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

[The_Bunny]

Hammond seems to be missing, Ponting aswell, not that i would vote for him but he is better than a few of the batsmen on that list.
Toss up between Sobers Hobbs and Hammond for mine, going Hammond and voting other.

Still amazed that Hammond isnt on that list though.

 

[Fusion]

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, I don't think I could possibly disagree with you more. Viv Richards' is just another case where you can't go by stats. There may be people who had a better average and scored more runs, but they were certainly not better than King Viv IMO. You listed Javed as possibly better (or at least equal) going by stats. Heck you can even include Inzi in that category because in terms of stats he has a case for being an equal with Richards. But as much as I love those two players, they were nowhere close to Viv's talents. You had to truly watch Viv to understand his impact on the game. He destroyed the opposition. He shattered their bowler's confidence. The famous quote about needing a helmet to bowl to him is a great example of how he got into a bowler's head. When he was on the crease destroying everyone with ease, the whole team would get demoralized and heads and shoulders would drop. So even after he got out, probably out of boredom, the rest of the WI batsman could now work on a demoralized opposition. These are intangibles that stats can't measure.

 

[Richard]

I don't feel such things are remotely neccessary though. You can win cricket-matches without this. I honestly could not care less, personally, for that type of cricket. If anything, I dislike it. I hate one player demoralising whole teams, or being seen to.

I also feel it's hugely overrated because it makes such an impression on most people. As I said - don't think I underestimate Richards' wow-factor. I just feel people attach way, way too much importance to it in judging him as a batsman. Because batting is principally about making as many runs as possible, and there were quite a few who did that better than Richards.

As regards Javed - he was equal in terms of the runs he scored, near enough. He was lesser in terms of the wow-factor, much less.

 

[Ikki]

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.

People don't go 'Wow' at the sight of something ordinary. The way Richards punished attacks, made huge scores in such little time, and against those bowlers in those pitches, it is indeed something that should make you go 'Wow'.

 

[silentstriker]

People don't go 'Wow' at the sight of something ordinary. The way Richards punished attacks, made huge scores in such little time, and against those bowlers in those pitches, it is indeed something that should make you go 'Wow'.

Of course it should. Mark Waugh made me 'Wow' too, much more than Steve Waugh, but I don't go around saying that Mark was a better player.

 

[Ikki]

I don't feel such things are remotely neccessary though. You can win cricket-matches without this. I honestly could not care less, personally, for that type of cricket. If anything, I dislike it. I hate one player demoralising whole teams, or being seen to.

I also feel it's hugely overrated because it makes such an impression on most people. As I said - don't think I underestimate Richards' wow-factor. I just feel people attach way, way too much importance to it in judging him as a batsman. Because batting is principally about making as many runs as possible, and there were quite a few who did that better than Richards.

As regards Javed - he was equal in terms of the runs he scored, near enough. He was lesser in terms of the wow-factor, much less.

I am seriously beginning to wonder if you have ever played the game, or in a serious competition. Actually, I even question it for any sport because in all sports you would appreciate these facts. You have absolutely zero appreciation for the mental aspect of the game, none.

Scoring big totals aren't necessary either Richard. You can win tests with scores of 200 too.

And as I said, it is for no easy performance that people go 'Wow'. It takes something very special, especially at this level for players to be separated in skill and in the eyes of the public - fans as well as cricketers, past and at the time present.

But you are specifically wrong again: batting is about scoring runs and doing so as fast as you can. In that day and age, the SRs were not as important factor as they are now, and if you compare Richards' scores, especially the big ones, you see he even outdoes present day guys like Ponting.

 

[Ikki]

Of course it should. Mark Waugh made me 'Wow' too, much more than Steve Waugh, but I don't go around saying that Mark was a better player.

Well, that's entirely the point. Richards not only made you go 'Wow', he scored a crap-load of runs. As I said, imagine having a Gilchrist with the scoring power of a Lara. If that doesn't make you go 'Wow', you should quit watching cricket because you're not bound to see anything much better.

 

[Goughy]

Its simple regarding whether Richards a an all-time great.

When you are the premier batsman of the dominant team in World cricket, have a great record, score runs when they are needed most, have been the best batsman in the world during your career and have all sorts of records then it is an open and shut case.

I would rank Ponting and Richards over most on that list.

 

[Richard]

I am seriously beginning to wonder if you have ever played the game, or in a serious competition. Actually, I even question it for any sport because in all sports you would appreciate these facts. You have absolutely zero appreciation for the mental aspect of the game, none.

Scoring big totals aren't necessary either Richard. You can win tests with scores of 200 too.

And as I said, it is for no easy performance that people go 'Wow'. It takes something very special, especially at this level for players to be separated in skill and in the eyes of the public - fans as well as cricketers, past and at the time present.

But you are specifically wrong again: batting is about scoring runs and doing so as fast as you can. In that day and age, the SRs were not as important factor as they are now, and if you compare Richards' scores, especially the big ones, you see he even outdoes present day guys like Ponting.

I'm not questioning whether I've ever played sport, because I have. Of course it's not easy to perform in a way that causes the wow-factor. But too many of the cricket-watching public place this over size of substance, and it's this reason why two top-tier players are rated as the best (being the best batsman after Bradman being, essentially, top of the batting tree).

And I've said it before: you place too much importance on the pace of scoring. Tests last 5 days; you can score at 45-per-100 balls and that's easily quick enough.

 

[Richard]

Its simple regarding whether Richards a an all-time great.

When you are the premier batsman of the dominant team in World cricket, have a great record, score runs when they are needed most, have been the best batsman in the world during your career and have all sorts of records then it is an open and shut case.

I would rank Ponting and Richards over most on that list.

What about Stephen Waugh? He helped make a side into the dominant team in World cricket, by scoring runs "when they were most needed" more than any others.

Yet, funny thing, he rarely gets as much credit as Ponting and Richards. Why? Because he didn't look as good.

 

[Goughy]

What about Stephen Waugh? He helped make a side into the dominant team in World cricket, by scoring runs "when they were most needed" more than any others.

Yet, funny thing, he rarely gets as much credit as Ponting and Richards. Why? Because he didn't look as good.

Im a great admirer of Steve Waugh and Id rather have him bat for my life than Lara and Tendulkar. The MRF trio all had their advocates but Id not have any close to my all-time top bats.

The style of Waugh has no input into my decision. Im different to others here i that I dont give bonus points to stylists.

What I will give Waugh is that he never padded his stats in soft draws and saved his best to help his team win games. Something I find very important.

Probably the only reason I dont have Waugh near the top of my list is that he had a number of different phases in his career and was often a complimentary player.

This all plays into what I said at the beginning. There are too many top batsman to start ranking them. Basically, if you are in the top 30 (in no part order) then you are an exceptional player.

 

[Richard]

I guess.

Really, we're just fortunate that Bradman's so obviously the best as no-one (of sound mind) can dispute that.

 

[Sanz]

Hey we are just happy that you acknowldge him as the best batsman despite his unproven record all over the world except England and Australia.

 

[Richard]

Has anyone else averaged 99.94 or anything remotely close? Had they done so in the more recent times, their deeds would be even more impressive.

Has anyone else also failed to realise that England and Australia in his day threw-up as much variation as much of the travelling today does?

 

[silentstriker]

Hey we are just happy that you acknowldge him as the best batsman despite his unproven record all over the world except England and Australia.

Why wouldn't he? As he has said before, those things only come into play when comparing players that were otherwise similar. No one is all that similar to Bradman.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not questioning whether I've ever played sport, because I have. Of course it's not easy to perform in a way that causes the wow-factor. But too many of the cricket-watching public place this over size of substance, and it's this reason why two top-tier players are rated as the best (being the best batsman after Bradman being, essentially, top of the batting tree).

And I've said it before: you place too much importance on the pace of scoring. Tests last 5 days; you can score at 45-per-100 balls and that's easily quick enough.

How do they? The guys above score at near the same rates and with similar success. If anything is going to separate them it will be surely more than just stats.

 

[silentstriker]

Ridiculous that Richards is leading over Hobbs. Not the same class.

 

[Ikki]

Ridiculous that Richards is leading over Hobbs. Not the same class.

Please explain.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Ridiculous that Richards is leading over Hobbs. Not the same class.

 

[open365]

Tendulkar.

Ignoring results, i don't think anyone else has been as perfect a batsman as Sachin is.