tendulkar around equal for their unprecedented longevity and consistency throughout that, with Hobbs slightly ahead as conditions>opposition after a certain level. I have Sobers slightly behind them, behind only due to minor blemishes (mainly NZ and him batting down the order) and ahead slightly of the other group due to longevity and bowling load.
Then I have Smith, Lara, Gavaskar, Richards and Hutton; all around equals. Everyone of them have their own unique strengths and weaknesses over the others; and I think the order can be pretty much down to personal preference.
And in the batch of next batsmen, I have Hammond slightly ahead of the pack; leading ahead of Headley and Sutcliffe.
Then I have 3 probably controversial players ahead of others, in Pollock, Ranji and Trumper. They lack on exclusive stats (okay, mainly Trumper, Pollock on longevity and Ranji on being too old), but makes up with being ahead of the pack. Slightly behind I have Chappell, Border, Kallis, Sanga, Barry, Waugh, Ponting and Dravid in that order. And behind them, Weekes, Barrington, Miandad, Nourse, Walcott, ABD, Root, Kohli, Younis, Williamson, Harvey, Kanhai, Boycott, Flower, Worrell, May, MaCartney and Shrewsbury. That pretty much ends a tier for me.

Replace Sobers and Richards and I am in complete agreement then

 

[kyear2]

I still rate Sobers as a candidate for best after Bradman.

Of the 8, I think 6 are very interchangeable, but 1 is Bradman and 8 is Hutton, but that's just my take.

 

[kyear2]

Chronologically

Hobbs
Sobers
Richards
Lara
Smith

All have strengths and weaknesses, but all were able to wrest the game away from the opposition, change the game in a session.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Of the 8, I think 6 are very interchangeable, but 1 is Bradman and 8 is Hutton, but that's just my take.

I think Hobbs and Tendulkar are ahead of the pack.

 

[kyear2]

I think Hobbs and Tendulkar are ahead of the pack.

Hobbs lacked the opposition and Sachin the monster series.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hobbs lacked the opposition and Sachin the monster series.

Hobbs had the way way tougher conditions (others lacks that, more than makes up for opposition, which also wasn't poor) and monster series isn't really a big point for me personally. Would keep those two a bit ahead clearly.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs had the way way tougher conditions (others lacks that, more than makes up for opposition, which also wasn't poor) and monster series isn't really a big point for me personally. Would keep those two a bit ahead clearly.

As with everything, it's all a matter of perspective and opinion.

And Hobbs didn't face competition anywhere near the rest, and Sachin was always a bit more consistent than magician, and the lack of monster performances where he took over series is a thing.

 

[capt_Luffy]

As with everything, it's all a matter of perspective and opinion.

And Hobbs didn't face competition anywhere near the rest, and Sachin was always a bit more consistent than magician, and the lack of monster performances where he took over series is a thing.

Of course perspective and all (like Gavaskar being in that tier) ; but for me those two are clear as they did had what I value more, consistency.

 

[kyear2]

Of course perspective and all (like Gavaskar being in that tier) ; but for me those two are clear as they did had what I value more, consistency.

I think dominance is just as if not more, along with whom it was done against.

Re Gavaskar, we should do a poll.

Personally I don't see an argument for him to be 2nd best ever.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think dominance is just as if not more, along with whom it was done against.

Re Gavaskar, we should do a poll.

Personally I don't see an argument for him to be 2nd best ever.

I personally also don't see any particularly strong argument for Lara or Smith or Hutton to be the 2nd best also.

I also think dominance in conditions is as if not more important than opposition.

 

[peterhrt]

NZ was an unexplainable anomaly

Sobers wasn't the same batsman for WI after embarking on a well-paid county career in 1968. His motivation was also said to be affected by the criticism of his declaration in Trinidad earlier that year. At the end of that series he was averaging 63 in Tests. His subsequent average was 44.

Sobers' bowling did not appear to be affected though. In fact he bowled even more in Tests, despite having dispensed with the wrist-spin.

 

[kyear2]

I personally also don't see any particularly strong argument for Lara or Smith or Hutton to be the 2nd best also.

I also think dominance in conditions is as if not more important than opposition.

Lara and Smith have persons on this forum who argue that they are the 2nd best ever, credible arguments. A year ago Smith was all but locked at no. 2.

There was just an argument that Smith's peak was just as impressive as IVA's, Lara is quite frankly the best batsman I've ever seen and his specials , especially vs the two greatest spinners ever elevates him to this level

 

[kyear2]

Sobers wasn't the same batsman for WI after embarking on a well-paid county career in 1968. His motivation was also said to be affected by the criticism of his declaration in Trinidad earlier that year. At the end of that series he was averaging 63 in Tests. His subsequent average was 44.

Sobers' bowling did not appear to be affected though. In fact he bowled even more in Tests, despite having dispensed with the wrist-spin.

Between the heavy work loaded county seasons, then the self imposed lengthy fast bowling spells, he wore himself down, and quickly.

He would've benefited greatly by bowling less, yes he wouldn't be the greatest cricketer / all rounder, but he may have been rated even higher as a batsman, and spent more time at 2nd slip, still offering premium value to the team (at least when the had viable attacks)

 

[kyear2]

The very first response on this thread took a shot at Kallis for not bowling enough, but I think for the most part, he was handled well. You protect your best batsman.

He was an ATG batsman, a very good 4th / 5th bowler and brilliant slip fielder, among the best ever. Why run him into the ground just for the right for some to say he justified the all rounder tag.

That's a pretty decent balance, career and legacy of you ask me...

 

[Line and Length]

As great as The Don was, he was susceptible against leggies who had a good 'wrong-un'. Shane Warne might have worked him out.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The very first response on this thread took a shot at Kallis for not blowing enough

I had the same criticism of my first girlfriend

 

[kyear2]

I had the same criticism of my first girlfriend

Same my fiend, same.