Who's the 2nd greatest test batsman of alltime?

[Ikki]

I voted Richards. He holds up as a batsmen to all the guys on the list pretty easily, but what puts him ahead is his dominace. The fact that even in that era, with those pitches and bowlers he scored that fast, I'd think he would absolutely slaughter bowlers now if he were in his prime. To me he is a batsman with the strike-rate of Gilchrist combined with the scoring power of Lara. He's got the same amount of 50s as Sachin with 44 innings less.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

No Imran Khan?!?!?

Imran Khan is the best bowler,allrounder & captain ever but he's nowhere near being all time top 50 as a batsman .

 

[Perm]

Saying "Viv Richards is the best batsman I have seen" is not stating an opinion.

FFS how ignorant do you get? Of course it's an opinion, it can't be fact. He never said viv Richards was the best batsman, but the best one he had seen, implying that he rated him as the greatest. An opinion. Geez.

 

[The Sean]

My vote - step forward Sir John Berry Hobbs.

Though there's about half a dozen blokes who are legitimate contenders for the no.2 spot and you could throw a blanket over them really.

In my lifetime I still rate Viv at the top of the pile, with Sachin and Brian tailing him very closely.

 

[SJS]

I read where he was hit in the mouth, spat some teeth out, brushed them off the pitch with his bat and faced up again

I am not sure that was him .

 

[Richard]

FFS how ignorant do you get? Of course it's an opinion, it can't be fact.

No, it can't be, but it can be and was put accross as fact.

 

[archie mac]

I am not sure that was him .

Who was it? I know it was an India player, but I did read it a long time ago

 

[archie mac]

at Richards leading this poll

:

Why? oh that is right you never watched him bat, and it can't be sometihng you read because everyone who watched or bowled at him said he was great and many thought him the best since Bradman. Or are you pulling out some all knowning stats again?

 

[Richard]

Yes, watching Richards live is truly one of the most devilish ways to get a misjudgement. Richards above any other batsman had the power to hoodwink the viewer into believing he was better than he really was.






















(There's some exaggeration there, but the gist of it is what I feel)

 

[archie mac]

Yes, watching Richards live is truly one of the most devilish ways to get a misjudgement. Richards above any other batsman had the power to hoodwink the viewer into believing he was better than he really was.

Should have been fun watching Lillee bowl to Viv then

 

[Richard]

Undoubtedly, it would have been terrific fun. Probably the two greatest "wow" players in cricket history in opposition.

Beyond question, though, in my mind, not the greatest seamer and the 2nd-greatest batsman, in fact not even close.

There'd be 10 or 15 batsmen at very least I'd place ahead of Vivian Richards, because if you ask me batting is about making runs, not making spectators go wow.

 

[The Sean]

Undoubtedly, it would have been terrific fun. Probably the two greatest "wow" players in cricket history in opposition.

Beyond question, though, in my mind, not the greatest seamer and the 2nd-greatest batsman, in fact not even close.

There'd be 20 batsmen at least I'd place ahead of Vivian Richards, because if you ask me batting is about making runs, not making spectators go wow.

Ok, I'll bite...who would be the 20+ batsmen you'd consider better than Viv?

And I beg you for the love of God not just to list 20 batsmen with a higher Test batting average. (unless one of them is Matthew Hayden...)

 

[archie mac]

Undoubtedly, it would have been terrific fun. Probably the two greatest "wow" players in cricket history in opposition.

Beyond question, though, in my mind, not the greatest seamer and the 2nd-greatest batsman, in fact not even close.

There'd be 20 batsmen at least I'd place ahead of Vivian Richards, because if you ask me batting is about making runs, not making spectators go wow.

The wow factor I feel sorry for you if you think cricket is only about making runs or taking wickets, just pick up the paper and check the scores

Give me Mark Waugh, David Gower and Brian Lara and yes the Wow man Viv, over, well I will not name any players because that would be unfair

 

[Richard]

The wow factor I feel sorry for you if you think cricket is only about making runs or taking wickets, just pick up the paper and check the scores

The interesting part of cricket is watching these runs be made and wickets taken.

It's bad enough to enjoy a batsman because he rips apart a bowling-attack; to rate him as superior to much better runmakers is just not on IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

The wow factor I feel sorry for you if you think cricket is only about making runs or taking wickets, just pick up the paper and check the scores

Eh? It's about separating what you like to watch and what actually wins games. Mark Waugh might be better to watch but Steve Waugh wins more games. I don't see why I can't love watching the former but concede that the latter is the better player?

 

[archie mac]

The interesting part of cricket is watching these runs be made and wickets taken.

It's bad enough to enjoy a batsman because he rips apart a bowling-attack; to rate him as superior to much better runmakers is just not on IMO.

Richards averaged about 54 for most of his career, he went on too long and his averaged dropped to 50, still a great batsman and what is wrong with enjoying a batsman ripping apart a bowling attack? Especially when others are struggling against the same attack

 

[Richard]

Ok, I'll bite...who would be the 20+ batsmen you'd consider better than Viv?

And I beg you for the love of God not just to list 20 batsmen with a higher Test batting average. (unless one of them is Matthew Hayden...)

Each of them has a superior average, obviously, but there are far more than 20 with better averages.

Anyway, here are a few off the top of my head:
Bradman, Headley, Hammond, Merchant, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Weekes, Sobers, Barrington, Greg Chappell, Tendulkar, Lara, Stephen Waugh. It's possible that Javed Miandad was something damn close to an equal too, their careers went along very similar lines. Also maybe Walcott and Pollock, but I've always had my doubts over both. Who knows, maybe in time Michael Hussey will have to become recognised as so, but I still think it's less likely than more.

For all I know, the Clem Hills of this World might have been too.

But no, I don't rate the Eddie Paynters et al above him.

 

[Richard]

Richards averaged about 54 for most of his career, he went on too long and his averaged dropped to 50, still a great batsman and what is wrong with enjoying a batsman ripping apart a bowling attack? Especially when others are struggling against the same attack

There's nothing wrong with it, I hate to see it happen, at least to a good attack, but that's purely personal preference.

I'm well aware Richards averaged 53 (actually) for most of his career - there were still many players who did better. Sobers, for example, who averaged over 70 for a time and well over 60 for as long as Richards averaged 54.

And was there really that many occasions when Richards was destroying an attack while the Frederickses, Greenidges, Hayneses, Kallicherrans, Richardsons, Lloyds, Gomeses, Kings, Logies, Dujons et al couldn't make a run? I doubt it.

 

[archie mac]

There's nothing wrong with it, I hate to see it happen, at least to a good attack, but that's purely personal preference.

I'm well aware Richards averaged 53 (actually) for most of his career - there were still many players who did better. Sobers, for example, who averaged over 70 for a time and well over 60 for as long as Richards averaged 54.

I don't have a problem with people thinking Sobers better than Richards (I do myself) but I can certainly see why people would rank him the 2nd best.

Are you sure about 53? my memory must be playing tricks on me, what was his average at the start of 1977?

 

[Richard]

1977 was only 2-and-a-half years into his career, though.

The last time Richards' average was over 54 was in 1986 against England.

I'd say he'd have done well to have retired after the tour of Australia in 1988\89, when his average was 52.83 (I'd round that up to 53 happily enough).

As in his next 12 Tests he averaged just 26.47, though he dragged it up to 34.41 in his final series. If he'd wanted to play on till 39, he'd really have needed to change his style of play, and he didn't want to do that.