Top 5 Australian batsman after Bradman.

[howardj]

Chappell
Punter
Border
Harvey
Trumps

 

[gettingbetter]

Ponting
G Chappell
Waugh
Border
Bevan (doesn't say test only)

True.

It always pisses me off when you guys overlook Bradmans ODI record. Call yourself crickets fans?

 

[pasag]

yeah, but surely it is not such a big wrong to place guys who have done almost just as well in tougher conditions against better bowlers a bit higher?

Yep I don't disagree with that at all, what I mean by slightly overblown is people saying stuff that because a person batted in one era, they are automatically greater then those from other eras. However if two batsmen had pretty close achievements and one did it in an era that was more difficult for batsmen then it is obviously a factor in rating and comparing the two.

 

[pasag]

It's implied it's Tests unless specifically saying otherwise as a rule btw.

 

[The Sean]

Off topic slightly, but given he's been mentioned by Archie a few posts back, where do people rate Kim Hughes? His not-too-shabby career as a batsman tends to be obfuscated by the hash he made of captaincy and of course the image of him sunburnt and broken, tearfully resigning as captain while a grim-faced and resigned looking AB watches on. But he was actually a pretty good batsman and played some great innings...

I always enjoyed watching Kim Hughes bat, even though I was only a young 'un. Definitely one of the most exilharating strokeplayers of his generation in the Australian team - certainly better on the eye than Border was, though of course not nearly as prolific a runscorer.

He also played what I still consider to be one of the very finest innings ever produced by an Australian - his 100* out of 198 all out on the first day of the Boxing Day Test in 1981, when he absolutely tanned one of the best pace attacks ever to walk on to a cricket field. That innings was at least as important to Australia's win in that Test as DK Lillee's record-breaking heroics with the ball.

It's a shame, as you say, that we tend to remember him for his awful record as captain, and for the end - his last 18 Test innings were against the West Indies and they really did him over (he wasn't Robinson Crusoe there...) to the point where his average dropped in that last year from something like 42 to 37. It was a sad way to go out.

It's fascinating and very sad watching him on the ABC's Cricket in the 80s when he talks about how things worked out - he still gets choked up about it.

 

[archie mac]

I always enjoyed watching Kim Hughes bat, even though I was only a young 'un. Definitely one of the most exilharating strokeplayers of his generation in the Australian team - certainly better on the eye than Border was, though of course not nearly as prolific a runscorer.

He also played what I still consider to be one of the very finest innings ever produced by an Australian - his 100* out of 198 all out on the first day of the Boxing Day Test in 1981, when he absolutely tanned one of the best pace attacks ever to walk on to a cricket field. That innings was at least as important to Australia's win in that Test as DK Lillee's record-breaking heroics with the ball.

It's a shame, as you say, that we tend to remember him for his awful record as captain, and for the end - his last 18 Test innings were against the West Indies and they really did him over (he wasn't Robinson Crusoe there...) to the point where his average dropped in that last year from something like 42 to 37. It was a sad way to go out.

It's fascinating and very sad watching him on the ABC's Cricket in the 80s when he talks about how things worked out - he still gets choked up about it.

Still waiting on a bio by Kim.H.

But yes that innings against the Windies was imho the best innings I have ever watched

 

[adharcric]

1. Chappell
2. Waugh
3. Ponting
4. Border
5. Harvey

 

[Burgey]

Still waiting on a bio by Kim.H.

But yes that innings against the Windies was imho the best innings I have ever watched

AWTA.

One of the great innings of all time, on a difficult wicket against a truly great attack.

That knock and Lillee's effort with the ball late in the day made it one of the great days in test cricket.

 

[JBMAC]

True.

It always pisses me off when you guys overlook Bradmans ODI record. Call yourself crickets fans?

And pray tell what bloody Planet are you living on?

 

[pasag]

It's a joke obviously, JBMAC.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's implied it's Tests unless specifically saying otherwise as a rule btw.

AWTA.

 

[silentstriker]

AWTA.

AWTA.

 

[sideshowtim]

And pray tell what bloody Planet are you living on?

You idiot, mate.

 

[pasag]

You idiot, mate.

No insults against other members, thanks.

 

[Engle]

G.Chappell
A.Border
S.Waugh
R.Ponting
N.Harvey

The first 3 played against some of the toughest opposition and their places are secure.

 

[Richard]

Yep I don't disagree with that at all, what I mean by slightly overblown is people saying stuff that because a person batted in one era, they are automatically greater then those from other eras. However if two batsmen had pretty close achievements and one did it in an era that was more difficult for batsmen then it is obviously a factor in rating and comparing the two.

I guess I've said before why I think a change of standard of bowling can mean one batsman's average goes up by 20 and another's by 3... I'd probably best not go into it again.

 

[howardj]

G.Chappell
A.Border
S.Waugh
R.Ponting
N.Harvey

The first 3 played against some of the toughest opposition and their places are secure.

Mate, you've made four good choices. I would beg to differ regarding Tugga Waugh though. I don't quite regard him in the same class as your other picks. For mine, his average really only ballooned in the later (and less tough) period of his career.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, not sure about that at all. He was very poor (and it was said he only played because of his bowling after a while) until the 1992\93 tour of NZ, but I'd say the time from then until 2001 (where he averaged 61 over 90 Tests - every bit as good as Tendulkar) was probably even tougher in terms of bowling-attacks around than the 1985\86-1992 time when he failed (except the 1989 tour of England against the rabble that was our excuse for a side).

I've never been sure whether Border's 156 Tests of superbness are better than Waugh's 90-odd of even-better, despite being preceded by 40-odd Tests of nothingness. Not sure at all.

 

[howardj]

Hmm, not sure about that at all. He was very poor (and it was said he only played because of his bowling after a while) until the 1992\93 tour of NZ, but I'd say the time from then until 2001 (where he averaged 61 over 90 Tests - every bit as good as Tendulkar) was probably even tougher in terms of bowling-attacks around than the 1985\86-1992 time when he failed (except the 1989 tour of England against the rabble that was our excuse for a side).

I've never been sure whether Border's 156 Tests of superbness are better than Waugh's 90-odd of even-better, despite being preceded by 40-odd Tests of nothingness. Not sure at all.

Mate, AB blunted far finer attacks, often without support, than Tugger did. I'm not saying Tugg was a goose with the bat. He was extremely good. But I wouldn't quite rank him in the pantheon alongside the above chaps.

 

[Richard]

Well IMO S Waugh > Ponting by a fair bit if you say Border > Waugh.

(As I say, for me both > Ponting but I'm honestly not sure who was best out of them)

As a matter of curiosity: a brief comparison of the bowlers Border and Waugh faced in their successful periods?