What's new

Rank these potential GOATs from 1-12

Bilal7

Bilal7

T20I Star
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Runs
31,707
Post of the Week
1
The contenders (in no particular order):

- Don Bradman
- Glenn McGrath
- Shane Warne
- Sachin Tendulker
- Imran Khan
- Wasim Akram
- Jacques Kallis
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Brian Lara
- Gary Sobers
- Malcolm Marshall
- Viv Richards

The contenders were selected mainly on the basis of test cricket but ODI performances were also taken into account. Players skilled in more than one discipline were given extra points over specialists but this only mattered when picking between two comparable cricketers.

How would you rank these ten best-of-the-best cricketers from 1-12?
 
1. Don bradman
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Imran Khan
4. Viv Richards
5. Muttiah Muralitharan
6. Wasim Akram
7. Shane Warne
8. Jacques Kallis
9. Brian Lara
10. Glenn McGrath
I dont know enough about Gary Sobers and Malcolm Marshall to rank them. It was a tough list to be honest, the only one I am actually 100% sure about is Bradmans position.
 
1. D Bradman
2. G Sobers
3. S Tendulkar
4. V Richards
5. S warne
6. S Gavaskar
7. W Akram
8= I. Khan
8= G McGrath
10. M Marshall
11= J kallis
11= B Lara
13. M Murlidharan
 
Potential?? What does that mean?

They all are retired.
 
Bilal7 said:
The contenders (in no particular order):

- Don Bradman
- Glenn McGrath
- Shane Warne
- Sachin Tendulker
- Imran Khan
- Wasim Akram
- Jacques Kallis
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Brian Lara
- Gary Sobers
- Malcolm Marshall
- Viv Richards

The contenders were selected mainly on the basis of test cricket but ODI performances were also taken into account. Players skilled in more than one discipline were given extra points over specialists but this only mattered when picking between two comparable cricketers.

How would you rank these ten best-of-the-best cricketers from 1-12?
Click to expand...

- Don Bradman
- Gary Sobers
- Sachin Tendulkar
- Shane Warne
- Viv Richards
- Imran Khan
- Brian Lara
- Glenn McGrath
- Jacques Kallis
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Malcolm Marshall
- Wasim Akram
 
Imran Khan
Sachin Tendulkar - (along with Lara if Test only)
Viv Richards
Marshall
Wasim Akram along with McGrath
Shane Warne
Muralitharan
Garry Sobers
Don Bradman
Kallis
 
- Imran Khan
- Gary Sobers
- Viv Richards
- Brian Lara
- Sachin Tendulker
- Glenn McGrath
- Malcolm Marshall
- Wasim Akram
- Jacques Kallis
- Shane Warne
- Don Bradman
- Muttiah Muralitharan
 
From the given 12 contenders, he is my ranked list:

1.Gary Sobers
2.Wasim Akram
3.Muttiah Muralitharan
4.Sachin Tendulkar
5.Jacques Kallis
6.Imran Khan
7.Viv Richards
8.Don Bradman
9.Brian Lara
10.Shane Warne
11.Glenn McGrath
12.Malcom Marshall
 
ChennaiFan said:
From the given 12 contenders, he is my ranked list:

1.Gary Sobers
2.Wasim Akram
3.Muttiah Muralitharan
4.Sachin Tendulkar
5.Jacques Kallis
6.Imran Khan
7.Viv Richards
8.Don Bradman
9.Brian Lara
10.Shane Warne
11.Glenn McGrath
12.Malcom Marshall
Click to expand...

Viv Richards below Tendulkar and Imran Khan ? Why ?
 
Vegitto1 said:
- Imran Khan
- Gary Sobers
- Viv Richards
- Brian Lara
- Sachin Tendulker
- Glenn McGrath
- Malcolm Marshall
- Wasim Akram
- Jacques Kallis
- Shane Warne
- Don Bradman
- Muttiah Muralitharan
Click to expand...

Bradman below Kallis ?
 
Hitman said:
- Don Bradman
- Gary Sobers
- Sachin Tendulkar
- Shane Warne
- Viv Richards
- Imran Khan
- Brian Lara
- Glenn McGrath
- Jacques Kallis
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Malcolm Marshall
- Wasim Akram
Click to expand...

Why is Akram so low .. and Imran so high ?
 
Keeping your criterion in mind,


---

The contenders were selected mainly on the basis of test cricket but ODI performances were also taken into account. Players skilled in more than one discipline were given extra points over specialists but this only mattered when picking between two comparable cricketers.

-----

1 - Bradman
2 - Marshall
3 - SRT
4 - McGrath
5 - Murali
6 - IK
7 - Viv
8 - Warne
9 - Lara
10 - Kallis
11 - Soberse
12 - Wasim

Again, I put substantially more weight on test and in their primary skills. If I put the same list again after 1 day, I am 100% sure that it will look different. Difference between many are not huge enough for me.
 
axis said:
Viv Richards below Tendulkar and Imran Khan ? Why ?
Click to expand...

Oh his Viv Richards would be a killer of a batsman like nobody ever played. He was daring, had great hand-eye coordination, and good footwork. But he lacked consistency and discipline.

Sachin put a price on his wicket and was batting genius. Imran Khan was a cricket guru. His captaincy was better than that of Richards'.
 
Dont think Murali would be allowed to bowl his doosra's if he played cricket now.
Also you forgot to include the second best batsman ever to play cricket .... Graeme Pollock.
 
Bilal7 said:
The contenders (in no particular order):

- Don Bradman
- Glenn McGrath
- Shane Warne
- Sachin Tendulker
- Imran Khan
- Wasim Akram
- Jacques Kallis
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Brian Lara
- Gary Sobers
- Malcolm Marshall
- Viv Richards

The contenders were selected mainly on the basis of test cricket but ODI performances were also taken into account. Players skilled in more than one discipline were given extra points over specialists but this only mattered when picking between two comparable cricketers.

How would you rank these ten best-of-the-best cricketers from 1-12?
Click to expand...

No Ponting? Not a worthy enough list in all honest. I will remove Lara and include Ponting and as I have said for a long time, in cricket you can not simply rank players because the roles are so different, so I will do it based on batsmen, bowlers and all rounders.

Bowlers -

1. Wasim Akram
2. Muttiah Muralitharan
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Shane Warne
5. Malcolm Marshall

Batsmen -

1. Viv Richards
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Don Bradman

All Rounders -

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
 
barah_admi said:
No Ponting? Not a worthy enough list in all honest. I will remove Lara and include Ponting and as I have said for a long time, in cricket you can not simply rank players because the roles are so different, so I will do it based on batsmen, bowlers and all rounders.

Bowlers -

1. Wasim Akram
2. Muttiah Muralitharan
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Shane Warne
5. Malcolm Marshall

Batsmen -

1. Viv Richards
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Don Bradman

All Rounders -

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
Click to expand...

How can you put Kallis below Imran Khan ?
 
1 - Bradman
2 - IK
3 - SRT
4 - McGrath
5 - Viv
6 - Marshall
7 - Wasim
8 - Warne
9 - Lara
10 - Kallis
11 - Sobers
12 - Muralitharan
 
Lol at those who are not picking Imran as the best.. he redefined how cricket should be played.. he was averaging 50+ with the bat and 14 with the ball at one duration.. not sure anyone could match him..

He was the undisputed champion ..
 
Here's my subjective ranking:

1. Don Bradman
2. Gary Sobers
3. Shane Warne
4. Viv Richards
5. Malcolm Marshall
6. Sachin Tendulkar
7. Imran Khan
8. Brian Lara
9. Wasim Akram
10. Glenn McGrath
11. Jacques Kallis
N/A. Muttiah Muralitharan
 
Don Bradman

DAYLIGHT

Imran Khan
Jacques Kallis
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulker
Muttiah Muralitharan
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Gary Sobers
Brian Lara
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
 
Here you go:

1. Don Bradman

2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Imran Khan
4. Wasim Akram

5. Viv Richards
6. Brian Lara
7. Gary Sobers

8. Glenn McGrath
9. Shane Warne
10. Sachin Tendulker
11. Muttiah Muralitharan
12. Jacques Kallis

My biased opinion.
 
Ab Fan said:
Potential?? What does that mean?

They all are retired.
Click to expand...

Not the best word choice but potential in this case is used because everyone's GOAT will be different but it is highly likely that it will be one of these.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
barah_admi said:
No Ponting? Not a worthy enough list in all honest. I will remove Lara and include Ponting and as I have said for a long time, in cricket you can not simply rank players because the roles are so different, so I will do it based on batsmen, bowlers and all rounders.

Bowlers -

1. Wasim Akram
2. Muttiah Muralitharan
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Shane Warne
5. Malcolm Marshall

Batsmen -

1. Viv Richards
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Don Bradman

All Rounders -

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
Click to expand...

Ponting was inferior to Sachin and Lara during his playing days. He's never been considered a GOAT by anyone.
 
1. Sachin Tendulkar
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Shane Warne
4. Donald Bradman
5. Viv Richards
6. Wasim Akram
7. Jacques Kallis
8. Brian Lara
9. Gary Sobers
10. Malcolm Marshall
11. Muralitharan
12. Imran Khan (The Waterboy)
 
Sobers is easily the GOAT cricketer. It is not close by the consensus of cricket aficionados. That does not mean ******* from the youtube age who are in HS and unfamiliar with the history of the sport.
 
This is how I would rank them:

1) Imran Khan
2) Don Bradman
3) Gary Sobers
4) Viv Richards
5) Malcolm Marshall
6) Jacques Kallis
7) Wasim Akram
8) Sachin Tendulker
9) Muttiah Muralitharan
10) Glenn McGrath
11) Shane Warne
12) Brian Lara
 
1. Bradman
2. Sachin
3. Sobers
4. Viv
5. Warne
6. Lara
7. Imran
8. Marshall
9. Mcgrath
10. Muralitharan
11. Akram
12. Kallis
 
For me GOAT is cricketer who is an all arounder someone who can bat bowl and field here's my list

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Don Bradman
4. Viv Richards
5. Sachin
6. Brian Lara
7. Wasim Akram
8. Glenn McGrath
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. jacques kallis
11. Shane Warne
12. murali
 
nextover666666 said:
For me GOAT is cricketer who is an all arounder someone who can bat bowl and field here's my list

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Don Bradman
4. Viv Richards
5. Sachin
6. Brian Lara
7. Wasim Akram
8. Glenn McGrath
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. jacques kallis
11. Shane Warne
12. murali
Click to expand...

If that is true, why is Kallis rated at #10?
 
Bilal7 said:
The contenders (in no particular order):

- Don Bradman
- Glenn McGrath
- Shane Warne
- Sachin Tendulker
- Imran Khan
- Wasim Akram
- Jacques Kallis
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Brian Lara
- Gary Sobers
- Malcolm Marshall
- Viv Richards

The contenders were selected mainly on the basis of test cricket but ODI performances were also taken into account. Players skilled in more than one discipline were given extra points over specialists but this only mattered when picking between two comparable cricketers.

How would you rank these ten best-of-the-best cricketers from 1-12?
Click to expand...
Sachin Tendulkar
 
McGrath
Sachin
Viv
Warne
Imran Khan
Bradman
Wasim
Malcom
Sobers
Lara
Murali
Kallis
 
Sachin
Lara
Warne
Akram
McGrath
Murali
Kallis

Rest of them are just folklores for me. Not gonna rate.
 
Lol at those who are not picking Imran as the best.. he redefined how cricket should be played.. he was averaging 50+ with the bat and 14 with the ball at one duration.. not sure anyone could match him..

He was the undisputed champion ..
 
Overall (ODI's and Tests) in order of merit

Sobers
Tendulkar
Bradman
Warne
Viv Richards
Imran Khan
Marshall
Lara
Wasim
Mcgrath
Murlitharan
Kallis

Sobers at the top whose all-round cricketing ability was simply on another pedestal who could shape games more than any cricketer ever .To me morally he was more impactful than Bradman.Tendulkar ahead of Bradman considering the era he played in the impact he made and pressure he faced in both forms of cricket which was hard to envisage the Don surpassing.Don was simply a cricketing machine in another league but remember he only played against England and in an era when bowling standards were considerably lower than the times of Gavaskar or Tendullkar.Warne at 4 because he re-defined the role of the legspinner in cricket.Viv Richards at 5 because no batsmen could pulverize a bowling attack or turn the complexion of a game as much.Imran Khan at no 6 as he shaped the destiny of his nation more than any cricketer of the last 50 years as a fast bowling all-rounder and skipper.Lara was ranked a little low down because of inconsistency but at his best he could eclipse Tendulkar.Marshall took the art of fast bowling to a supreme height overshadowing the greatest bowlers ever in the pace quartet and played the biggest role in West Indies becoming the all-time champion test side.Wasim Akram took cricketing art in fast bowling to regions of the sublime and was the best ODI bowler of all.Kallis at the bottom as though statistically he was the greatest he lacked the match-winning ot attacking prowess of Sober,.Sachin or Wasim.


Only test cricket in order of merit

Sobers
Bradman
Warne
Imran
Marshall
Lara
Tendulkar
Viv
Mcgrath
Murlitharan
Wasim
Kallis

Noteworthy reversal of position sin only test cricket.Imran and Marshall rank much higher here because of relative impact in shaping team's fortunes.Lara may just brush Tendulkar turning more games when the chips were down but really touch and go.Mcgrath just clinches the issue with Wasim beacuse of statistics and impact.
 
axis said:
Lol at those who are not picking Imran as the best.. he redefined how cricket should be played.. he was averaging 50+ with the bat and 14 with the ball at one duration.. not sure anyone could match him..

He was the undisputed champion ..
Click to expand...

And yet in another thread you were claiming how performance in 4th innings differentiate men from boys, trying to diss Kohli. Do you know Imran's bowling record in 4th innings of Tests? :))
 
axis said:
Lol at those who are not picking Imran as the best.. he redefined how cricket should be played.. he was averaging 50+ with the bat and 14 with the ball at one duration.. not sure anyone could match him..

He was the undisputed champion ..
Click to expand...
Averaging 50+ because of Not outs. He wasn't scoring heavily at all barring last 15 test matches
 
- Don Bradman
- Gary Sobers
- Viv Richards
- Glenn McGrath ≈ Malcolm Marshall
- Brian Lara
- Imran Khan
- Jacques Kallis
- Wasim Akram
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Shane Warne
- Sachin Tendulkar
 
Proactive_ said:
- Don Bradman
- Gary Sobers
- Viv Richards
- Glenn McGrath ≈ Malcolm Marshall
- Brian Lara
- Imran Khan
- Jacques Kallis
- Wasim Akram
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Shane Warne
- Sachin Tendulkar
Click to expand...

Si you consider Tendulkar as a ATG then ? :))
 
Tusker said:
Si you consider Tendulkar as a ATG then ? :))
Click to expand...

Didn't you say once that Stuart Broad is a better bowler than Imran Khan? Yeah, I don't think I need to clarify my preferences on whose ATG and whose not to you of all people :))
 
Proactive_ said:
Didn't you say once that Stuart Broad is a better bowler than Imran Khan? Yeah, I don't think I need to clarify my preferences on whose ATG and whose not to you of all people :))
Click to expand...

And I also gave you the reason. Do you dispute that?
 
Proactive_ said:
Didn't you say once that Stuart Broad is a better bowler than Imran Khan? Yeah, I don't think I need to clarify my preferences on whose ATG and whose not to you of all people :))
Click to expand...

Tusker said:
And I also gave you the reason. Do you dispute that?
Click to expand...

Also dont forget your take on longevity .... per your "formula" Adam Voges > Kohli based on Avg :))
 
anoop said:
Averaging 50+ because of Not outs. He wasn't scoring heavily at all barring last 15 test matches
Click to expand...

Is it a child's play to remain not outs in Test matches.. his effort made him remain so and maintain that average.. 50+ average is what separates men from boys.
 
Proactive_ said:
Well why don't you start by first showing me where I said that Voges > Kohli then?
Click to expand...

By extrapolating your responses on the Imran vs SRT thread where you claimed longevity is inconsequential or words to that effect
 
Tusker said:
By extrapolating your responses on the Imran vs SRT thread where you claimed longevity is inconsequential or words to that effect
Click to expand...

Well then I'm only extrapolating your tendency to put longevity on a pedestal as well. It's fair game.

128 Tests vs 52 Tests, surely seeing the massive gap in "longevity", you would definitely rate Mark Waugh over Don Bradman, right?
 
Proactive_ said:
Well then I'm only extrapolating your tendency to put longevity on a pedestal as well. It's fair game.

128 Tests vs 52 Tests, surely seeing the massive gap in "longevity", you would definitely rate Mark Waugh over Don Bradman, right?
Click to expand...

You need to understand what I write... I have repeatedly stated that professional era, higher standards trump amateur era and lower standards and therefore its pointless to compare across vastly disconnected eras.
 
Tusker said:
You need to understand what I write... I have repeatedly stated that professional era, higher standards trump amateur era and lower standards and therefore its pointless to compare across vastly disconnected eras.
Click to expand...

And I've already told you why that line of reasoning is absolute nonsense. Cricket isn't going to stop evolving in 2018. It will keep evolving and there would come a time where the standards of 90s and 2010s would look amateurish in comparison. Surely, you won't start crapping on the likes of Tendulkar and Kohli like you do while belittling the achievements of every cricketer pre 90s then, would you?
 
Proactive_ said:
And I've already told you why that line of reasoning is absolute nonsense. Cricket isn't going to stop evolving in 2018. It will keep evolving and there would come a time where the standards of 90s and 2010s would look amateurish in comparison. Surely, you won't start crapping on the likes of Tendulkar and Kohli like you do while belittling the achievements of every cricketer pre 90s then, would you?
Click to expand...

And I have answered this as well. If the gap in standards is as huge as it is between now and Bradmans time then it would be foolish to pretend that SRT > Players from the future era. Time does not wait for anyone. Only store losers live in the past and keep whinging.
 
Tusker said:
And I have answered this as well. If the gap in standards is as huge as it is between now and Bradmans time then it would be foolish to pretend that SRT > Players from the future era. Time does not wait for anyone. Only store losers live in the past and keep whinging.
Click to expand...

And what is your criteria and methodology of quantifying the change in standards? For instance, the fielding standards have improved by MILES from the 90s to the point now that the likes of Ranatunga, Inzamam and lots of others would have never even made the teams today based on today's requirements. So, now 2010s already >> 90s? and every record and great performances pre 2000s should be wiped off the face of this earth and the players of that time be ostracized from every comparison?

Yeah, that's hilarious. But that's exactly what your argument is.
 
Proactive_ said:
And what is your criteria and methodology of quantifying the change in standards? For instance, the fielding standards have improved by MILES from the 90s to the point now that the likes of Ranatunga, Inzamam and lots of others would have never even made the teams today based on today's requirements. So, now 2010s already >> 90s? and every record and great performances pre 2000s should be wiped off the face of this earth and the players of that time be ostracized from every comparison?
Click to expand...

The criteria is very simple - You just look at the Bradman ERA and you just know that they wont even make it top club teams today. Whereas Inzi and Ranatunga most certainly will on account of their Primary Skills. I never said that fielding is the only way to measure standards.

Yeah, that's hilarious. But that's exactly what your argument is.
Click to expand...

so you are going to pretend that players from 100 yrs ago were comparable to today's players and you are going to do your usual head-in-sand ostrich routine when someone points out the glaring flaws ? Talk about comedy gold. :)))
 
Bilal7 said:
The contenders (in no particular order):

- Don Bradman
- Glenn McGrath
- Shane Warne
- Sachin Tendulker
- Imran Khan
- Wasim Akram
- Jacques Kallis
- Muttiah Muralitharan
- Brian Lara
- Gary Sobers
- Malcolm Marshall
- Viv Richards

The contenders were selected mainly on the basis of test cricket but ODI performances were also taken into account. Players skilled in more than one discipline were given extra points over specialists but this only mattered when picking between two comparable cricketers.

How would you rank these ten best-of-the-best cricketers from 1-12?
Click to expand...

1. Gary Sobers
2. Viv Richards
3. Malcolm Marshall
4. Jacques Kallis
5. Brian Lara
6. Imran Khan
7. Glenn Mcgrath
8. Shane Warne
9. Sachin Tendulkar
10. Don Bradman
11. Wasim Akram
12. Muttiah Muralitharan
 
Tusker said:
The criteria is very simple - You just look at the Bradman ERA and you just know that they wont even make it top club teams today. Whereas Inzi and Ranatunga most certainly will on account of their Primary Skills. I never said that fielding is the only way to measure standards.



so you are going to pretend that players from 100 yrs ago were comparable to today's players and you are going to do your usual head-in-sand ostrich routine when someone points out the glaring flaws ? Talk about comedy gold. :)))
Click to expand...

What a classic having your cake and eating it too tactic. :)) I just showed you how cricket has already drastically changed from the 90s. In the 90s you could be looking like a borderline sumo wrestler with a mobility of a snail and yet make the team on your primary skills, you CAN'T do that anymore and it's well established.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...became-selection-standard-international-teams

So, now based on YOUR judgement, all the cricket of the 90s is basically redundant in any analysis since cricketing standards have drastically changed and hence all the players from the 90s shouldn't be considered in any debate concerning the greatest players.

No wonder, you'll not explain how you plan to quantify the change in standards over time, because you can't. Regardless, your premise is nonsensical anyway. Bobby Fischer is still considered one of the greatest Chess players of all time even though his peak rating has been surpassed by tens of people. Because for that particular era he was a revolutionary and far beyond any of this peers. It was the standards that he set that the further generations of players built their game on. You just can't sweep his achievements under the rug only because Chess standards have improved today owing to the introduction of Chess Engines, Computer Analysis and just much better preparation regimen in general. That would make absolutely no sense. Same is your case with disregarding the past legends of the game.
 
Proactive_ said:
What a classic having your cake and eating it too tactic. :)) I just showed you how cricket has already drastically changed from the 90s. In the 90s you could be looking like a borderline sumo wrestler with a mobility of a snail and yet make the team on your primary skills, you CAN'T do that anymore and it's well established.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...became-selection-standard-international-teams

So, now based on YOUR judgement, all the cricket of the 90s is basically redundant in any analysis since cricketing standards have drastically changed and hence all the players from the 90s shouldn't be considered in any debate concerning the greatest players.
Click to expand...

first of all being big does not mean one will fail a yo-yo test and looking lean and mean will get you thru. Ashwin who is one of the most slowest passes the yo-yo Test. Secondly feel free to prove that Fielding alone makes a big difference to a batsmans run making - especially in Test Cricket - before we can accept it as a game changer when it comes to standards. Thirdly not every one in the 90s was like Ranatunga. Just as there is yet to be a Jonty Rhodes or even Ponting 20 yrs later. These are exceptions that cut both ways.

No wonder, you'll not explain how you plan to quantify the change in standards over time, because you can't. Regardless, your premise is nonsensical anyway. Bobby Fischer is still considered one of the greatest Chess players of all time even though his peak rating has been surpassed by tens of people. Because for that particular era he was a revolutionary and far beyond any of this peers. It was the standards that he set that the further generations of players built their game on. You just can't sweep his achievements under the rug only because Chess standards have improved today owing to the introduction of Chess Engines, Computer Analysis and just much better preparation regimen in general. That would make absolutely no sense. Same is your case with disregarding the past legends of the game.
Click to expand...

Comparing Chess to Cricket ? Talk about absolute nonsensical comedy ... you have certainly "raised the bar" on that front :))) And nobody is disregarding the cricket legends from the past but their achievements have to be evaluated keeping in mind the circumstances.

Any chance you are going to answer the main question about why you don't consider longevity as an achievement without beating around the bush ?
 
Tusker said:
first of all being big does not mean one will fail a yo-yo test and looking lean and mean will get you thru. Ashwin who is one of the most slowest passes the yo-yo Test. Secondly feel free to prove that Fielding alone makes a big difference to a batsmans run making - especially in Test Cricket - before we can accept it as a game changer when it comes to standards. Thirdly not every one in the 90s was like Ranatunga. Just as there is yet to be a Jonty Rhodes or even Ponting 20 yrs later. These are exceptions that cut both ways.
Click to expand...

Dude I just showed how YOU CAN'T MAKE THE TEAM TODAY if you don't conform to certain standards of fitness today, something which was not the case in the 90s. The whole dynamics of cricket change with a change like that. Having 4 competent fielders on the park as compared to having 10 is a humongous change in itself. That's as drastic a change as there can be, but obviously it's not enough for you, of course :))



Comparing Chess to Cricket ? Talk about absolute nonsensical comedy ... you have certainly "raised the bar" on that front :)))
Click to expand...

Pal, you could have just said that you know nothing about chess instead of embarrassing yourself in this fashion. Trust me, I wouldn't have thought any lesser of you if you would have said that lol.

And nobody is disregarding the cricket legends from the past but their achievements have to be evaluated keeping in mind the circumstances.

Any chance you are going to answer the main question about why you don't consider longevity as an achievement without beating around the bush ?
Click to expand...


LOL your whole shtick on this web site is to belittle past players and their achievements, despite the fact that your arguments have been demolished on that front on multiple occasions.
 
Proactive_ said:
Dude I just showed how YOU CAN'T MAKE THE TEAM TODAY if you don't conform to certain standards of fitness today, something which was not the case in the 90s. The whole dynamics of cricket change with a change like that. Having 4 competent fielders on the park as compared to having 10 is a humongous change in itself. That's as drastic a change as there can be, but obviously it's not enough for you, of course :))
Click to expand...

So the fielders comparable to Jonty, Ponting, Azhar etc are who ? How re Ashwin , Sarfraz, Sharjeel, Herath etc etc any different from the 90s ordinary cricketer ? Yo-Yo Test ehh ? :)) Do you even understand what it measures ? Let me tell you its not going to make Ashwin a Jonty Rhodes or even a competent fielder. He is going to remain as he ever was long before there was any yo-yo test. Deal with that

Pal, you could have just said that you know nothing about chess instead of embarrassing yourself in this fashion. Trust me, I wouldn't have thought any lesser of you if you would have said that lol.
Click to expand...

why dont you enlighten us as to what has changed as dramatically in Chess from Bobby Fischers time to today like it has from Bradmans time to now ? Just for starters ... 100 years ago timeless tests were the norm and the lbw law required the ball to pitch in line of stumps and be going on to hit the stumps. So why dont you list similar dramatic changes in chess playing conditions and we can consider your Chess analogy

I think your Time to exit has arrived :)))



LOL your whole shtick on this web site is to belittle past players and their achievements, despite the fact that your arguments have been demolished on that front on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...

when did this "demolition" occur ? :))) lets see a link to that thread.

So I take it that you are not going to answer the question about longevity ?
 
Tusker said:
So the fielders comparable to Jonty, Ponting, Azhar etc are who ? How re Ashwin , Sarfraz, Sharjeel, Herath etc etc any different from the 90s ordinary cricketer ? Yo-Yo Test ehh ? :)) Do you even understand what it measures ? Let me tell you its not going to make Ashwin a Jonty Rhodes or even a competent fielder. He is going to remain as he ever was long before there was any yo-yo test. Deal with that
Click to expand...

So nothing on how a certain level of fitness is a necessary prerequisite to even be in the team today which wasn't the case before? As I thought so. The difference being that there might be a batsman averaging 60 in FC who won't make the team today if he doesn't meet the fitness test standards, he would have in 1995, and that's a point you will keep side stepping for the next 50 posts and then claim victory that you've somehow debunked my argument. :)) Funny how that works.



why dont you enlighten us as to what has changed as dramatically in Chess from Bobby Fischers time to today like it has from Bradmans time to now ? Just for starters ... 100 years ago timeless tests were the norm and the lbw law required the ball to pitch in line of stumps and be going on to hit the stumps. So why dont you list similar dramatic changes in chess playing conditions and we can consider your Chess analogy

I think your Time to exit has arrived :)))
Click to expand...

Oh of course, don't take my word for it. Take a former world champion's:

https://www.businessinsider.in/Here...s-Against-Each-Other/articleshow/25147590.cms

It's like comparing cricket and fitness training facilities from the 1970s to now.

Also, it's funny you brought up certain changes in laws, so what about the changes in Powerplays, free hits, 2 new balls and all that jazz that has recently come in which wasn't there in the 90s? Not drastic enough for you, still? :))




when did this "demolition" occur ? :))) lets see a link to that thread.

So I take it that you are not going to answer the question about longevity ?
Click to expand...

The demolition is occurring right now, in this very post. You've already made a fool of yourself by your hilarious comment concerning chess and fitness standards, and continuing to dig a bigger hole for yourself by mentioning the rule changes in Cricket over time not knowing that rule changes are happening even in this and the last decades lol.
 
Proactive_ said:
So nothing on how a certain level of fitness is a necessary prerequisite to even be in the team today which wasn't the case before? As I thought so. The difference being that there might be a batsman averaging 60 in FC who won't make the team today if he doesn't meet the fitness test standards, he would have in 1995, and that's a point you will keep side stepping for the next 50 posts and then claim victory that you've somehow debunked my argument. :)) Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

you want to start revealing how this yo-yo test makes one a better fielder anytime ?


Oh of course, don't take my word for it. Take a former world champion's:

https://www.businessinsider.in/Here...s-Against-Each-Other/articleshow/25147590.cms

It's like comparing cricket and fitness training facilities from the 1970s to now.

Also, it's funny you brought up certain changes in laws, so what about the changes in Powerplays, free hits, 2 new balls and all that jazz that has recently come in which wasn't there in the 90s? Not drastic enough for you, still? :))
Click to expand...

So unlike cricket there is no changes to playing conditions in Chess then therefore making it a useless comparison. Glad we agree. But look on the positive side ... you are still here and not run away yet lol

The demolition is occurring right now, in this very post. You've already made a fool of yourself by your hilarious comment concerning chess and fitness standards, and continuing to dig a bigger hole for yourself by mentioning the rule changes in Cricket over time not knowing that rule changes are happening even in this and the last decades lol.
Click to expand...

we shall see ... just dont run away when you get owned.

ohhh I see that you have given up already on the longevity ... and you have the nerve to talk about demolition ehhh ?
 
Tusker said:
you want to start revealing how this yo-yo test makes one a better fielder anytime ?
Click to expand...

I'll just quote this here:

The difference being that there might be a batsman averaging 60 in FC who won't make the team today if he doesn't meet the fitness test standards, he would have in 1995, and that's a point you will keep side stepping for the next 50 posts and then claim victory that you've somehow debunked my argument. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

49 Posts to go.



So unlike cricket there is no changes to playing conditions in Chess then therefore making it a useless comparison. Glad we agree. But look on the positive side ... you are still here and not run away yet lol
Click to expand...

Ok so this is the point you lose all sense of what's even going on. :)) Playing conditions are changing every decade in cricket as well genius as I already pointed it to you. Yet you don't want to differentiate between the 90s and 2010s because it doesn't suit your agenda. Your basic issue with the past generations is the difference in playing standards, and I showed it again to you how the preparation and training regime has changed drastically in Chess from the times of Fischer the same way the training regimen has changed in Cricket over time which has a direct bearing on the standard of cricket on display on the field. Yet you obviously don't see (don't want to see that is) the obvious analogy here.

And even after being explained that in detail ad nauseam, you will keep repeating the same strawman again and again until the point I start thinking it would be better to see paint dry than debunking your stupid nonsense again and again. :))



we shall see ... just dont run away when you get owned.

ohhh I see that you have given up already on the longevity ... and you have the nerve to talk about demolition ehhh ?
Click to expand...

Oh I will explain everything. First, explain how you're planning to equate the longevity of a batsman to a fast bowling all rounder Captain, months have passed and you haven't substantiated on that. No wonder though.
 
Breaking it into 3 parts. Keep the responses short ( Dont have time )

Proactive_ said:
I'll just quote this here:

The difference being that there might be a batsman averaging 60 in FC who won't make the team today if he doesn't meet the fitness test standards, he would have in 1995, and that's a point you will keep side stepping for the next 50 posts and then claim victory that you've somehow debunked my argument. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
49 Posts to go.
Click to expand...

And that post has got what to do with fielding abilities and its relationship to yo-yo test ? Let me make it simpler for you : Does having a higher score on the yo-yo Test automatically make someone a better fielder ? Simple yes/no ( And there is a reason I wrote the word fielder in RED. Concentrate on that for now. We will get to batting and bowling later.)
 
Proactive_ said:
Ok so this is the point you lose all sense of what's even going on. :)) Playing conditions are changing every decade in cricket as well genius as I already pointed it to you. Yet you don't want to differentiate between the 90s and 2010s because it doesn't suit your agenda. Your basic issue with the past generations is the difference in playing standards, and I showed it again to you how the preparation and training regime has changed drastically in Chess from the times of Fischer the same way the training regimen has changed in Cricket over time which has a direct bearing on the standard of cricket on display on the field. Yet you obviously don't see (don't want to see that is) the obvious analogy here.

And even after being explained that in detail ad nauseam, you will keep repeating the same strawman again and again until the point I start thinking it would be better to see paint dry than debunking your stupid nonsense again and again. :))
Click to expand...

Genius we are talking about Test Cricket. There are only minor changes that have happened in Test Cricket when comparing Now to the 90s. Nothing like the day/night difference there is if we go back 100 years. Do you understand or should I further break it down ?

So in other words for your Bobby Fischer analogy to make sense the pieces on the chess board must be allowed to move differently today than the rules allowed them to be in Fischer's time. Thats how much drastic the change has been in Cricket. Talk about absolutely idiotic analogies :)))
 
Proactive_ said:
Ok so this is the point you lose all sense of what's even going on. :)) Playing conditions are changing every decade in cricket as well genius as I already pointed it to you. Yet you don't want to differentiate between the 90s and 2010s because it doesn't suit your agenda. Your basic issue with the past generations is the difference in playing standards, and I showed it again to you how the preparation and training regime has changed drastically in Chess from the times of Fischer the same way the training regimen has changed in Cricket over time which has a direct bearing on the standard of cricket on display on the field. Yet you obviously don't see (don't want to see that is) the obvious analogy here.

And even after being explained that in detail ad nauseam, you will keep repeating the same strawman again and again until the point I start thinking it would be better to see paint dry than debunking your stupid nonsense again and again. :))
Click to expand...

Genius we are talking about Test Cricket. There are only minor changes that have happened in Test Cricket as compared to the 90s. Nothing like the day/night difference there is if we go back 100 years. Do you understand or should I further break it down ?

So in other words for your Bobby Fischer analogy to make sense the pieces on the chess board must be allowed to move differently than the rules allowed them to be in Fischer's time. thats how much drastic the change has been in Cricket. Talk about absolutely idiotic analogies :)))
 
Proactive_ said:
Oh I will explain everything. First, explain how you're planning to equate the longevity of a batsman to a fast bowling all rounder Captain, months have passed and you haven't substantiated on that. No wonder though.
Click to expand...

Except you forget that Tendulkar has also taken 200 Intl Wkts, held more catches than Imran at similar stages in career , Captained a far worse team than Imran ever did and obviously scored a sh!t lot more than him. So yeah go ahead and tell me how longevity isn't a factor in this comparison which is your position.

Bloody hell even if we were to pretend that Imran featured in double the no.of matches he played because he was an allrounder and we count that as two players he still falls short of Tendulkars tallyby 24 Tests ( 200-88*2) and a small matter 113 ODIs (463 - 175*2 ) and Iam being very generous here in doubling his match tally because Imran played a few matches towards the end where he played mainly as a Batsman and early on in his career he was not much of a batsman or( a fast bowler infact ) It took him nearly 10 yrs/35 tests to get his bowling avg under 30 and batting avg above 25 to even start qualifying as an all rounder. And then there were matches towards the end where he never bowled or bowled part-time. So there is only about 50% of his career where he was a true allrounder contributing with both bat and ball. But as I said I will pretend that did not happen.

So since you are so adamant that longevity isn't a factor in comparing two players ( even for pure batsmen not just all rounders ) what you are essentially telling me is that a player who does well in 20 Tests has achieved the same as someone who has played 50 tests. If PP had an award for the most bakwas post made on the forum EVER you would have easily earned it :)))
 
Tusker said:
Breaking it into 3 parts. Keep the responses short ( Dont have time )



And that post has got what to do with fielding abilities and its relationship to yo-yo test ? Let me make it simpler for you : Does having a higher score on the yo-yo Test automatically make someone a better fielder ? Simple yes/no ( And there is a reason I wrote the word fielder in RED. Concentrate on that for now. We will get to batting and bowling later.)
Click to expand...

I'll ask you a counter question: Who of the two is more likely to be a better fielder: Someone who is failing the Yo-Yo Test or someone who is passing, considering all other skills to be the same.

Now let's see you dodge this again to the bitter end lol.

Genius we are talking about Test Cricket. There are only minor changes that have happened in Test Cricket when comparing Now to the 90s. Nothing like the day/night difference there is if we go back 100 years. Do you understand or should I further break it down ?

So in other words for your Bobby Fischer analogy to make sense the pieces on the chess board must be allowed to move differently today than the rules allowed them to be in Fischer's time. Thats how much drastic the change has been in Cricket. Talk about absolutely idiotic analogies
Click to expand...

Pieces allowed to move differently? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. So now we are throwing grenades instead of cricket balls and batting with street light poles instead of cricket bats in cricket? God you are even more clueless than what I initially though.

Except you forget that Tendulkar has also taken 200 Intl Wkts, held more catches than Imran at similar stages in career , Captained a far worse team than Imran ever did and obviously scored a sh!t lot more than him. So yeah go ahead and tell me how longevity isn't a factor in this comparison which is your position.

Bloody hell even if we were to pretend that Imran featured in double the no.of matches he played because he was an allrounder and we count that as two players he still falls short of Tendulkars tallyby 24 Tests ( 200-88*2) and a small matter 113 ODIs (463 - 175*2 ) and Iam being very generous here in doubling his match tally because Imran played a few matches towards the end where he played mainly as a Batsman and early on in his career he was not much of a batsman or( a fast bowler infact ) It took him nearly 10 yrs/35 tests to get his bowling avg under 30 and batting avg above 25 to even start qualifying as an all rounder. And then there were matches towards the end where he never bowled or bowled part-time. So there is only about 50% of his career where he was a true allrounder contributing with both bat and ball. But as I said I will pretend that did not happen.

So since you are so adamant that longevity isn't a factor in comparing two players ( even for pure batsmen not just all rounders ) what you are essentially telling me is that a player who does well in 20 Tests has achieved the same as someone who has played 50 tests. If PP had an award for the most bakwas post made on the forum EVER you would have easily earned it
Click to expand...


Applying TuskerMaths: Mark Waugh = 128 Tests, more than 2x Bradman, so Mark Waugh >> Bradman, since he had tons more longevity than Bradman :)). Yeah, right.. way to bury your argument once again.
 
Don Bradman 1
- Glenn McGrath 2
- Shane Warne 3
- Sachin Tendulker 4
- Imran Khan 12
- Wasim Akram 6
- Jacques Kallis 7
- Muttiah Muralitharan 9
- Brian Lara 11
- Gary Sobers 5
- Malcolm Marshall 6
- Viv Richards 8

This would be my list Imran Khan would be last and Bradman would be first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Frank Worrell - most stylish of all batters?
Replies
6
Views
654
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
E
Takeaways from the New Zealand versus Pakistan T20I series (2025)
2
Replies
81
Views
4K
nuttyprof
N
Ball Blazer
[EXCLUSIVE] "Pakistan was always a hard tour": Carl Hooper
Replies
11
Views
694
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
MenInG
Sachin Tendulkar names Wasim Akram in his all-time best playing-XI
Replies
50
Views
8K
Mainul
Mainul
Unbiased-Fan
All Time Asia XI vs All Time ROW XI in ODIs
2
Replies
105
Views
4K
Van_Sri
Van_Sri
Back
Top