If Sachin is not the greatest then who is?

A lot of my own countrymen are saying that "Sachin only plays for his personal milestones"?

I know it is rubbish. However I would like to know your take on the GOAT of cricket.

Let the argument begin..

Has to be the Don with the bat, with Sachin a very close second.

Overall, Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer that ever lived, in my opinion.

Sobers and Bradman stand out.

You could argue for WG Grace as he practically "invented" modern cricket and no one can do that again. If you look at his figures he was a terrific all rounder.
Sobers would probably get the nod ahead of Bradman who can console himself, in some Elysian Field, with being the greatest BATSMAN of all time.

Sachin is the greatest batsman of all time. He's shown it in test, ODI and t20 cricket. And imo bowler are far better now than at bradmans time.

As cricketers, I rate Bradman, Kallis, Sobers, Imran Khan, Warne, Murali, Marshall, Holding, Lara and Ambrose all above Sachin

Feel you're being harsh there, GG. Kallis, Khan, Ambrose, Holding? No way.

Murli has a very poor record in Australia and always bowled under the clouds of chuking. Warne was a bowler only and had an abysmal record in India. Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness. Ambrose was just a fast bowler and is one of the best and not the greatest. Imran was a good cricketer but had too many distractions and not a very long career in terms of playing real cricket. Kallis is greatest allrounder but never stood out (x-factor). Lara was as good as batsman Sachin.

Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness

--------------------------

81 tests is enough.

Makes me laugh the Indians saying he is playing for milestones...well isn't that what you people won't stop talking about and are pressurising him to achieve?

wow wrote:Murli has a very poor record in Australia and always bowled under the clouds of chuking. Warne was a bowler only and had an abysmal record in India. Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness. Ambrose was just a fast bowler and is one of the best and not the greatest. Imran was a good cricketer but had too many distractions and not a very long career in terms of playing real cricket. Kallis is greatest allrounder but never stood out (x-factor). Lara was as good as batsman Sachin.

Many would place Sobers above Kallis, wow.

Stella wrote:Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness

--------------------------

81 tests is enough.

Not really when you have players who have played 180 tests.

Anyone who would claim there is a better batsman than Bradman is just deluded, it's always difficult (impossible) to rank players from different eras, but Bradman was clearly not just better than any of his contemporaries, he was miles ahead of any of them, something that can't be said of ANY player since.

As for greatest cricketer ever, some will say Sobers, others will say Warne, Bradman or even Murali, but I have to agree with sirfredperry here, Grace was as far ahead of his peers as Bradman was and almost singlehandedly tranformed cricket from a leisurely pastime into the sport we all now love.

wow wrote:

Stella wrote:Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness

--------------------------

81 tests is enough.

Not really when you have players who have played 180 tests.

So, to ascertain greatness you need to have played well over 100 tests?

As per stats and the sheer numbers Kallis needs to be placed above Sir Sobers but like u said people are entitled to their opinions. I am not entirely resourced to comment on Sobers as I never watched him play but between lara and Sachin, I will anyday have Sachin.
Sachin and Lara both debuted at the same time and Sachin has outlasted him already for another 5 years and 51 hundred in tests are incrdulous.
There was a time when Ricky was in the sight of Sachin's hundreds and now Ricky is stagnant at 39 and Sachin on 51 despite of not making any century for past 22 innnings or so.

wow wrote:

Stella wrote:Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness

--------------------------

81 tests is enough.

Not really when you have players who have played 180 tests.

Don't talk garbage, 80-odd Tests is easily enough to assess greatness.

Yes, to be a great longevity has to be considered.

wow wrote:Yes, to be a great longevity has to be considered.

But 13 years and 81 tests IS enough.

Fists of Fury wrote:

wow wrote:

Stella wrote:Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness

--------------------------

81 tests is enough.

Not really when you have players who have played 180 tests.

Don't talk garbage, 80-odd Tests is easily enough to assess greatness.

Calm down son. 80 is 100 less than what Sachin has played. You need to perform at highest level for duration rather than few odd years. Marshall was a name to remember in his own time but Bradman's name is eternal and so will be Sachin's.

If you consider Marshall greatest then Jason Gillespie is also greatest

80 Tests is the duration...nobody plays 80 Tests in a couple of years.

Marshall certainly did have a long career, in those days 81 tests was pretty good. Bradman's average is ridiculous, and the fact no one has even got remotely close to it (over more than about 5 tests) says that he is undoubtedly the best batsman of all time. Sobers and Warne also stand out in my view, as does Grace for different reasons.

My life, you really do talk out of your lower orifice don't you.

For a bowler 80 tests are quite enduring considering he was a tearaway fast bowler then however I will put Marshal under greats but not the greatest.

Marshall's career spanned 13 years by the way (pretty good for a fast bowler) and his average in the low 20s is one of the best. Wouldn't have him ahead of Tendulkar on an absolute list, but to suggest he only had a short career and to compare him to Gillespie is just wrong.

Sorry but are we basing greatness on how many tests you played? That's one way of getting Sachin above Bradman I suppose.
I agree that to be considered great you need to have played a certain number of matches but 81 is more than enough.

My list of greatest cricketers would look something like

1. Bradman (the guy averages roughly 40 runs better than the next best, that's just phenomenal).

2. Grace (as explained above)

3. Sobers (greatest all-round cricketer ever)

4. Warne

5. Tendulkar

WOW
I'm not suggesting Marshall is the greatest Cricketer ever (although he's up there) just that he was a great.

Stella wrote:Sorry but are we basing greatness on how many tests you played? That's one way of getting Sachin above Bradman I suppose.
I agree that to be considered great you need to have played a certain number of matches but 81 is more than enough.

Fine, but even if we consider that criteria. Does Marshall become the greatest cricketer ever to play?
If you ask my opinion, then a firm no.

See above

Yeah it came up after me posted the above

Fists of Fury wrote:Feel you're being harsh there, GG. Kallis, Khan, Ambrose, Holding? No way.

Kallis has a similar batting average and he bowls to a good standard.. Imran was a great bowler, batsman and captain. I've never seen anyone bowl as consistently fast as Ambrose, perhaps not Holding though he was very good.

wow wrote:

Stella wrote:Marshal did not have a long career to ascertain the greatness

--------------------------

81 tests is enough.

Not really when you have players who have played 180 tests.

One player. Not players. And he's a batsmen. Cricinfo tells me that of the 51 players who have reached the milestone of playing 100 tests, only six of them were quick bowlers - Walsh, McGrath, Vaas, Pollock, Akram, Ntini. Of that list, only Akram is near as quick as Marshall.

Marshall's average and strikerate in tandem are the equal of any bowler in history, and he achieved that over a career that, considering his speed, was exceptionally long.

Bradman can claim statistically to not only be the best batsman of all time or even the best cricketer of all time, but the best sportsman of all time. That is how far ahead he is (statistically) of anyone who has ever played the same sport.

To suggest anyone comes near him in terms of batting is lunacy.

You could argue Sobers (all-rounder) or Barnes (bowler) for greatest cricketer. But Kallis has a similar record to Sobers, and the next best bowlers are about 25% off Barnes.

Statistically Bradman is the best cricketer of all time. Given very few here (none?) will have seen him play, statistics is all we can really go on.

this is an entertaining youtube clip about Sobers captaining rest of the world vs Australian in 1971.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SzfWtTZOtA

He was a world class fast bowler and batsman, and could also spin the ball ver well, the first man to hit 6, 6's in an over etc.

Lillee calls him the best batsman he played against and I believe I recall boycott declaring him the best bowler he faced.

As one youtube poster comments he also regularly took apart some of the great spin bowlers on uncovered pitches ... which is feat which the modern test player cannot have the chance to surpase.

One can understand why he is considered by some to the greatest ever - and also I can personally understand the view that Kallis cannot be considered against him.

It would be wonderful to have some more crickters like him around today (i.e. worthy of their place in the team for 2 styles of bowling and batting alone): but as we all know, it's not going to happen any time soon if ever.

the only way you can really compare cricketers of different generations is to look at their records compared to their peers as there have been so many changes to all aspects of the game with bats, pitches and protection than direct comparisons just dont work

bradman was so far ahead of his peers he is without doubt the greatest player to have played. all the arguments about standard of bowling etc etc dont stand up when no-one else got within 40 runs of his average

tendulkar is the greatest player of this generation, his ability to maintain his standards across three formats for such a long time is incredible but doesn't come close to a bradman or a sobers imo.

IMO sachin is much better than sobers, and isnt as far away from bradman as people think..

Sobers was as good a batsman as Sachin and bowled exceptionally well as well.

As a pure batsman I'd lean toward Sachin, however in an overall sense it is very difficult to split them, based on their ability, records, and of course their wider impact on the sport.

Agree with FoF, should really clarify whether you're talking about the greatest batsman or greatest cricketer. Tendulkar's up there with batting but I wouldn't put him in the top twenty if it came to greatest cricketer. Greatest batsman to me is about impressive stats & style which Tendulkar has, greatest cricketer is about ability to win matches which he doesn't.

He obviously contributes in a big way to winning matches through sheer weight of runs, galted, but I know what you are saying.

At the end of the day, bowlers win you matches, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a top 20 list of greatest cricketers mostly populated by the finest all-rounders and the most dynamic bowlers.

Don´t forget Bradman played in the era of black and white so the red ball was easier to pick out. Might explain his average of 99.

Sachin has changed the way he has played over the years. He is now more of an accumulator refusing to give in to temptation and going for shots that are too risky. Whereas in his early rock and roll days with the impetuousness of youth to the fore, he used to take on bowling a lot more.

How you can pick out a great though when he was just a specialist batsman who could throw down a few offies? Shane Warne is like an opposite version of Tendulkar. But neither comes up as the greatest for me. But mainly because I think the greatest is impossible to judge.

Anyone suggesting that there has been or currently is a better batsman than Sir Donald Bradman knows nothing about cricket. Just how many runs do you think modern day batsmen would make on uncovered pitches and without helmets and basically no limit to the number of short pitched deliveries being aimed at them.

The Don is easily and unquestionably the greatest batsman that the game has seen.

Of course, given that he only played in 56 Test matches, there is not enough evidence of his genius.

Eyetoldyouso wrote:Anyone suggesting that there has been or currently is a better batsman than Sir Donald Bradman knows nothing about cricket. Just how many runs do you think modern day batsmen would make on uncovered pitches and without helmets and basically no limit to the number of short pitched deliveries being aimed at them.

The Don is easily and unquestionably the greatest batsman that the game has seen.

Of course, given that he only played in 56 Test matches, there is not enough evidence of his genius.

you forgot the fact that modern batsmen play with bats where a defensive prod will go for four or a top edge will carry for six

rich1uk wrote:

Eyetoldyouso wrote:Anyone suggesting that there has been or currently is a better batsman than Sir Donald Bradman knows nothing about cricket. Just how many runs do you think modern day batsmen would make on uncovered pitches and without helmets and basically no limit to the number of short pitched deliveries being aimed at them.

The Don is easily and unquestionably the greatest batsman that the game has seen.

Of course, given that he only played in 56 Test matches, there is not enough evidence of his genius.

you forgot the fact that modern batsmen play with bats where a defensive prod will go for four or a top edge will carry for six

here

There are many advantages and disadvantages enjoyed by modern day batsmen when viewed against their predecessors. I believe Hoggy has done the best summary I've seen in the "pre-war vs post-war" post. Whether batting is easier or harder nowadays is absolutely impossible to judge. I therefore maintain that the only sensible criterion in judging greatness is to measure a player against his contempories. In that regard of course, Bradman remains far ahead of any other cricketer (and arguably sportsman, if you exclude darts).