Which 4 heads would you put on a cricketing Mount Rushmore?

[Coronis]

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

No doubt Sobers is the better cricketer, but if we're talking about contributions to the game for me, it has to be Worrell by far.

Also wow a lot of Indians like Tendulkar, go figure. What has he done outside of scoring runs?

 

[mr_mister]

he's a politican isnt he? lol. crossover appeal!

 

[Daemon]

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?

It's less about the number and more about how much people loved him.

z

 

[Zinzan]

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.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that, but I repeat.... of course India's 'darling' will be loved and adored by more people than any other nations 'darling'..and by a very very long distance.

The Indian population is more than twice the population of the rest of the cricketing world put together, so yes, the sheer fan base will blow any other nations cricketer out of the water.

Hence my question to smali whether by biggest 'icon' he means based on most fame/number of fans or on being one of the top 4 cricketers ever... if it's based on the former, then sure, Tendulkar should be there. If based on the latter, I'm not so convinced I would go past Grace, Hobbs, Bradman & Sobers.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Malcolm Marshall, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose and Wasim Akram

None of those overhyped batsmen, thanks.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Malcolm Marshall, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose and Wasim Akram

None of those overhyped batsmen, thanks.

Or spin bowlers apparently

 

[Zinzan]

he's a politican isnt he? lol. crossover appeal!

If we're looking more holistically across politics and the like, then Imran comes into contention.

 

[zorax]

I remember there was a thread where we tried to list out the most influential cricketers of all time. Guys like the three Ws + Constantine, Wisden, Grace, Ranji, John Wiles, Bernard Bosanquet, Saqlain Mushtaq, Murali, Jardine, Sarfraz Nawaz/Imran Khan, Ramdhin/Valentine/Cowdrey/May...

Sachin's fairly low on that list, but still merits a place. He was the poster boy of Indian cricket during their rise to a cricketing super-power after all.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Steyn deserving of a place for his cameo in Blended, ftr

Depends on the expression, IMO. Crazy eyes Steyn would scare off the kids.

 

[mr_mister]

i wonder how sachin would go if he ran for president

 

[Zinzan]

Sachin's fairly low on that list, but still merits a place. He was the poster boy of Indian cricket during their rise to a cricketing super-power after all.

Super-power may be stretching it slightly, even though they did reach no.1 in tests for a short time.

I think in terms of 'poster-boys' who almost single-handedly changed their respective nations cricketing fortunes, it's hard to go past Murali, Hadlee & Imran in this respect.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You put Imran on there and guaranteed that at the unveiling ceremony he'll grab the microphone and drone (pun unintended) on about how the entire thing was all about him and his personal ambitions.




Yeah I realize it's not a good pun, but better than Migara's is good enough.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wouldn't disagree with any of that, but I repeat.... of course India's 'darling' will be loved and adored by more people than any other nations 'darling'..and by a very very long distance.

The Indian population is more than twice the population of the rest of the cricketing world put together, so yes, the sheer fan base will blow any other nations cricketer out of the water.

Hence my question to smali whether by biggest 'icon' he means based on most fame/number of fans or on being one of the top 4 cricketers ever... if it's based on the former, then sure, Tendulkar should be there. If based on the latter, I'm not so convinced I would go past Grace, Hobbs, Bradman & Sobers.

Wait why are you ignoring the second part of the post?

Also, I get what you're saying about the Indian population tipping the scales but what doesn't make sense is that you say Tendulkar had more fans because he's Indian but then go on and say Hobbs and Sobers are more deserving of the spot. Sobers is a greater cricketer, agree, but are you honestly saying Sobers and Hobbs were any more respected and admired worldwide than Sachin? I doubt it. Even ignoring his home track bullying of Indian fans' adimration, he's still the most widely admired cricketer in a long time.

If it's just purely 4 greatest cricketer ever, Sachin probably wouldn't be there, but that's quite obviously not the question.

 

[Zinzan]

Wait why are you ignoring the second part of the post?

The 2nd part about the standing ovations and respect? Sure he received some tremendous ones, but again let's be honest about this, no other countries has visiting fans in away games like India so that once again follows suit. But sure there's no doubt he is well respected for the way he carries/carried himself.

Also, I get what you're saying about the Indian population tipping the scales but what doesn't make sense is that you say Tendulkar had more fans because he's Indian but then go on and say Hobbs and Sobers are more deserving of the spot. Sobers is a greater cricketer, agree, but are you honestly saying Sobers and Hobbs were any more respected and admired worldwide than Sachin? I doubt it. Even ignoring his home track bullying of Indian fans' adimration, he's still the most widely admired cricketer in a long time.

The Sobers/Hobbs vs Sachin in terms of worldwide admiration is a really tough one given the different eras, but I would say Sobers is admired more worldwide (amongst most cricketing peers, historians) and is generally most people's 2nd choice cricketer after Bradman and with Hobbs, it's too hard to say.

If it's just purely 4 greatest cricketer ever, Sachin probably wouldn't be there, but that's quite obviously not the question.

Agree, and that why I'm probing individuals about what they think the criteria should be and how they define 'most iconic'.

 

[zorax]

Super-power may be stretching it slightly, even though they did reach no.1 in tests for a short time.

Ummm. You do know who rules world cricket right now right??

The BCCI rise to a financial superpower who now basically has world cricket at its feet was done mostly off the back of Sachin's star power.

 

[Zinzan]

Ummm. You do know who rules world cricket right now right??

The BCCI rise to a financial superpower who now basically has world cricket at its feet was done mostly off the back of Sachin's star power.

Hyperbole city tbh.

There's no doubt Tendulkar is their biggest star, but to suggest India (with a population of 1.25 billion & with one of the fastest growing middle-classes in the world in recent years) wouldn't currently be the financial 'superpower' of world cricket had Sachin never been born is ludicrous. He certainly helped, but the wealth of Indian cricket was not 'mostly' off the back of one player at all.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Ummm. You do know who rules world cricket right now right??

The BCCI rise to a financial superpower who now basically has world cricket at its feet was done mostly off the back of Sachin's star power.

With all due respect, I disagree with your argument. 1982 saw colour TV introduced into India for the Asian games. The 1983 World Cup set the popularity of cricket alight in India on colour TV well before Sachin. Kapil Dev and Sunny Gavaskar were the heroes of the time. In 1983, millions and millions of Indians watched India win the 1983 Cricket World Cup on recently available colour tv. That was a massive boost to the value of the BCCI. Since then the increasing value of India's economy has made commercial television in the country valuable. The rising numbers of the Indian middle class and increased pay TV subscriptions coincided with Sachin playing, it certainly was not caused by Sachin. The BCCI controls a product that broadcasters in India desperately want. They wanted 'Kapil's Devils' on TV before Sachin, and they continue to want Indian cricket on tv post Sachin.

Sachin did not make India more populus (other than the children he fathered) nor more educated or rich in mineral wealth so as to significantly improve the national economy. Sachin coincided with Satellite TV in India, he did not cause it. BCCI profits from the back of TV and the massive TV audience that India has, Indians demand cricket more than they demand Sachin, in my opinion.

And I am not suggesting for one second that the 1983 Cricket World Cup caused the BCCI to be a financial super power but I would suggest that it did more than Sachin could have. Its the size of the Indian economy and its population, colour tv and more commercially valuable television broadcasting, coupled with the lack of competing sports (even Hockey) that the Indian public demand.

 

[Athlai]

Mt Cricketmore should be devoted to players who became pillars of the game. Tendulkar for all his glory did not create or establish Indian cricket. Even Gavaskar would be a stretch.

 

[zorax]

Hyperbole city tbh.

There's no doubt Tendulkar is their biggest star, but to suggest India (with a population of 1.25 billion & with one of the fastest growing middle-classes in the world in recent years) wouldn't currently be the financial 'superpower' of world cricket had Sachin never been born is ludicrous. He certainly helped, but the wealth of Indian cricket was not 'mostly' off the back of one player at all.

Mt Cricketmore should be devoted to players who became pillars of the game. Tendulkar for all his glory did not create or establish Indian cricket. Even Gavaskar would be a stretch.

Oh no that's not my point. I'm not saying India wouldn't be where they are if not for Sachin. I'm sure there would have been other stars whom the nation would have pinned their hopes on to.

But the simple fact that Sachin had to bear that responsibility, and carried it with such dignity and grace, while also being one of the greatest cricketer's of all time...that deserves recognition IMO. The Indian Cricket Industry invested so much into him, the nation heaped so many expectations onto him, and he delivered, and is literally a hero to a billion cricket fans around the world. No cricketer has ever been more scrutinised. Sachin took that and emerged as a legend with an impeccable reputation.

I think to just ignore that because he wasn't one of the 4 best on-field cricketers of all time is unfair.

Sachin's definitely a pillar of modern cricket. The most recognised cricketer in the world, one of the greatest batsmen of all time, fantastic role model...I mean come on, what more do you want?

 

[Jono]

You guys ruined a thread with potential comedic value beyond any measure. Wahhhh.

To suggest Sachin isn't a potential option for the 4 heads is silly. If someone thinks he doesn't belong, fine. But he's a perfectly reasonable option.