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

[umop 3p!sdn]

Who's the greaatest ever then,Mark Ramprakash?

Luke Wright

 

[Sanz]

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.

It is a fact that Bradman is unproven in every country except Australia and England. Historians have been very biased in their writting about Bradman not to forget most of his scores have been made against namby pambys of his world.

If Bradman were to play in 90s he would be averaging much worse than the likes of Lara, Ponting etc. In other words he is not fit enough to wipe the shoes of batsmen of today, even Nasser Hussain is better than him.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

If Bradman were to play in 90s he would be averaging much worse than the likes of Lara, Ponting etc. In other words he is not fit enough to wipe the shoes of batsmen of today, even Nasser Hussain is better than him.

 

[funnygirl]

I have a question for SS ,who do u think is the better batsman .Tendulkar or Dravid?

 

[Ikki]

It is a fact that Bradman is unproven in every country except Australia and England. Historians have been very biased in their writting about Bradman not to forget most of his scores have been made against namby pambys of his world.

If Bradman were to play in 90s he would be averaging much worse than the likes of Lara, Ponting etc. In other words he is not fit enough to wipe the shoes of batsmen of today, even Nasser Hussain is better than him.

You're forgetting Nick Knight.

 

[Richard]

It is a fact that Bradman is unproven in every country except Australia and England. Historians have been very biased in their writting about Bradman not to forget most of his scores have been made against namby pambys of his world.

If Bradman were to play in 90s he would be averaging much worse than the likes of Lara, Ponting etc. In other words he is not fit enough to wipe the shoes of batsmen of today, even Nasser Hussain is better than him.

 

[Richard]

I have a question for SS ,who do u think is the better batsman .Tendulkar or Dravid?

Well aware that I'm not ss but...

Tendulkar until 2002, by a fair bit; Dravid since 2003, by a considerable margin.

 

[Swervy]

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

no, just different types of players from different eras, and some of us saw Richards play, and no-one here saw Hobbs play. Its hardly ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

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.

Not just stats, no, but the context of the stats. Fair enough, Richards (who averaged "only" 54 in the significant part of his Test career) was indeed a better batsman (IMO) than, shall we say, Bill Ponsford or Stan McCabe, who had relatively similar averages, but which were scored often on the (by common consent) flat pitches in Australia of the 1920s and 30s, and England of the 1930s, against lesser attacks than were generally on show in the 1980s and, more so, the 1970s.

Richards was considerably less successful at scoring runs than quite a few other batsmen however, some of whom I name in my post replying to Sean earlier on (though my estimate of 20 was probably slightly inflated). And how many runs and how often you score them, not merely whether you usually decimate bowling attacks when you do score, that makes a batsman as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

no, just different types of players from different eras, and some of us saw Richards play, and no-one here saw Hobbs play. Its hardly ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. Hobbs' run-scoring ability outstripped almost anyone bar Bradman, and occasionally on surfaces that would quite possibly kill many modern players.

Only people with a true feel for cricket history can truly appreciate how astounding the deeds of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and the like were. To survive on stickies - and not merely survive, but manage to maintain an average in the 50s and 60s - took ability that is never, ever tested in players of the covered-pitches era.

 

[Sanz]

Oh My God... Richard just used the 'Rolled Eye', its worse than the 3rd of Shiva. I am doomed.


Wait...


That Rolleyes means **** to me.

 

[archie mac]

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.

Well I think more than any other is wrong, Border would win that contest. And yes how you score runs is very important in cricket, that is the reason it is the greatest of all sports. I can enjoy Steve in a back to the wall effort, but if I was given a choice of watching Richards in a losing game scoring a ton and Steve in a winning game scoring a ton than I would choose Richards every time, and tbh Steve Waugh was not fit to clean Viv's boots. And if you would have watched the man we would not be having this silly argument.

Wow!

 

[archie mac]

It is ridiculous. Hobbs' run-scoring ability outstripped almost anyone bar Bradman, and occasionally on surfaces that would quite possibly kill many modern players.

Only people with a true feel for cricket history can truly appreciate how astounding the deeds of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and the like were. To survive on stickies - and not merely survive, but manage to maintain an average in the 50s and 60s - took ability that is never, ever tested in players of the covered-pitches era.

Yes but on the same pitches Sutcliffe out averaged Hobbs so on your theory he must be the better batsman? But not even Yorkshire people thought that

 

[neville cardus]

Master Jack.

 

[shortpitched713]

Tendulkar.

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

Michael Hussey. And this is said in all seriousness.

 

[shortpitched713]

And yes how you score runs is very important in cricket, that is the reason it is the greatest of all sports.

Well, maybe for those who watch it it is. But for the men playing in the ground, clearly it could matter less. If it really, really mattered, I don't think I would take any batsman over Steve Waugh, maybe not even Bradman.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

There are many ways to skin the cat, Richard. Steve Waugh ground out the opposition from where he and the other batters could take advantage. Richards destroyed the opposition's morale from where he and others could take advantage. Both of them did it consistently enough but purely on a skill basis, Richards stands well above Waugh and hence, ppl rate him as better. If you just think cricket is about making runs and taking wickets ALONE, it is obvious u are much better off watching it than playing it. I know, having played at my school junior level, that a batsman who attacks the bowlers is a big big plus compared to one who stone walls.


Of course, it all depends on the make up of your side but Richards average holds up to most great batsman you can compare him with and he is head and shoulders above everyone else on that list in demoralizing bowlers. Steve Waugh played a role in a stroke maker filled Aussie line up just like Dravid does. But in choosing an all time XI, one can go for stroke makers a plenty who all average above 50. It shows they are consistent enough adding to their stroke making abilities. Also, it takes more skill to attack a good ball than to defend it. That is why stroke makers are generally held in higher regard than defensive batsmen. I can understand if you claim S Waugh > Hayden but Richards faced better bowling than even S Waugh did, in tougher condiitions with lesser protection and on tougher wickets than the flat tracks we have seen towards the last 3 or 4 years of Steve Waugh's career and he still had a very very good record... I hate to have to rate batsmen I have never watched but I can easily see why there are grounds to put Richards above some others in that list in other people's opinions... Arguing about players you have never seen is just plain wrong because there is just so much in cricket that you can only figure out when watching a game LIVE, at least on telly...

 

[honestbharani]

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.

compare Mark Waugh's average and Viv's. U will have ur answer. Viv did it more consistently and against better attacks. Mark Waugh was never even close to great but Viv was/is an all time great. For all his supposed ability against spin, Waugh even struggled against India in 2001 when India were an one man attack.

 

[honestbharani]

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, it is seriously funny that u r now saying that the fans and experts who rate Richard dunno much about the sport or that they just go in for the glamour factor or whatever. U can say that abt the wonderful fans in the subcontinent (in India, to be specific) who grow up in the bollywood culture and who just think Sachin is the best of all time regardless of the fact that they don't even know names like Hammond and even Mankad... Those West Indian fans, English fans and Aussie fans who rate Viv as the best know hell of a lot more about cricket than the average Indian fans. In fact, I will say the average Indian fan in the 80s and 70s knew more abt cricket than the current day ones. And even those guys rate Viv as the best. And when it comes to players, if you think blokes like Imran Khan and Geoffrey Boycott are taken in by the "wow" factor alone when they rate Viv as the best they have seen....Well........

 

[honestbharani]

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

and u can say that even though u haven't watched either play????