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

[Prince EWS]

A question: is there a batsmen other than Bradman who has played more than 20 tests and has more centuries than fifties? Headley seems to have too.

Agit Agarkar. One century, no fifties. Best after Bradman.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Appreciation of cricket history does not equate to rating players whom we have never seen. I am sure Hobbs was an outstanding player and that is why he was obviously chosen as one of the 5 Wisden Cricketers of the century. But I never watched him and I am only going to rate someone I have seen as the best. Many here have seen Richards and they think he is the best they have seen and they are rating him as such. I voted for Lara here because he is the best I have seen. It is not my fault and certainly not the players' fault that I haven't some of the greats in the poll in action... AT the end of the day, rating players out of stats and what historians wrote of them kills what cricket means to me. I watch the game, I see the players in action, I work out who is the best based on various criteria which I think are important to that aspect of the game and so on... Old players make great stories and we can all speculate and imagine how good/great they were but trying to impress it on other people as fact is just not on. You are just as clueless as I am as to how good Hobbs would be against Warne and Murali.... We can imagine and speculate that he would be just as good as he was good against the best in that era, but here we are rating who is the best batsmen after Bradman and for mine, it is not the place to vote based on speculations. I would rather vote on facts.

 

[Craig]

Agit Agarkar. One century, no fifties. Best after Bradman.

On fire today.

For me I voted for George Headley, he was a freak despite playing so little Tests (although that can be hardly be held against him when travel was so much harder and expensive in those days).

BTW Archie, there was/is a cricket book called "Famous Cricketing Families" (or something similar), have you read it (probably a stupid question )?

 

[readie]

Ricky Ponting

 

[R_D]

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.

in fairness to Mark Waugh.. he probaly shouldn't have played that series..... he was out of form much before he reached India. Don't think he ever recovered from that form slump.

 

[honestbharani]

in fairness to Mark Waugh.. he probaly shouldn't have played that series..... he was out of form much before he reached India. Don't think he ever recovered from that form slump.

yeah, he wasn't flash in the earlier series either, was he? I remember the 170 odd in Bangalore but he wasn't firing much when the series was live.

 

[neville cardus]

BTW Archie, there was/is a cricket book called "Famous Cricketing Families" (or something similar), have you read it (probably a stupid question )?

I've read bits of it for referential purposes.

 

[neville cardus]

Appreciation of cricket history does not equate to rating players whom we have never seen. I am sure Hobbs was an outstanding player and that is why he was obviously chosen as one of the 5 Wisden Cricketers of the century. But I never watched him and I am only going to rate someone I have seen as the best. Many here have seen Richards and they think he is the best they have seen and they are rating him as such. I voted for Lara here because he is the best I have seen. It is not my fault and certainly not the players' fault that I haven't some of the greats in the poll in action... AT the end of the day, rating players out of stats and what historians wrote of them kills what cricket means to me. I watch the game, I see the players in action, I work out who is the best based on various criteria which I think are important to that aspect of the game and so on... Old players make great stories and we can all speculate and imagine how good/great they were but trying to impress it on other people as fact is just not on. You are just as clueless as I am as to how good Hobbs would be against Warne and Murali.... We can imagine and speculate that he would be just as good as he was good against the best in that era, but here we are rating who is the best batsmen after Bradman and for mine, it is not the place to vote based on speculations. I would rather vote on facts.

I doubt that you saw Bradman in action, yet you're not arguing about his place as the best ever.

 

[Richard]

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!

Not this again! I am not one to let impulse and what appears most impressive and easy on the eye fool my judgement of output! Stephen Waugh was beyond question fit to clean Viv's boots, it's ridiculous to say that he wasn't! Nothing short of. You can claim Viv was better, but to suggest they're in different classes is simply putting everything on aesthetics and nothing on output.

Of course most people would prefer to watch Viv! That doesn't mean he'd be more likely to help you win (or not lose) games of cricket than Stephen Waugh!

 

[Richard]

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

Sutcliffe out-averaged Hobbs in most respects - Hobbs' extraordinarity was not purely due to overall averages. Had Sutcliffe had a career that ran exactly parrallell to Hobbs' we'd be able to compare. As it is, though, there are countless hundreds of things that meant Hobbs was the better.

 

[Richard]

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...

No way on Earth did Richards score his runs against better bowling-attacks than Stephen Waugh did. No way. Nor were the wickets much different - little changed about surfaces around The World in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Having less protection was entirely Richards' choice, too, for most of his career, he could have had the protection if he wanted it.

I am very careful, meanwhile, about whose opinions I rate players above others on, and so many people fall prey to the same things, which means I always take such opinions with a pinch of salt.

As for the attack > defence thing... frankly I think it's nonsense that it takes more skill to "attack a good ball than defend it". The simple fact is, what is a good ball and what is a bad ball changes from batsman to batsman. What might have been a good ball to Stephen Waugh wasn't neccessarily one to Vivian Richards.

However, this really doesn't matter that much. Just because one can and does play more strokes, in the end all that matters so far as your contribution to the game is how many runs you make. Graham Gooch possessed far less strokes than Mark Lathwell, but who was the better player?

At one-day cricket, obviously, an attacking batsman is better than a defensive one (presuming both score). In Tests, though, you have five days. It really doesn't overtly matter whether you score very quickly or not that quickly. Yes, you can demoralise opposition, but again, this is something really rather overrated - it doesn't take demoralising the opposition to win Tests. Give me a massive run-maker who doesn't have the fear-factor over a fairly large run-maker who does anyday.

 

[Richard]

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........

I honestly do, because so many are. People like myself and ss who virtually ignore this when it comes to rating players' ability to influence matches are fairly rare.

 

[Richard]

Appreciation of cricket history does not equate to rating players whom we have never seen. I am sure Hobbs was an outstanding player and that is why he was obviously chosen as one of the 5 Wisden Cricketers of the century. But I never watched him and I am only going to rate someone I have seen as the best. Many here have seen Richards and they think he is the best they have seen and they are rating him as such. I voted for Lara here because he is the best I have seen. It is not my fault and certainly not the players' fault that I haven't some of the greats in the poll in action... AT the end of the day, rating players out of stats and what historians wrote of them kills what cricket means to me. I watch the game, I see the players in action, I work out who is the best based on various criteria which I think are important to that aspect of the game and so on... Old players make great stories and we can all speculate and imagine how good/great they were but trying to impress it on other people as fact is just not on. You are just as clueless as I am as to how good Hobbs would be against Warne and Murali.... We can imagine and speculate that he would be just as good as he was good against the best in that era, but here we are rating who is the best batsmen after Bradman and for mine, it is not the place to vote based on speculations. I would rather vote on facts.

TBH, it's impossible to vote on facts with no speculation. Any form of what is said by certain people will have some element of speculation within it.

There's no fun in only rating players you've seen. You have to consider those you have and those you haven't, and take account of more than merely what was said about them.

 

[pasag]

No Hammond on the poll? He'd be right up there for mine together with Hobbs, Sobers and Headley in the highest echelon after Bradman but they are ultimately trumped by Grace in my books who was truly the second greatest, for mine. Mind you I'm casually ignoring the word 'Test' in the title

 

[Matt79]

No Hammond on the poll? He'd be right up there for mine together with Hobbs, Sobers and Headley in the highest echelon after Bradman but they are ultimately trumper by Grace in my books who was truly the second greatest, for mine. Mind you I'm casually ignoring the word 'Test' in the title

Freudian slip for mine. Go Vic FTW!

 

[pasag]

Freudian slip for mine. Go Vic FTW!

Was thinking of doing that actually, tbh

 

[Richard]

No Hammond on the poll? He'd be right up there for mine together with Hobbs, Sobers and Headley in the highest echelon after Bradman but they are ultimately trumped by Grace in my books who was truly the second greatest, for mine. Mind you I'm casually ignoring the word 'Test' in the title

Best bloke.

 

[andyc]

Gazza all the way

 

[Prince EWS]

Similarly to those who have voted for Richards on feats other than run-scoring (ability to dismantle a bowling attack, asthetic nature etc), I have voted "other" and would like my vote to be recognised as one for Daren Ganga.

I am 100% serious here. If people are voting for Richards because he was pleasing to the eye could dismantle an attack, I'm voting for Daren Ganga because he's pleasing to my eye and has a superb technique.

Jacques Kallis comes in third.

 

[grecian]

Similarly to those who have voted for Richards on feats other than run-scoring (ability to dismantle a bowling attack, asthetic nature etc), I have voted "other" and would like my vote to be recognised as one for Daren Ganga.

I am 100% serious here. If people are voting for Richards because he was pleasing to the eye could dismantle an attack, I'm voting for Daren Ganga because he's pleasing to my eye and has a superb technique.

Jacques Kallis comes in third.

But he did score runs, as well.

Averaged 54 for most of his career, in a much more arduous time for batting.

The Ganga thing, is frankly silly.