-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Which 4 heads would you put on a cricketing Mount Rushmore?
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
Burgey
Well-known member
Tendulkar wouldn't move from number four even in a team crisis. Imran far more worthy of inclusion IMO.Yeah Tendulkar is arguably the biggest icon of the game. Don't see why he can't be on cricket mt Rushmore
Edit: Imran and Miller to adorn mt Rushmore to add glamor
Bradman has to be there
Zinzan
Well-known member
Nah..... unless you mean purely due to India's population of course.
It's sometimes easy to forget India's population of 1.25 billion is nearly 7 times that of Pakistan (182 million), the 2nd most populated cricketing nation.
So if by icon, you mean by number of fans, then sure, there could never be any contest. By if by icon you mean universally recognised as the greatest, then obviously that's Bradman, followed by Sobers.
Personally speaking, basing it on population/number of fans is meaningless when one country's population is 20-30 times more than most others imho.
OverratedSanity
Well-known member
Grace, Bradman, Worrell, Tendulkar.
OverratedSanity
Well-known member
Gross oversimplification.
Zinzan
Well-known member
In what respect? Which part do you disagree with or is oversimplified?... The population numbers or the fact Bradman & Sobers are universally regarded as the 2 best cricketers of all time?
Last edited:
CricAddict
Well-known member
At current status, it would be Grace, Bradman, Srinivasan, Tendulkar. Big 3 all the way.
OverratedSanity
Well-known member
The population thing.
CricAddict
Well-known member
Will be pretty apt if Tendulkar was the fourth head then.
OverratedSanity
Well-known member
5 stars
Zinzan
Well-known member
What about it? The numbers are correct. How is it oversimplifying things? Surely it's easy to see how India's top cricketer (in a country of 1.25 billion people) would have more fans than say Australia's top cricketer (with 21 million people). That's around 60 times the population...hence why I asked smali if by biggest icon he meant, number of fans/people who know of him or by those players who are universally thought of as the finest cricketers.
Red Hill
The artist formerly known as Monk
Grace- acknowledges the early era, apparently was the most recognised face in the British Empire apart from the monarch in his time.
Bradman- for his personal excellence, he captained what was possibly the greatest side ever assembled, and served the game for many years as an administrator.
Worrell- great leader, first full time black leader of the WIs. Great statesman.
Benaud- Great player, captain, and has contributed more to the game's popularity than perhaps anyone.
Bradman- for his personal excellence, he captained what was possibly the greatest side ever assembled, and served the game for many years as an administrator.
Worrell- great leader, first full time black leader of the WIs. Great statesman.
Benaud- Great player, captain, and has contributed more to the game's popularity than perhaps anyone.
Red Hill
The artist formerly known as Monk
No doubt, but I tried to pick guys who had been great cricketers, but also had something extra.
Zinzan
Well-known member
That's fine, my point stands. An iconic/well liked Indian cricketer will naturally have more folks 'love him' than an iconic/well liked cricketer from anywhere else in the world. So by 'icon' do we go by numbers of popularity or by how a given player was rated universally as a cricketer?
mr_mister
Well-known member
i'd say sobers over worrell still
trumper came before bradman but bradman is better
sobers is arguably the most valuable cricketer ever. yes bradman is probably number 1 but sobers could bowl
bradman with the bat : 15/10 (and thats being generous)
Sobers with the bat: 10/10 (along with many others who averaged above 50)
Sobers with the ball: 6-7(maybe more)/10
I like the choice for Benaud though. Could go in over Warne, though I liked the idea of a modern player's face getting a chisel. However Richie was the voice of cricket for a long time
trumper came before bradman but bradman is better
sobers is arguably the most valuable cricketer ever. yes bradman is probably number 1 but sobers could bowl
bradman with the bat : 15/10 (and thats being generous)
Sobers with the bat: 10/10 (along with many others who averaged above 50)
Sobers with the ball: 6-7(maybe more)/10
I like the choice for Benaud though. Could go in over Warne, though I liked the idea of a modern player's face getting a chisel. However Richie was the voice of cricket for a long time
OverratedSanity
Well-known member
When India won the world Cup, almost every player admitted that they wanted to win the thing because of their desire to see sachin lift the trophy. That notion is kind of ridiculous if you think about it but it was shared by virtually everyone in the country. Sure it was great to see India win the wc but seeing sachin win it was at the forefront of everybody's minds.
And worldwide there hasn't been a single cricketer who's received the universal love and respect like he has, for a very long time. All those silly standing ovations every ground he went to in the final stretch of his career even though he wasn't even scoring any runs by then, should be proof enough. I haven't seen anything like that for another cricketer.