Which 4 heads would you put on a cricketing Mount Rushmore?

[Jono]

Malcolm Marshall, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose and Wasim Akram

None of those overhyped batsmen, thanks.

has to be this Ambrose head. Make those guys chisel his hair:

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I think Kerry Packer should be one of the immortalised on this Mount Rushmore of Cricket.

 

[Zinzan]

Oh no that's not my point. I'm not saying India wouldn't be where they are if not for Sachin. I'm sure there would have been other stars whom the nation would have pinned their hopes on to.

Actually you were kind of implying that when you said this weren't you....

The BCCI rise to a financial superpower who now basically has world cricket at its feet was done mostly off the back of Sachin's star power.

But the simple fact that Sachin had to bear that responsibility, and carried it with such dignity and grace, while also being one of the greatest cricketer's of all time...that deserves recognition IMO. The Indian Cricket Industry invested so much into him, the nation heaped so many expectations onto him, and he delivered, and is literally a hero to a billion cricket fans around the world. No cricketer has ever been more scrutinised. Sachin took that and emerged as a legend with an impeccable reputation.

I think to just ignore that because he wasn't one of the 4 best on-field cricketers of all time is unfair.

Sachin's definitely a pillar of modern cricket. The most recognised cricketer in the world, one of the greatest batsmen of all time, fantastic role model...I mean come on, what more do you want?

Once again all I'm essentially getting out of this is that India's population is more the twice of the rest of the cricketing world put together, so of course he'll be the most recognisable, this was the very point I raised... Oh and that he was a good role model.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You guys ruined a thread with potential comedic value beyond any measure. Wahhhh.

To suggest Sachin isn't a potential option for the 4 heads is silly. If someone thinks he doesn't belong, fine. But he's a perfectly reasonable option.

Sorry Jono. What's the midget done except score runs? I'd
sooner put Ajit Agarkar up there than Sachin. Couldn't hack it at lords.

Is this how you do it?

 

[Athlai]

Oh no that's not my point. I'm not saying India wouldn't be where they are if not for Sachin. I'm sure there would have been other stars whom the nation would have pinned their hopes on to.

But the simple fact that Sachin had to bear that responsibility, and carried it with such dignity and grace, while also being one of the greatest cricketer's of all time...that deserves recognition IMO. The Indian Cricket Industry invested so much into him, the nation heaped so many expectations onto him, and he delivered, and is literally a hero to a billion cricket fans around the world. No cricketer has ever been more scrutinised. Sachin took that and emerged as a legend with an impeccable reputation.

I think to just ignore that because he wasn't one of the 4 best on-field cricketers of all time is unfair.

Sachin's definitely a pillar of modern cricket. The most recognised cricketer in the world, one of the greatest batsmen of all time, fantastic role model...I mean come on, what more do you want?

My criteria is different to what others are applying, but I would only be selecting "founding fathers" and Tendulkar isn't that, those who either helped to create the game or who helped to expand it into new territory.

Teddy Roosevelt was dead 10 years prior to the creation of Mt Rushmore, the others long long gone.It wasn't meant to be a contemporary idea of the 4 most significant people to America ever, it was the 4 greatest figures that crafted America in its first 130 years.

 

[Jono]

Sorry Jono. What's the midget done except score runs? I'd
sooner put Ajit Agarkar up there than Sachin. Couldn't hack it at lords.

Is this how you do it?

I agree Ajit should be there, but it should just be a picture of a duck.

 

[OverratedSanity]

has to be this Ambrose head. Make those guys chisel his hair:

This would be an architectural masterpiece

I mean just look at that. It belongs

 

[Jono]

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

My criteria is different to what others are applying, but I would only be selecting "founding fathers" and Tendulkar isn't that, those who either helped to create the game or who helped to expand it into new territory.

Teddy Roosevelt was dead 10 years prior to the creation of Mt Rushmore, the others long long gone.It wasn't meant to be a contemporary idea of the 4 most significant people to America ever, it was the 4 greatest figures that crafted America in its first 130 years.

Sounds like you'd possibly support my Kerry Packer suggestion then. He did not create the game, and it could be argued that he did not "expand" it beyond professionalism outside of England. But he certainly made it a fantastic product for TV and caused initial rule changes to ODI cricket. He set the methods to increase the fan base and make Cricket a commercial product that has significantly financially rewarded players.

 

[Zinzan]

To suggest Sachin isn't a potential option for the 4 heads is silly. If someone thinks he doesn't belong, fine. But he's a perfectly reasonable option.

Not sure anyone said he's not a viable/potention option to be considered as one of the 4 tbf Jono, but a couple have implied it's ridiculous to suggest he wouldn't be, hence why his merits are being debated.

 

[Zinzan]

Sorry Jono. What's the midget done except score runs? I'd
sooner put Ajit Agarkar up there than Sachin. Couldn't hack it at lords.

Is this how you do it?

Lol, now we're getting cynical OS.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This debate isn't going anywhere because everyone's using different criteria to select the 4. Unless some basic criteria are established, debating others' choices is just going to go in circles. As it has been.

 

[Jono]

Not sure anyone said he's not a viable/potention option to be considered as one of the 4 tbf Jono, but a couple have implied it's ridiculous to suggest he wouldn't be, hence why his merits are being debated.

Literally other than Grace and Bradman, no other cricketer should be a shoo-in you'd think.

 

[Athlai]

Sounds like you'd possibly support my Kerry Packer suggestion then. He did not create the game, and it could be argued that he did not "expand" it beyond professionalism outside of England. But he certainly made it a fantastic product for TV and caused initial rule changes to ODI cricket.

I mean I don't think it would be ridiculous to imagine America having Henry Ford on a Mount Rushmore of 6 or so American figures if they created it in the 1960s. So it isn't a terrible shout.

I support the reasoning behind it. Wouldn't personally touch it with a barge pole.

 

[Zinzan]

This debate isn't going anywhere because everyone's using different criteria to select the 4. Unless some basic criteria are established, debating others' choices is just going to go in circles. As it has been.

I didn't necessarily object to Smali's criteria to start with tbh, I was just seeking clarification as to what it was and whether 'number of fans' were his main criteria. I'm sure he'll let us know in time.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Literally other than Grace and Bradman, no other cricketer should be a shoo-in you'd think.

I'm not sure Bradman gets on this mountain. I wouldn't complain if he does, but I am just not sure he gets there.

I would have Grace and Packer ahead of him on the mountain.

 

[Zinzan]

Literally other than Grace and Bradman, no other cricketer should be a shoo-in you'd think.

I'd definitely argue Sobers would be, but yeah the 4th spot is more debatable.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I'd definitely argue Sober would be, but yeah the 4th spot is more debatable.

Zinzan, you're typically a reasonable fellow with sound logic (bar some draft picks and possible team selections, current and ATG, which confuse me). So I ask you, are you doing a hall of fame, or four founding fathers?

 

[mr_mister]

well then thats silly as he is the probably the best sportsman of all time when you consider how much of a statistical outlier he was compared to everyone else(yes i know there are a few other examples of this, especially wheelchair tennis and greco roman wrestling. and michael phelps)

terms like bradmanesque and next-bradman and black bradman and left handed bradman and best after bradman are all terms that have been thrown around. his name is synonymous with batting, and after playing for twenty years he selected for many years after. also he has a bloody museum

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

well then thats silly as he is the probably the best sportsman of all time when you consider how much of a statistical outlier he was compared to everyone else(yes i know there are a few other examples of this, especially wheelchair tennis and greco roman wrestling. and michael phelps)

terms like bradmanesque and next-bradman and black bradman and left handed bradman and best after bradman are all terms that have been thrown around. his name is synonymous with batting, and after playing for twenty years he selected for many years after. also he has a bloody museum

I don't necessarily disagree with the above. But it was on his watch as as an administrator that the World Series Cricket revolution occurred under Kerry Packer. You should read around why this occurred.

Cricket was already the national sport of Australia with great appeal before Bradman was it not? Bradman is the best batsmen to have played the game. That is not in dispute and nor is it the issue. Sobers, according to Bradman, was the best cricketer to have played the game. That also is not in dispute and nor is it the issue at present (but I prefer Imran Khan to Sobers myself).

The issue is, is this the founding fathers of cricket as we know it today, or is it a hall of fame for on field performances?