Your top 10 TEST batsmen of all-time

[Perm]

I think May took advantage of some very weak NZ teams to boost his average up a bit in the 1950s. Top 50 material, not 20 i.m.o.

Still averages 44.70 when you remove New Zealand. Good, but nowhere near top 10.

 

[Perm]

I'd very much like to see a list by position. Best numbers 1 - 11 in history.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/261120.html

It's a bit old, but still pretty accurate I'd say.

EDIT: Kallis now averages 72.77 at #4, but Mohammad Yousuf trumps him with 73.77.

Vettori averages 40.40 at #8 while Pollock's average has stayed the same.

 

[honestbharani]

Try and give me an all-time list. I would be interested to see it.

Well, I will try but I am not the greatest student of the history of the game and although I tend to know which were the great ones, generally, ranking them is not a very pleasing thing for me to do... Esp. since I haven't seen them live in their eras... And judging by the scorecards is not the best way to RANK people... Maybe we can see if they are great or not, but to actually say A is better than B based on scorecards is never the best way to go, IMHO.....


But still....


1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Hobbs
4. Hutton
5. Lara
6. Richards
7. Greg Chappell
8. Tendulkar
9. Gavaskar
10. Miandad

 

[Matteh]

In Ranking, so therefore descending points order.

1: Alvin Kallicharan
2: Brian Lara
3: Rohan Kanhai
4: Nick Knight
5: Dennis Amiss
6: MJK Smith
7: Bob Wyatt
8: Tom Dollery
9: Ian Bell
10: Darren Maddy

 

[oz_fan]

1. Don Bradman (10)
2. Jack Hobbs (9)
3. Wally Hammond (8)
4. Gary Sobers (7)
5. George Headley (6)
6. Brian Lara (5)
7. Viv Richards (4)
8. Greg Chappell (3)
9. Sachin Tendulkar (2)
10. Herbert Sutcliffe (1)

 

[Johnners]

1. Bradman
2. Hobbs
3. Sobers
4. V. Richards
5. Hammond
6. Tendulkar
7. Lara
8. Headley
9. Ponting
10. Pollock

 

[biased indian]

Hmm, you all know my opinion on stats so we'll leave it at that.

Btw DoG, I think the list should only include batsmen that got votes from more than one person.

In Ranking, so therefore descending points order.

1: Alvin Kallicharan
2: Brian Lara
3: Rohan Kanhai
4: Nick Knight
5: Dennis Amiss
6: MJK Smith
7: Bob Wyatt
8: Tom Dollery
9: Ian Bell
10: Darren Maddy

Should definetly apply that rule now

 

[NUFAN]

Well, I will try but I am not the greatest student of the history of the game and although I tend to know which were the great ones, generally, ranking them is not a very pleasing thing for me to do... Esp. since I haven't seen them live in their eras... And judging by the scorecards is not the best way to RANK people... Maybe we can see if they are great or not, but to actually say A is better than B based on scorecards is never the best way to go, IMHO.....

I've been thinking about this alot and your right, I really should change my list.

Screw averages

 

[NUFAN]

1 Don Bradman
2 Gary Sobers
3 Viv Richards
4 Ricky Ponting
5 Sachin Tendulkar
6 Brian Lara
7 David Gower
8 Jacques Kallis
9 Rahul Dravid
10 Adam Gilchrist

Bradman was obviously gun, Sobers had the highest score and was awesome. The rest I've seen play and that's my order.

 

[Perm]

Well, I will try but I am not the greatest student of the history of the game and although I tend to know which were the great ones, generally, ranking them is not a very pleasing thing for me to do... Esp. since I haven't seen them live in their eras... And judging by the scorecards is not the best way to RANK people... Maybe we can see if they are great or not, but to actually say A is better than B based on scorecards is never the best way to go, IMHO.....

The main aim of a batsman is to score runs, what better way to judge how effective he was than by looking at his statistics? The way a batsmen looked should never influence people's opinions on how good he was at doing his job, IMO.

 

[NUFAN]

The main aim of a batsman is to score runs, what better way to judge how effective he was than by looking at his statistics? The way a batsmen looked should never influence people's opinions on how good he was at doing his job, IMO.

Ok then my top 10 is..

Bradman 99.94
Hussey 86.18
Pollock 60.97
Headley 60.83
Sutcliffe 60.73
Ponting 59.42
Paynter 59.23
Barrington 58.67
Weekes 58.61
Hammond 58.45

 

[Perm]

Ok then by top 10 is..

Bradman 99.94
Hussey 86.18
Pollock 60.97
Headley 60.83
Sutcliffe 60.73
Ponting 59.42
Paynter 59.23
Barrington 58.67
Weekes 58.61
Hammond 58.45

No, because there are other factors to consider. For example, I don't feel that Hussey, Pollock, Headley and Paynter have played enough Tests. Also, I feel that Ponting's average has been inflated due to the conditions he has played in. There are other batsmen who are superior to him, who average just slightly less, but have done so in a harder period.

 

[The_Bunny]

Ok then my top 10 is..

Bradman 99.94
Hussey 86.18
Pollock 60.97
Headley 60.83
Sutcliffe 60.73
Ponting 59.42
Paynter 59.23
Barrington 58.67
Weekes 58.61
Hammond 58.45

I would have thought a purely averages based top ten would have been further off than that tbh.

 

[NUFAN]

I would have thought a purely averages based top ten would have been further off than that tbh.

Minimum of 20 innings.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The main aim of a batsman is to score runs, what better way to judge how effective he was than by looking at his statistics? The way a batsmen looked should never influence people's opinions on how good he was at doing his job, IMO.

You're only saying this as you haven't seen enough cricket! Lalalalala! I'm now physically sticking my tongue out at you in a non-threatening way.

Ouch... I just bit it. Shouldn't have been eating pizza and sticking the tongue out in a non-threatening way at the same time to be honest. Only got myself to blame for that mistake.

 

[honestbharani]

The main aim of a batsman is to score runs, what better way to judge how effective he was than by looking at his statistics? The way a batsmen looked should never influence people's opinions on how good he was at doing his job, IMO.

cricket is not played between computers or robots.


It is between people and the very reason we are people is because we tend to be swayed by emotions and that applies to the fans as well as to the players. People can claim to be not affected by emotions but that is almost invariably just a lie. Any bowler who says it never affects him whether it is a Gilchrist who scores a 50 off him or whether it is Kallis is probably juz lying. I know it affects me when a batsman makes me look like an idiot at the level I play in, can't imagine how it could be different for others. And just take a look at how many ex players and pundits talk about destroying a bowlers' confidence and all that. If the game was just about scoring runs (no matter how) and taking wickets... it won't be any better than playing EA sports cricket.....

 

[Perm]

cricket is not played between computers or robots.

It is between people and the very reason we are people is because we tend to be swayed by emotions and that applies to the fans as well as to the players. People can claim to be not affected by emotions but that is almost invariably just a lie. Any bowler who says it never affects him whether it is a Gilchrist who scores a 50 off him or whether it is Kallis is probably juz lying. I know it affects me when a batsman makes me look like an idiot at the level I play in, can't imagine how it could be different for others. And just take a look at how many ex players and pundits talk about destroying a bowlers' confidence and all that. If the game was just about scoring runs (no matter how) and taking wickets... it won't be any better than playing EA sports cricket.....

In the end though, the most basic thing in cricket is scoring runs and taking wickets. That's what counts. People won't remember a batsmen who looked sublime but failed to average 20 in Test cricket, but they'll remember somebody who averaged 60+, even if he was terrible to watch.

 

[honestbharani]

In the end though, the most basic thing in cricket is scoring runs and taking wickets. That's what counts. People won't remember a batsmen who looked sublime but failed to average 20 in Test cricket, but they'll remember somebody who averaged 60+, even if he was terrible to watch.

yeah, but the guys we are talking about aren't ones who averaged 20 with the bat and 60 with the ball......

 

[Fiery]

In the end though, the most basic thing in cricket is scoring runs and taking wickets. That's what counts. People won't remember a batsmen who looked sublime but failed to average 20 in Test cricket, but they'll remember somebody who averaged 60+, even if he was terrible to watch.

DWTA. As an example, I remember loving watching Dipak Patel bat and remember his style well despite his record being pretty ordinary. I remember the stylish players regardless of how poor their stats were

 

[Perm]

DWTA. As an example, I remember loving watching Dipak Patel bat and remember his style well despite his record being pretty ordinary. I remember the stylish players regardless of how poor their stats were

I was referring to their legacies though, as those that score more heavily will generally be remember more than those who aren't as good, even if they look better.