HIL(Hockey India League) and Euro Hockey League exist for field Hockey which is played in 127 countries
Dhyan Chand from India, who has 1000+ goals with 3 olympics golds, is a worthy contender for statistical dominance.
read a few anecdotes abt him
Walter Lindrum, Heather McKay, Ed Moses, Jahangir Khan were standards whose domination defined the sport. Am a big fan of Moses because the 400 hurdles is a very technical track event. A single misjudged flight leading to a clipped rail and fall/stumble and his 10 year 122 starts unbeaten run might have been truncatedr.
These sort of metrics tend to measure individuals within a team sport. That a fuzzy distinction which I presume is done for no better reason than that’s where the available stats seem to be.
Another point for those who understandably point out that defensive players may be on par or ascend their offensive counterparts who outscore them in these sort of measures.
Bradman is peerless as the best batsman ever in Test cricket. But it’s a lot less clear as to if that makes him the best Test cricketer. Personally I’d give that gong to Sir Garfield Sobers, with an honourable mention to Keith Miller.
Imran has them all beat as far as the most complete cricketer. Nearly 40 with the bat (and over 50 in his last 50 tests, before that he was more of a later order batsman), over 300 test wickters, a World Cup winning captain.
In a few weeks possibly Prime Minister.
He went to University with my Dad too, but was he a better all-rounder than Sobers? (Genuine question, I quite like cricket, but all other sports pale in comparison to the Beautiful Game to me).
Sobers was a great (and I mean GREAT) batsman. He was a very good bowler. Imran was an outstanding bowler and an excellent bat. Plus he was a much better skipper.
I’d go for Imran as well but that is probably because I grew up when he was at his prime. plus (though I don’t leg glance in that direction) he does have the movie star looks which doesn’t harm his reputation.
Heck, I grew up with Richards, Beefy and Imran in their pomp, fine times indeed. It rather spoils you for life that does.
<massive hijack>
Really? I thought most people were agreed it was just wishful thinking on the part of his supporters
Well as I am one of the later… I can be forgiven.
Imran was great no doubt but he is not the greatest that Pak ever produced. that would be Wasim Akram for me.
Its all subjective of course, but most of what I’ve read tells tht Sobers is rated as the greatest by most.
Sobers is in Cricinfo’s first choice greatest XI, Imran is in the 2nd greatest XI:
the guy may well turn out to be the PM
but he has a big ego imo. In all interviews of his, its mostly abt I me n myself
Good Thread.
I actually have Sobers as the 2nd best batsman of all time (my choice) - not so sure about his bowling. he probably wouldn’t have got a game just as a bowler. Mind you, when Imran Khan started, his batting probably wasn’t good enough for him to be considered purely as a batsman either - but he did improve.
The thing about Bradman is - no-one, absolutely no-one copuld make a best-ever team without putting him in. You can argue about fast bowlers, spinners, keepers, openers, all-rounders (if you want one) - and in all cases there are 6 or 8 or 10 or more possible choices. But Bradman is an automatic.
ex Cricinfo on Garfield Sobers
The only one of those bowling skills that stand alone would have not seen him automatically picked for the West Indies was his left arm-orthodox, due to the presence of Lance Gibbs. Even then as a right arm/left arm combination they could have worked in tandem and been very effective.
FWIW Bradman’s Best 11, published in 2001
Barry Richards (South Africa)
Arthur Morris (Australia)
Don Bradman (Australia)
Sachin Tendulkar (India)
Garry Sobers (West Indies)
Don Tallon (Australia)
Ray Lindwall (Australia)
Dennis Lillee (Australia)
Alec Bedser (England)
Bill O’Reilly (Australia)
Clarrie Grimmett (Australia).
12th man Wally Hammond (England).
Note only 4 specialist batsman are chosen.
Gawd help the captain having to take the ball off one of those bowlers.
The key to it all was Sobers as the allrounder.
I think that since it’s publication Adam Gilchrist would have supplanted Tallon as the keeper, but who am I to make that call.
funny that Bradman included himself in his own greatest XI. 
“Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams”, which was written by Roland Perry in collaboration with The Don, and in which Bradman bats number 3 for Australia, addresses this issue. I don’t have my copy to hand but Perry writes something along the lines of he was discussing the concept with Bradman and the great man was initially hesitant about including himself, but Perry (and others) soon persuaded him that not to do so would be patently ridiculous. So it’s not a result of any posturing or vanity on Bradman’s part, it is simply a fact that he was, without any doubt whatsoever, one of the greatest 11 cricketers of all time. We can argue about whether he was the greatest (I think he is) but that he belongs in a “world’s best ever” team is not in any doubt, and to omit him would result in a different excerise (“what is the world’s best XI, apart from Bradman?”).
alright, this clears it somewhat.
the concept of the Best\greatest ever is itself ridiculous because the game has evolved so greatly. Bradman toured only one country - England. Never got tested against reverse swing or on rank turners of subcontinent. the improvements in professionalism, technology, standards of bowling, ground fielding, catching etc , the number of countries n people playing the game seriously in present times compared to the past also has huge bearing…
but he must be the greatest ever bcoz he averaged substantially higher than his peers.:rolleyes:
With respect, you seem to have missed the point - the whole idea with comparing Bradman’s averages to others who played in his era is that they were subject to all the same conditions (lack of reverse swing, no matches on turning Asian pitches, poor/slow fielding) but still came nowhere near the figures he managed. If someone playing today managed a test average over their career of, say, 80 (so significantly higher than anyone else except Bradman), then we could argue if this individual were better than Bradman, because they played in modern conditions. But this hasn’t happened, as you can see from the figures earlier in the thread.
I don’t know about “rank turners of subcontinent” but in case you missed the memo, matches in the Don’s day were played on uncovered pitches and often to a finish, so he was no stranger to a fifth, sixth or seventh-day dustbowl or a rain-affected “sticky wicket” (unknown to modern players) and opposition slow bowling of a high calibre. He also had an entire series when the visiting English team were targeting him and the other Australian players with persistent short fast leg-side bowling with an umbrella field of leg-side catchers in support, in the days before helmets and when padding generally was far below modern standards - and he averaged over 50 in that series. A “failure” series for Bradman was an average most other players in history would kill for.
but he can’t be the greatest ever bcoz he’s not Tendulkar. :rolleyes:
I never claim that Tendulkar is the greatest ever. Though he is the greatest of his generation in my opinion. here in the thread, the topic is, - statistically most dominant, different from greatest ever. And that guy(statistically dominant) has to be Bradman(for a batsman).
Generally in all sports - running, swimming, soccer etc , the standards have risen considerably from the 1950s. For ex, Pele would not have averaged anywhere close, the goals per match now to what he did in his era. 100m olympics gold medal sprint times frm the 50s wouldn’t even get a qualification for entering the olympics nowadays. It is not correct to pickup the greatest from 50s and say he is the greatest ever.
Can’t believe he has not been mentioned. Paavo Nurmi. The flying Finn. But, hey if truthseeker2 is to be believed, not so good, as his times are beaten by women.
his gold medal winning timefor 10k in 1920 olympics: 31m 45secs
london olympics B standard qualificationfor 10k run: 28m 05secs
his gold medal winning timefor 5k in 1924 olympics: 14m 31secs
london olympics B standard qualification for 5k race: 13m 27secs
in both events, he wouldn’t have qualified for the london olympics. what I am saying is, there might be 100s of athletes today who would better the time in all the 6 events that he ran. but its not possible to find them(those athletes) since in present days, those timings wouldn’t take you anywhere, n so, no one would be bothered to note those timings of the 6 Paavo Nurmi events.
Yet, he IS great becoz of his achievements(9 gold etc). But the greatest EVER long distance runner? - sorry, not in my book.
Comparing times etc from long ago is fraught with danger, let’s look at Pele. Based on his standard at the time and if he were to play today at the same level he may well have been left behind, but what if had all the advantages of modern sports science and coaching? Could he play at today’s level with the same brilliance he showed? Probably yes.