centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Inspired by the the thread "Who after Don", I have decided to touch on a similar question.
Who really is the Best Cricket Player ever? Is it Don Bradman or one of the great all-rounders?
Although Bradman averaged 100, I feel you have to take into consideration that if he had had to play in this era or in the 70s/80s and play as many tests as the corresponding era, he probably would have averaged quite a bit less due to law of diminishing returns IMO (around 80 Imo if we kept everything else constant). This is only a 20% drop. (This is almost equivalent of another great batsman going from averaging 60 to 50).
Hence, for example, when you consider that someone like Sobers/Kallis took/take a wicket an innings roughly iirc, which we can say is equivalent of 25 runs, in conjunction with scoring 55+ runs on average, you quickly realize there is barely much in it between them and the Don. Then if you add WG Grace into this debate
, the competition becomes only stiffer.
W.G. Grace | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
Crazy stats.
Now bringing Imran Khan and Keith Miller into the mix takes this to a whole new level!
The former took more than 2.5 wickets an innings to go with a batting avg of close to 38 which together add up to 100 runs per full innings!
Even if you looked at just averages, Imran has a bowling avg of 22 which we can say equates roughly to 60....Add in his batting avg and you still get an average of 100 roughly (or 95 if you want to be pedantic about it). It's exactly the same for Keith Miller. His combined average is also very high -- around 95 (bowling avg of 22 and batting avg of 36). After adjustments, maybe 75-80?
This is just an incomplete mathematical side to it and given that there's alot to it than just numbers, the question still remains who really is the best?
(note - I have only included numbers to get you guys thinking about this debate)
Who really is the Best Cricket Player ever? Is it Don Bradman or one of the great all-rounders?
Although Bradman averaged 100, I feel you have to take into consideration that if he had had to play in this era or in the 70s/80s and play as many tests as the corresponding era, he probably would have averaged quite a bit less due to law of diminishing returns IMO (around 80 Imo if we kept everything else constant). This is only a 20% drop. (This is almost equivalent of another great batsman going from averaging 60 to 50).
Hence, for example, when you consider that someone like Sobers/Kallis took/take a wicket an innings roughly iirc, which we can say is equivalent of 25 runs, in conjunction with scoring 55+ runs on average, you quickly realize there is barely much in it between them and the Don. Then if you add WG Grace into this debate
, the competition becomes only stiffer. W.G. Grace | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
Crazy stats.
Now bringing Imran Khan and Keith Miller into the mix takes this to a whole new level!
The former took more than 2.5 wickets an innings to go with a batting avg of close to 38 which together add up to 100 runs per full innings!
Even if you looked at just averages, Imran has a bowling avg of 22 which we can say equates roughly to 60....Add in his batting avg and you still get an average of 100 roughly (or 95 if you want to be pedantic about it). It's exactly the same for Keith Miller. His combined average is also very high -- around 95 (bowling avg of 22 and batting avg of 36). After adjustments, maybe 75-80?This is just an incomplete mathematical side to it and given that there's alot to it than just numbers, the question still remains who really is the best?
(note - I have only included numbers to get you guys thinking about this debate)
Last edited:
