Sachin, Dravid and Ganguly - 1998

[saket123]

Well your idea of an alltime great is laughable if it doesnt include the best opener the world has seen in the last 50+ years, if not ever. Those who think that 'greatness' depends on performance across different formats fail to factor in the simple idea that performance across all formats are relevant only to a generation growing up with that format available. Gavaskar played a grand total of ZERO limited overs matches before he was an adult. Tendulkar played a grand total of ZERO 20/20s before he was 30. To ask worldclass competence from players who didnt grow up playing the said format is nothing more than assinine illogic of the highest order.

That's a Lie.. Gavaskar has played List A Cricket.. (which is one day format). Perhaps not much as Richards and Miandad.. but plenty enough.

[Muloghonto]

Dravid ranked #2 3 years in the decade in question. In 3 other years.. his ranking has been 14' date= 19 & 19. If you average out his ranking for the decade in question.. it comes out to 9.. I don't see how you can consider him as top 5 for the decade... In ODIs Dravid only ONCE got into single digit rankings.. and pretty much other times in the decade he was ranked in 20s and 30s. Ganguly did well in ODIs for 3 or 4 years where his ranking was single digit and as low as 2.. But the rest of the time his rank was >30 and before he retired it was 60. I think a lot of you people go by PERCEPTION of good (these 3 have been superstars in India).. rather than what they actually did. Just my humble opinion.

I dont care much about ranking points. Ranking points rewards great form, not great record. A guy who scores 10 single digit scores followed by 10 50+ scores in succession will have a higher ranking than someone scoring 50 every other innings over 20 innings. This is because each innings either adds/subtracts from your total on a weighted scale system. This is why mr 'I am awesome for 2-3 years but ordinary otherwise' Ponting climbed the top of the ranking list while 'i am a little less awesome over 10 years' Dravid never did. As far as tests go, the only CLEARLY better Test bats during Dravid's time were Tendulkar, Lara and Steve Waugh. Execpt for Ponting and Kallis, nobody else compares to Dravid either, as he was easily better than Inzamam, Youhana, Thorpe, Sanga, Mahela, etc.

[Muloghonto]

That's a Lie.. Gavaskar has played List A Cricket.. (which is one day format). Perhaps not much as Richards and Miandad.. but plenty enough.

As an adult, sort of like how Tendy played 20.20 as an adult, not as a kid growing up. Gavaskar didnt play a single limited over match till 3 years after his debut in Indian colors, at the age of 25 IIRC. As i said, your criteria is laughable. By your standard, Gayle is an alltime great but Gavaskar is not, because Gavaskar never even played 20/20. Marshall is worse than Malinga then because Malinga is a competent test bowler and excellent LOI/20-20 bowler while Marshall was only a great test bowler, competent ODI bowler and a big fat zero in 20/20 department. Which i find is about as assinine a perspective as it gets.

[saket123]

As an adult, sort of like how Tendy played 20.20 as an adult, not as a kid growing up. Gavaskar didnt play a single limited over match till 3 years after his debut in Indian colors, at the age of 25 IIRC. As i said, your criteria is laughable. By your standard, Gayle is an alltime great but Gavaskar is not, because Gavaskar never even played 20/20. Marshall is worse than Malinga then because Malinga is a competent test bowler and excellent LOI/20-20 bowler while Marshall was only a great test bowler, competent ODI bowler and a big fat zero in 20/20 department. Which i find is about as assinine a perspective as it gets.

You keep saying my criteria (which is heavily relying on stats) as laughable.. .. I've shown you wisden rankings that don't feature neither of your beloved Dravid, Gavaskar or Ganguly ANYWHERE.. and yet you don't tell me HOW you consider these people are Legends.. Ok Wisden is wrong.. rankings and ratings are wrong.. You are correct. :hysterical::hysterical:

[saket123]

As an adult, sort of like how Tendy played 20.20 as an adult, not as a kid growing up. Gavaskar didnt play a single limited over match till 3 years after his debut in Indian colors, at the age of 25 IIRC. As i said, your criteria is laughable. By your standard, Gayle is an alltime great but Gavaskar is not, because Gavaskar never even played 20/20. Marshall is worse than Malinga then because Malinga is a competent test bowler and excellent LOI/20-20 bowler while Marshall was only a great test bowler, competent ODI bowler and a big fat zero in 20/20 department. Which i find is about as assinine a perspective as it gets.

You lie again.. Gavaskar PLAYED LOI and FAILED!.. hence he is not AN ALL TIME LEGEND OF CRICKET as a whole.. You want to carry him on your shoulders for his Test records.. do so by all means.. But I agree with Wisden to NOT include him in the all time best.

[coffee_rules]

To Saket ...Cricket has been since 1880. LOIs in 1973. So, somebody is an ATG is cricket, don't use LOI stats to run them down. SMG, SRT Dravid are ATGs in real cricket terms - Test cricket. LOI is just bonus

[FischerTal]

saket is giving KT a run for being most laughable poster on ICF

[FischerTal]

Sobers rates Gavaskar as the greatest batsman MUMBAI: The cricket world may be going ga ga over Sachin Tendulkar but West Indian legend Gary Sobers rates Sunil Gavaskar as the greatest batsman he has ever seen, simply because of his stupendous success against the fearsome Caribbean pacers of the 1970s. "It's my approach, my view that Sunny Gavaskar is the greatest batsman I have come across. He has opened the innings against genuine fast bowlers like Michael Holding, (Andy) Robers, (Colin) Croft and (Joel) Garner. He has made more runs away from India - in the West Indies, Australia and England," Sobers told a media conference on Wednesday. Gavaskar had a fairytale 1971 debut in the Caribbeans where he amassed 774 runs at 154.80 in the series, which made him the subject of a Calypso song. "This is not to belittle players like Vivian (Richards) Brian (Lara) or Sachin (Tendulkar). When you talk of Sachin he has done all that was expected of him," said the 73-year-old Barbadian who is widely considered as the greatest ever all rounder the game has seen. Sobers, who is in Mumbai as the chief guest at a function to honour the epoch-making 1971 team under Ajit Wadekar as the feat enters its 40th year, felt it was wrong to compare players of different eras who have played under conditions that vastly differed. "People try to compare between the players of the past and the present, but the conditions under which the (Donald) Bradmans and the (Dennis) Comptons played were different," said Sobers. The left-handed great said there were no restrictions on the number of bouncers per over, beamers were not outlawed and bowlers delivered from two yards closer by dragging their feet as the back-foot no-ball rule was in operation. "The field was set by the players and not by rules. Also around 72 overs were bowled during a day because of which the batsmen did not have as many opportunities as they have today to score runs. There were no helmets and arm guards and the wickets were uncovered," explained the former West Indies captain. The West Indian legend, who was the opposing captain when India created history by winning a Test rubber for the first time in 1971 in the Caribbean, also lavished praise on India's swashbuckling opener Virender Sehwag. "Your opener (Sehwag), I will go to watch him play. He's captured the imagination of the world," said Sobers in praise of the Delhi dasher. Sobers, who made 8,032 runs with 26 hundreds at a shade under 58 per innings and grabbed 235 wickets in 93 Tests, urged the cricket authorities to exercise caution while promoting the immensely popular Twenty20 form of the game. "Twenty20 game is good entertainment and people will go for it but you have to be careful how far you let it go. It does not breed Test cricketers," said the cricketing great in the presence of Wadekar who shared the dais. Sobers was also concerned about the easy money on offer in cricket and felt some of the cricketers just didn't deserve it. "There's a lot of lump-sum given to the players. Some of them deserve it but others don't. I don't know the reason and I don't want to comment on it," he said. Sobers also supported the changes in the rules of the game that he felt has sped up the game and produced more results in Tests as compared to dreary draws during his time.

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-03-03/top-stories/28113597_1_sunil-gavaskar-gary-sobers-west-indies

[saket123]

To Saket ...Cricket has been since 1880. LOIs in 1973. So' date=' somebody is an ATG is cricket, don't use LOI stats to run them down. SMG, SRT Dravid are ATGs in real cricket terms - Test cricket. LOI is just bonus[/quote'] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisden_100

[Crookbond]

I guess my benchmark to call someone dominating or All time Great is just different. Gavaskar was also the first one to get 10' date='000 runs.. I know all that..He was good for his time.. but when the game changed with times.. he couldn't adapt to LOI that well... [b']1 frigging century from an alleged Master Batsman!...I remember watching him with bated breath in ODI and the guy couldn't frigging get bat to ball most of the time... Couldn't do a good job as Captain.. .. Very low Strike Rate.... I just don't see a run stacker in 1 format of the game as an all time legend when his other stats are flailing. .. This is why I argued AGAINST considering Bradman as an all time best cricketer ever. There are no LASTING legends in an ever changing game..(Bradman does not fit this criteria when it comes to test.. he is still unparalleled there).. Maybe they were legends in their times..and Gavaskar's test records are still exemplary... but I don't consider him as an all time great.

Tendulkar couldn't even score more than 10 runs in T20Is but he's all time great. :haha:

[Sidhoni]

Tendulkar couldn't even score more than 10 runs in T20I's but he's all time great. :haha:

Yeah.

[Crookbond]

Yes - Please edit before trollistani takes over. :hitler:

[Muloghonto]

You lie again.. Gavaskar PLAYED LOI and FAILED!.. hence he is not AN ALL TIME LEGEND OF CRICKET as a whole.. You want to carry him on your shoulders for his Test records.. do so by all means.. But I agree with Wisden to NOT include him in the all time best.

If you are either too ignorant to know the facts or too incompetent to grasp basic English, kindly rectify those defects rather than calling other posters liars. Gavaskar played his first limtied over match in 1973 or 74. That is 2-3 years after his test debut and basically, it means that Gavaskar had zero development in a format that he played for the first time as a 23-24 year old. You cannot compare a person learning how to play a new format at 23-24 with those who've already grown up playing it. Success in ODIs is not a criteria to be an alltime legend in cricket. Your idea of agreeing with the Wisden list is further exposition of your illogical assininity, since Wisden discounts Gavaskar not because he is a failed ODI player but because they considered other players as better test players despite never playing a limited overs match.

[Muloghonto]

You keep saying my criteria (which is heavily relying on stats) as laughable.. .. I've shown you wisden rankings that don't feature neither of your beloved Dravid, Gavaskar or Ganguly ANYWHERE.. and yet you don't tell me HOW you consider these people are Legends.. Ok Wisden is wrong.. rankings and ratings are wrong.. You are correct. :hysterical::hysterical:

Your criteria does not rest on stats, it rests on a laughably invalid belief that to be an ATG you must be proficient in all three formats. The last part- yep, thats pretty much it. I am right. Arbitary rankings that are used to rank people on the basis of form are largely irrelevant. But you dont know this because you dont even know how the rating points work. As for Wisden, Wisden ranks Gavaskar in the top 10 batsmen of alltime. Ganguly is definitely a legend in the ODI stage, while Dravid is definitely a legend in the test arena, with less than 15 batsmen in the last 50 years being clearly better than Dravid. That is pretty legendary category.

[Sachin=GOD]

and yet another useless debate :facepalm:

[ganeshran]

Rating Gavaskar by his LOI performances :facepalm: :facepalm: