What's new

ESPN Legends of Cricket - Top 25 Cricketers Of All Time

Hitman said:
Except that the rest of the world doesn't place him anywhere even near Garry Sobers. You Pak fans can consider him a better cricketer than Bradman, except that the rest of the world doesn't care :)
Click to expand...



BTW Gary Sober is a better cricketer than Imran Khan
 
*sallu* said:
Tendulkar had to be top 5 lol
Click to expand...

List was made when SRT was not even half way on his career so 7th spot is not low for him.


emclub said:
Am I the only one who thinks Mulana :moyo is better than :inzi and :jm ???
Click to expand...

Naah, Miandad is the best batsman produced by Pakistan. Others are a notch below him.


----

In general, I think most will get rated high if they perform against the best bowling unit or batting unit consistently. Just having high average is not going to enough to land up in top 25 list. It's not list based on stat rather where judges place them in history of cricket. Subjective opinion but an informed one. Some players will make it there in updated version but not too many will make it.

And OP was asking about Miandad. Well even Dravid is not there so how come we complain about Miandad.
 
^^ Miandad will always be the best batsman produced by Pak, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ahead of anyone else. Ok, i'll admit Inzamam was really good, but nowhere close to Miandad.
 
Sachin is Great. He even gets into most World Test and Odi Eleven while Imran khan cant. So
 
Imran is the greatest cricketer of all time and obviously that makes him number one from the sub continent as well.

Tendulkar is clearly no 2 from the sub continent.
 
Mamoon_ said:
Imran is the greatest cricketer of all time and obviously that makes him number one from the sub continent as well.

Tendulkar is clearly no 2 from the sub continent.
Click to expand...
I think Sachin won more matches for his team than Imran for his..
Moreover Sachin had a better career and more milestones than him, and every Test and ODI XI has his first pick of Tendu..
 
Robbie said:
I think Sachin won more matches for his team than Imran for his..
Moreover Sachin had a better career and more milestones than him, and every Test and ODI XI has his first pick of Tendu..
Click to expand...

^ Any proof that he won more matches than IK, how could you say he had a better career ? Moreover, Afridi has more milestones than Kapil Dev does that make him better ? No, that doesn't, thus extended longevity doesn't make him a better player, this isn't to say that Tendulkar isn't one of the best batsmen ever, but IK is simply the greatest cricketer ever.
 
Haroon786 said:
^ Any proof that he won more matches than IK, how could you say he had a better career ? Moreover, Afridi has more milestones than Kapil Dev does that make him better ? No, that doesn't, thus extended longevity doesn't make him a better player, this isn't to say that Tendulkar isn't one of the best batsmen ever, but IK is simply the greatest cricketer ever.
Click to expand...

hehe..greatest cricketer ever gas once again. 3 victories outside subcontinent, a fluke world cup where his team lost to more teams than they won against, and a collosul 3800 runs in test cricket are kind of figures that may be good for best ever pakistani cricketer, but fortunately outside world has far greater benchmarks. There could be a strong case for him to be put in the category of top 10 bowlers, which btw would include Mcgrath, Ambrose, Akram, Donald, Steyn, Marshall, Lillee and so IK is no certainty there, but still as i said a strong case to have him there but to call him the greatest cricketer ever is equivalent to calling Ashraful the greatest SC batsman ever.

And if u r going to repeat that lame point of him averaging over 50 as captain with 2000 odd runs, then i guess you should accept Vinod Kambli as better batsman than any pakistani ever, with an average of 54+. So what if he scored only 1000 odd runs, rite?
 
Last edited:
To me for no 1 it is between Dr. W.G Grace,Sir Garfield Sobers and Sir Donald Bradman for the tiltle of the greatest cricketer ofall.W.G.Grace's domination of the game for almost half a century is greater than that of any sportsman ever.Bradman's stats are like a creature from another plane.Gary Sobers is a towering giant as a cricketing all-rounder as though he was sent from above to play cricket who would make an impact on cricket like no cricketer ever.Considering the pitches of his era which were uncut W.G grace was an immortal of his era amassing 54,986 runs and 2,780 wickets.Although he averaged around 39 it was the equivalent of averaging around 60 runs today.Gary Sobers was a giant in every form of the game which his mere statistics could not do justice to.Bradman was simply a machine.

If I had to choose then Gary Sobers would be at 1.W.G.Grace at 2 and Bradman at 3.
Sir JackHobbs to me is 3rd because of his dominating the pre-war and post war periods scoring 197 centuries.One rung below almost on par are Shane Warne,Imran Khan Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar.In that club my order would be Warne,Imran,Viv and Sachin.Warne's match-winning impact,Imran's superlative impact as a fast bowling allrounder ,batsman later in career and skipper.Viv Richards match-winning prowess and Sachin's longevity and consistency have won them my vote.Sachin's lack of that crucial match-winning killer instinct makes him lose a place ahead of Viv or Imran.

Readers please read about the legendary W.G.Grace.He should have been at least in the top 3 if not at 1.!
 
Though i have also commented on whether or not SRT is the greatest and all that but actually this entire discussion is useless. As Rod Laver said about Roger Federer that "Fed is the greatest of his era, and thats the best any player can do i.e. to become the best of his era."

Comparison between players of different era means nothing as there is no way to determine how different players would have fared in diff era. And i do believe that like in all sports bcoz of varied reasons including professionalism, new training techniques etc., players only become better with new era. Only in cricket, ex-players ridicule the current players and show them inferior and thats mainly because the commentary/media is controlled by them. In all other sports, the best performances improve with time. If it was Carl Lewis in 1991 with 9.86, then it was Donovan Bailey in 1996 with 9.85, followed by Maurice Green with 9.79 in 199 and the latest is Usain Bolt with 9.58 in 2009.

Performances only improve with time in all sports, and cricket is no exception. Today we are discussing about SRT, few years down the line we will discuss about some other player, and thats how life and sports go.
 
pungi said:
Though i have also commented on whether or not SRT is the greatest and all that but actually this entire discussion is useless. As Rod Laver said about Roger Federer that "Fed is the greatest of his era, and thats the best any player can do i.e. to become the best of his era."

Comparison between players of different era means nothing as there is no way to determine how different players would have fared in diff era. And i do believe that like in all sports bcoz of varied reasons including professionalism, new training techniques etc., players only become better with new era. Only in cricket, ex-players ridicule the current players and show them inferior and thats mainly because the commentary/media is controlled by them. In all other sports, the best performances improve with time. If it was Carl Lewis in 1991 with 9.86, then it was Donovan Bailey in 1996 with 9.85, followed by Maurice Green with 9.79 in 199 and the latest is Usain Bolt with 9.58 in 2009.

Performances only improve with time in all sports, and cricket is no exception. Today we are discussing about SRT, few years down the line we will discuss about some other player, and thats how life and sports go.
Click to expand...

Disagree, cricket is dependent on factors like quality of opposition in an era, the kind of pitches the game is played on etc.

Chances are that Viv, Chappell, Lara, Tendulkar etc. will be rated higher than the batting greats of the current era due to the severe dearth of quality bowlers in both, the test and ODI arena.

Steyn is the only bowler from this era, who'll be remembered 20 years hence. Unless the quality of bowling drops even further, which is difficult to imagine.
 
Scrolln said:
Disagree, cricket is dependent on factors like quality of opposition in an era, the kind of pitches the game is played on etc.

Chances are that Viv, Chappell, Lara, Tendulkar etc. will be rated higher than the batting greats of the current era due to the severe dearth of quality bowlers in both, the test and ODI arena.

Steyn is the only bowler from this era, who'll be remembered 20 years hence. Unless the quality of bowling drops even further, which is difficult to imagine.
Click to expand...

If the pitches were so much difficult in past, and there were a plethora of better bowlers, then why did so many test matches ended in draw in those days? Surely, better bowlers should lead to quicker wickets, and hence more results but it never happened. I think cricket is unnecessarily romanticized far more than it should be. Things change with time, but in cricket people are just not ready to accept changes. In tennis, no one says that since the rackets are lighter now, compared to wooden rackets of past, so it puts less stress on your arms.
 
pungi said:
If the pitches were so much difficult in past, and there were a plethora of better bowlers, then why did so many test matches ended in draw in those days? Surely, better bowlers should lead to quicker wickets, and hence more results but it never happened. I think cricket is unnecessarily romanticized far more than it should be. Things change with time, but in cricket people are just not ready to accept changes. In tennis, no one says that since the rackets are lighter now, compared to wooden rackets of past, so it puts less stress on your arms.
Click to expand...

I did not mention anything about pitches being flatter nowadays.

Check this out, there have been 19 batsmen who have scored 3000+ runs and averaged 50+ in the 123 years between 1877 and 1999 -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

If you use the same parameters for batsmen since 2001, there have been 16 batsmen who have scored 3000+ runs and averaged 50+ -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2013;spanmin1=01+Jan+2001;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

While i agree the increased number of cricket being played might be a reason but still, the difference is staggering, would you say that the current crop of batsmen are the best we have ever seen?

There has been one ATG bowler operating for the last 5 years since Warne, Mcgrath, Murali retired. When was the last time in cricket history that there was just one ATG bowler for a period of 5 years of more in test cricket?
 
Scrolln said:
I did not mention anything about pitches being flatter nowadays.

Check this out, there have been 19 batsmen who have scored 3000+ runs and averaged 50+ in the 123 years between 1877 and 1999 -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

If you use the same parameters for batsmen since 2001, there have been 16 batsmen who have scored 3000+ runs and averaged 50+ -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2013;spanmin1=01+Jan+2001;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

While i agree the increased number of cricket being played might be a reason but still, the difference is staggering, would you say that the current crop of batsmen are the best we have ever seen?

There has been one ATG bowler operating for the last 5 years since Warne, Mcgrath, Murali retired. When was the last time in cricket history that there was just one ATG bowler for a period of 5 years of more in test cricket?
Click to expand...

No its not if you do the analysis right. Pardon me, i come from an equity analysis background, and i never take things at face value. You have picked a period from 123 years and compared it with a period of 12 years, now lets make that analysis complete.

In that 123 years period, a total of 1526 matches were played, which if you average out would mean around 12 matches per year. Since 2000 till date, 571 test matches have been played, which means an average of 46 matches per year. For an average of 50, and total of 3000 runs, a batsman has to play 60 innings which would mean 30 test matches. For the sake of simplicity, i am not taking into account not outs etc.

For years prior to 2000, to play 30 test matches, assuming 6 teams and 12 matches per year, it would mean a player will have to play for 8-10 years to play 30 matches. Today with 9 teams, a player has to play for 2-2.5 years to play 30 matches. Assuming that a good batsman play for 10 years, he gets 5 times more time to get to 3000 with an average of 50.

So the stat of how many scored more than 3000+ does not indicate anything. Instead you should pull out the numbers of how many runs were scored in those 1526 test matches, and compare this to most recent 571 test matches, and you know the results are not startling at all. Till 2000 for 123 years, average runs per test match were 950, which has since then increased to 1070, which is no big deal. Bowling wise, an average of 30.5 wickets used to fall per test match till 2000, and since then that number has increased to 31.1, again nothing unusual and if at all it only negated the increased batting average.

And btw the % of WON/LOST test matches have increased from 60% till 2000, to 75% since 2000. Overall standard of any sport only improves with time, and cricket is just one example.
 
Last edited:
pungi said:
No its not if you do the analysis right. Pardon me, i come from an equity analysis background, and i never take things at face value. You have picked a period from 123 years and compared it with a period of 12 years, now lets make that analysis complete.

In that 123 years period, a total of 1526 matches were played, which if you average out would mean around 12 matches per year. Since 2000 till date, 571 test matches have been played, which means an average of 46 matches per year. For an average of 50, and total of 3000 runs, a batsman has to play 60 innings which would mean 30 test matches. For the sake of simplicity, i am not taking into account not outs etc.

For years prior to 2000, to play 30 test matches, assuming 6 teams and 12 matches per year, it would mean a player will have to play for 8-10 years to play 30 matches. Today with 9 teams, a player has to play for 2-2.5 years to play 30 matches. Assuming that a good batsman play for 10 years, he gets 5 times more time to get to 3000 with an average of 50.

So the stat of how many scored more than 3000+ does not indicate anything. Instead you should pull out the numbers of how many runs were scored in those 1526 test matches, and compare this to most recent 571 test matches, and you know the results are not startling at all. Till 2000 for 123 years, average runs per test match were 950, which has since then increased to 1070, which is no big deal. Bowling wise, an average of 30.5 wickets used to fall per test match till 2000, and since then that number has increased to 31.1, again nothing unusual and if at all it only negated the increased batting average.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

But how would you explain the dearth of quality bowling nowadays,compared to that of earlier eras? Especially when compared to the 80's,90's?
 
Scrolln said:
Point taken.

But how would you explain the dearth of quality bowling nowadays,compared to that of earlier eras? Especially when compared to the 80's,90's?
Click to expand...

There is no fall in the quality of bowling collectively, but individually bowling quality may have suffered. Teams are taking 20 wickets to win matches, more often than in the past, though there may not be bowlers who would take 5fers so often.

The difference is that game has become fast. Today scoring rate of 3.5 per over is nothing special, in the past 2.5 used to be the average, so bowlers' bowling averages are suffering. Batsmen are far more attacking today, they play more shots, score quickly, the entire attitude towards batting has changed completely.
 
Last edited:
pungi said:
There is no fall in the quality of bowling collectively, but individually bowling quality may have suffered. Teams are taking 20 wickets to win matches, more often than in the past, though there may not be bowlers who would take 5fers so often.

The difference is that game has become fast. Today scoring rate of 3.5 per over is nothing special, in the past 2.5 used to be the average, so bowlers' bowling averages are suffering. Batsmen are far more attacking today, they play more shots, score quickly, the entire attitude towards batting has changed completely.
Click to expand...

I think the batsman can score at a high SR due to the lack of quality bowling.

Even when we experienced a revolution in ODI cricket in the 90's , with batsmen becoming increasingly attacking, bowlers like McGrath, Donald, Akram etc, never let that happen in test cricket.
 
Scrolln said:
I think the batsman can score at a high SR due to the lack of quality bowling.

Even when we experienced a revolution in ODI cricket in the 90's , with batsmen becoming increasingly attacking, bowlers like McGrath, Donald, Akram etc, never let that happen in test cricket.
Click to expand...

It's more due to attitude of batsmen around the world. Transition of mindset takes time and now with T-20, you will see even an average batsman fancying his chance against bowlers like Steyn.
 
OK, so there indeed was a list, so I give credit to OP for that but just like comparing cricketers of different eras is difficult or impossible...taking a list compiled some 15 years ago as the absolute truth is rather difficult because if polled now, I am sure the player's list and their respective order would change a lot!

It would be interesting to see if the same 15 panelists are asked now (or any that are still alive) will put the list in the same order and whether all/most of the same players will even make it to the list!
 
Yellow Submarine said:
In 2001, ESPN, by forming an eminent panel of about 15 judges (mostly former greats like Hadlee, Benaud, Akram, Gavaskar, etc and about 2-3 cricket experts), made a list of the top 25 greatest cricketers of all time. They called the chapter 'ESPN Legends of Cricket'. Very recently, ESPN joined hands with Cricinfo and merged that chapter with it.

After naming the top 25 legends, for namesake they extended the list and named the next 25 (to make it a total of 50 players), just like Cricinfo recently made 2 teams in it's 'All Time Test World XI' chapter, one was the primary one, and the other for namesake.

Javed Miandad didn't find a place in the top 25 list. It was when that list was extended, he found the 44th spot.

What's interesting is that each one of his contemporaries in Viv Richards (3rd spot), Sunny Gavaskar (10th spot), Greg Chappell (17th spot) and Allan Border (25th spot) found a place in the top 25 list.

Here's the list -



Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Legends_of_Cricket


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

Why is that?


P.S. I've found the list of the judges that formed the panel -
Click to expand...

Pretty amazing for Tendulkar to have secured #7 way back in 2001.

An updated list should put him in top 2, nothing less than that. Its already insulting to see Viv and Sobers featuring there above him. What kind of a joke is that, Tendulkar's twice the player.
 
Warne too would have jumped some places in an updated list.

Oops, he is already at 4. Must be #1 in the new list.
 
Stallion__ said:
Warne too would have jumped some places in an updated list.

Oops, he is already at 4. Must be #1 in the new list.
Click to expand...


Why not? Shane Warne was a wizard and revolutionized spin bowling, especially leg spin bowling in the game. I wont at all mind an updated Top 3 of Tendulkar, Bradman and Warne.
 
Stallion__ said:
Warne too would have jumped some places in an updated list.

Oops, he is already at 4. Must be #1 in the new list.
Click to expand...

What did Warne achieve after 2001 that would change his ranking ?...

I can think of a few good series but nothing that would change his ranking...

It's not very different for Sachin as well
 
McGrath, Steyn, Lara would end up in the list if there were a new edition.

As for ranking, it will always be controversial.. Can't keep everyone happy
 
leg-side-flick said:
What did Warne achieve after 2001 that would change his ranking ?...

I can think of a few good series but nothing that would change his ranking...

It's not very different for Sachin as well
Click to expand...

Stallion__ said:
Thats what I was trying to say.
Click to expand...


Tendulkar was one of the greats in 2001.

After his resurrection in 2007 and during the second dominating reign from 2007-2011 he became the greatest of all time.



As for Warne, he resurrected his career the same way post the drug usage ban although not quite as sensation as Sachin's but still rather impressive.
 
Monsee said:
The list from OP came from a damn WIKI pedia page which has since been deleted...there is that and that is all I have to say:srt:yk2

See for yourslef: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Legends_of_Cricket

So much for trolling and all that!
Click to expand...

Monsee said:
OK, so there indeed was a list, so I give credit to OP for that but just like comparing cricketers of different eras is difficult or impossible...taking a list compiled some 15 years ago as the absolute truth is rather difficult because if polled now, I am sure the player's list and their respective order would change a lot!

It would be interesting to see if the same 15 panelists are asked now (or any that are still alive) will put the list in the same order and whether all/most of the same players will even make it to the list!
Click to expand...

Hopefully you were embarrassed by your first post. Of course you wanted to rubbish that list as a hoax since your hero was rated behind Sachin that too while the Indian was just halfway through his career. But then you finally found out that the list was genuinely made by those 15 highly qualified people. Mind you, out of those 15 judges, only 1 is an Indian. And there are legends of the game out of those 15 people. And 9 of them played in the same time as Imran.


All I want to point out is that people outside of Pakistan don't rate Imran as the greatest ever. Heck, this list proves that those 15 highly qualified people rated Sachin as a better cricketer than your hero that too when Sachin was just half way through his career in 2001.

Here's a laughable post of yours from a thread where you were boasting on how Sachin is not even half the cricketer that Imran was -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-60-Years-of-Asian-Heroes&p=842654#post842654

Monsee said:
HaHaHa...that Zakhmi Kohni is not even half the man/cricketer Imran was/is and when we talk of Heroism; teenda is 10 times less then the Khan

Maybe they should also include Kapil in their list for great displays of Public Crying...
Click to expand...
 
Has this been revised since 2001?

Any new entry in top 25 according to fans?
 
Ab Fan said:
Lara, Ponting, Steyn should make it in the top 20 itself. I rate Kallis over Shaun Pollock.So IMO, he should also be there.
Click to expand...

Didn't realize Lara didn't even make the original list. Wow!
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Didn't realize Lara didn't even make the original list. Wow!
Click to expand...

Yes..Lara misses out. Only Warne and Sachin among modern era players made it to the list.

Since we have the contemporaries Viv, Gavaskar, Chapell and Border in the top 25, I expect the updated should have Sachin,Lara, Ponting and Steyn in it. Kallis and Dravid might just sneek too although its debatable.Same for Gilly.
 
aliasad1998 said:
What a blasphemous list. How can He (notice the capital H) be at 7
Click to expand...

Bit strange given they rated Warne higher who's achievements weren't yet as great as Sachin's.

Anyway the biggest crime is WG Grace at #14.
 
So this list basically confirms Sachin is the greatest Asian cricketer ever. Not that we ever had any doubt but glad that all expert panelists think the same as well :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
Bump!

Does anyone think think that Dale Steyn does deserve to make the list? I personally think he deserves a place in place of Kapil Dev definitely. His Test achievements are simply mind blowing, to say the least.
 
Imran Khan is the best cricketer from the subcontinent. Period.

Wasim, Murali and Sachin are equals and joint second. The best at their craft across formats. However, each of them was a specialist and inferior to Imran, who was a three in one player.
 
Bilal7 said:
Imran Khan is the best cricketer from the subcontinent. Period.

Wasim, Murali and Sachin are equals and joint second. The best at their craft across formats. However, each of them was a specialist and inferior to Imran, who was a three in one player.
Click to expand...

I really wanted to ask posters of their opinion on the Dale Steyn issue.

Coming back to you, here's the equation -

Your opinion vs the opinion of (Wasim Akram, Sunil Gavaskar, Richie Benaud, Sir Richard Hadlee, Dickie Bird, Michael Holding, Allan Border, John Knowles, Ian Botham, Robin Marlar, Ian Chappell, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Tony Cozier, Mike Procter and Martin Crowe)

That too in 2001, when Imran Khan finished his career way back in 1992 while Sachin was just halfway through his career. We all know whose opinion holds more weightage :D
 
Hitman said:
I really wanted to ask posters of their opinion on the Dale Steyn issue.

Coming back to you, here's the equation -

Your opinion vs the opinion of (Wasim Akram, Sunil Gavaskar, Richie Benaud, Sir Richard Hadlee, Dickie Bird, Michael Holding, Allan Border, John Knowles, Ian Botham, Robin Marlar, Ian Chappell, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Tony Cozier, Mike Procter and Martin Crowe)

That too in 2001, when Imran Khan finished his career way back in 1992 while Sachin was just halfway through his career. We all know whose opinion holds more weightage :D
Click to expand...

This right here is the problem with premature comparisons between players who are still playing and those that have retired.

Sachin wasn't known as the selfish match-loser back in 2001 that he became infamous for by 2011. People did not see him turn into a joke in his latter years but they certainly did see all of Imran's highs and also his lows. For example, they did not see him choke in hilarious fashion in two World Cup finals nor did they view him score his 100th hundred at the cost of his team's victory. The opinions of those experts you mentioned would undoubtedly change if you ask them to weigh in on the Imran vs Sachin debate today.

Anyways, the simple logic of three being greater than one has more weight than anything you Sachin fans can produce to put your idol on a higher pedestal than he deserves.

1) Imran Khan

2) Sachin/Wasim/Murali
3) Wasim/Murali/Sachin
4) Murali/Sachin/Wasim

5) Waqar/Miandad/Gavasker/Dravid/Sangakkara

^ The hierarchy of Asian cricket.
 
My 25 -(in no order)

I've gone for 10 batsmen,10 bowlers and 5 allrounders


Sobers
Kallis
Hadlee
Imran
Botham

Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Lara
Ponting
Gavaskar
G.Chapell
Jack Hobbs
W.G.Grace(for being the pioneer)
Gilchrist(for wk slot)

Marshall
Lillee
Akram
Ambrose
Mcgrath
Steyn
Waqar
Garner
Warne
Muralitharan

In total - 7 Australians,6 West indians,3 English,3 Pakistanis,2 South africans,2 Indians,1 New Zealander and 1 Sri Lankan.
 
Bilal7 said:
This right here is the problem with premature comparisons between players who are still playing and those that have retired.

Sachin wasn't known as the selfish match-loser back in 2001 that he became infamous for by 2011. People did not see him turn into a joke in his latter years but they certainly did see all of Imran's highs and also his lows. For example, they did not see him choke in hilarious fashion in two World Cup finals nor did they view him score his 100th hundred at the cost of his team's victory. The opinions of those experts you mentioned would undoubtedly change if you ask them to weigh in on the Imran vs Sachin debate today.

Anyways, the simple logic of three being greater than one has more weight than anything you Sachin fans can produce to put your idol on a higher pedestal than he deserves.

1) Imran Khan

2) Sachin/Wasim/Murali
3) Wasim/Murali/Sachin
4) Murali/Sachin/Wasim

5) Waqar/Miandad/Gavasker/Dravid/Sangakkara

^ The hierarchy of Asian cricket.
Click to expand...

Errrr, here's David Gower (Imran's contemporary) making his list of 50 greatest cricketers lately. Such a same he too believes that Imran isn't fit to be anywhere to stand close to Sachin :)))

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...id-Gower-s-50-Greatest-Cricketers-of-All-Time
 
Hitman said:
Errrr, here's David Gower (Imran's contemporary) making his list of 50 greatest cricketers lately. Such a same he too believes that Imran isn't fit to be anywhere to stand close to Sachin :)))

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...id-Gower-s-50-Greatest-Cricketers-of-All-Time
Click to expand...
Maybe because he doesn't have fond memories of IK and his merry men from 87'. Botham ( Gower's best friend ) once said that Pakistan is where you send your mother-in-law. No surprise that on YT where he lists his top cricketers, Imran doesn't feature either. Meanwhile Imran on the other hand had no problem recognizing Sunny as the best batsmen of his era along with Viv despite their fierce battles and rivalry.
 
Some gross listings...
1) Waugh has to be ranked higher than Kapil.
2) Sachin should be at #3.
3) McGrath should be in top 15.
4) No way in hell DK is a better cricketer than Marshall.
Poor list just exaggerating old-timers.
 
Waqar Yunus is among the best bowlers of all time and can make it to any list of top 10 bowlers. Therefore he should be placed in legends of cricket, top 25. Any list without Waqar is lame.
 
Bilal7 said:
This right here is the problem with premature comparisons between players who are still playing and those that have retired.

Sachin wasn't known as the selfish match-loser back in 2001 that he became infamous for by 2011. People did not see him turn into a joke in his latter years but they certainly did see all of Imran's highs and also his lows. For example, they did not see him choke in hilarious fashion in two World Cup finals nor did they view him score his 100th hundred at the cost of his team's victory. The opinions of those experts you mentioned would undoubtedly change if you ask them to weigh in on the Imran vs Sachin debate today.

Anyways, the simple logic of three being greater than one has more weight than anything you Sachin fans can produce to put your idol on a higher pedestal than he deserves.

1) Imran Khan

2) Sachin/Wasim/Murali
3) Wasim/Murali/Sachin
4) Murali/Sachin/Wasim

5) Waqar/Miandad/Gavasker/Dravid/Sangakkara

^ The hierarchy of Asian cricket.
Click to expand...

Agree with all the points except Sachin’s 100th 100 came at the cost of nation’s victory. Ind was batting first and they could not defend 293. Any team which can not defend 293 against mighty Bang, does not deserve to win and bowlers should be blamed not the batsman.
 
OzilGooner said:
Waqar Yunus is among the best bowlers of all time and can make it to any list of top 10 bowlers.
Click to expand...

Just among his peers - Wasim, McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Warne & Murali were better bowlers than him. That's 6 out of 10. Now can we find 4 other bowlers better than Waqar in other eras?
 
Last edited:
Buffet said:
Just among his peers - Wasim, McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Warne & Murali were better bowlers than him. That's 6 out of 10. Now can we find 4 other bowlers better than Waqar in other eras?
Click to expand...

Pollock was better too. Walsh was better in tests.
 
This series is nearly 20 years old. One of my favourites. Tendulkar was only half way through his career and already rated higher than some all time greats. Imagine any top player now rated this high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhaijaan
Childhood cricket memories becoming vintage nostalgia : A bittersweet realisation of the passage of time
Replies
44
Views
1K
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
Unbiased-Fan
Australia's 2nd All Time Test XI is better than most of team's regular All Time XI.
Replies
14
Views
1K
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
MenInG
Duncan Fearnley passes away at age of 83 following a brief illness
Replies
2
Views
380
MenInG
MenInG
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Inzamam-ul-Haq, Misbah-ul-Haq, Mushtaq Mohammad and Saeed Anwar named in the PCB Hall of Fame for 2024
2
Replies
106
Views
3K
RizwanT20Champ
R
T
Your Top 10 Test all-rounders of all-time
Replies
10
Views
2K
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
Back
Top