Your top 10 TEST batsmen of all-time

[JBMAC]

Well, when your dad says "so and so" was a great batsman, mostly it is often true.... But when you start saying X was a greater batsman than Y simply because my dad told me so... That is when it starts getting as ridiculous as "X averaged more than Y in the 5 years between so and so" comparisons...


But mostly, only great batsmen are called great by most cricket lovers... Ranking someone as a great is easy and mostly you get decent uniformity of opinion there... It is when we start COMPARING those greats that the trouble starts.. Esp. when they are blokes who finished their careers before we were even born and all we have to go by are statsguru and others' opinions... Neither are accurate and that is why I simply hate doing that...

But then you must take into consideration those of us who have been watching those early players and who have formed an opinion based on both stats and what they actually saw.You can't just dismiss the total concept that cricket only started in the seventies or eighties based on your own age and experience.Some of us started watching cricket in the forties and I would say SJS probably in the fifties.

 

[honestbharani]

But then you must take into consideration those of us who have been watching those early players and who have formed an opinion based on both stats and what they actually saw.You can't just dismiss the total concept that cricket only started in the seventies or eighties based on your own age and experience.Some of us started watching cricket in the forties and I would say SJS probably in the fifties.

I never said that... And I dunno why you would think that.


All I am saying is, while we do value your opinion, at the end of the day, that is it. An opinion... Some of us here tend to respect the opinions on players of those who have seen them play, but some won't... And it won't honestly settle anything as invariably those who don't will dig up some stats to contradict the other guy.... If SJS feels Mankad was a better allrounder than Kapil Dev, I will believe him and if you tell me that Miller was a better all rounder than an Imran or a Botham, I will believe you too... I dont have a problem accepting respected members' views on players they have seen. But at the end of the day, it is no way to prove anything regarding X is a better player than Y... That was my point. Hope I was clear.

 

[Perm]

I get sick of having the same argument over and over again TBH, so I just don't think I'll persist. People who say "I remember watching so-and-so do this, and by crikey he was one of the best batsmen ever", even though the guy could be averaging significantly less than his contempories.

I'm also getting tired of people practically using the :rolleyes: at people who place value on statistics. Just because people disagree with you and have a different way of ranking players, doesn't mean you should belittle their opinion constantly and also their method of arguing.

 

[Fiery]

I'm also getting tired of people practically using the :rolleyes: at people who place value on statistics. Just because people disagree with you and have a different way of ranking players, doesn't mean you should belittle their opinion constantly and also their method of arguing.

And you never do that of course

 

[Perm]

And you never do that of course

Yes, I have. Got an issue with the few posts that HDS has made in this thread though, that are of no real use other than to try and put down those who value statistics.

 

[Fiery]

Yes, I have. Got an issue with the few posts that HDS has made in this thread though, that are of no real use other than to try and put down those who value statistics.

Don't whinge to me about it

 

[JBMAC]

I get sick of having the same argument over and over again TBH, so I just don't think I'll persist. People who say "I remember watching so-and-so do this, and by crikey he was one of the best batsmen ever", even though the guy could be averaging significantly less than his contempories.

I'm also getting tired of people practically using the :rolleyes: at people who place value on statistics. Just because people disagree with you and have a different way of ranking players, doesn't mean you should belittle their opinion constantly and also their method of arguing.

Methinks thou dost protest too much

 

[archie mac]

Yes, I have. Got an issue with the few posts that HDS has made in this thread though, that are of no real use other than to try and put down those who value statistics.

Anyway just let me say that I have a lot of time for most of your opinions

Also I replied in the Murali thread about Lillee before reading your 'rolleye' post

So don't visit the Murali thread

 

[Athlai]

Methinks thou dost protest too much

Gun.



O! but she’ll keep her word.

 

[biased indian]

 

[Evermind]

1 My grandfather - Seriously guys he may not be a statistic but he was the best I've ever seen. Fantastic reflexes! And this at 72!
2 My best friend's cousin - Had the loveliest cover drive! Better than tendulkar's! Shame no one's seen him except 35 people maybe. International cricket doesn't know what it's missing.
.
.
.
10 Don Bradman - I hear he was good.

 

[Ikki]

Bradman
Richards V
Hobbs
Gilchrist
Sobers
Chappell
Lara
Hammond
Tendulkar
Gavaskar


Ponting, Hussey, Dravid are pushing some of those names up there.

Seeing Gilchrist that high up most will have trouble with it but I rate his batting very very highly. If Richards brought domination (high run-scoring and doing it fastly) then Gilchrist improved it. The cleanest striker of the ball ever in the opinion of some. Has fallen in recent years, but still sports an amazing average considering his SR. Has played big innings, made big runs and done it consistently and quickly.

 

[Days of Grace]

First time Gilly has appeared in anyone's list, which actually surprises me.

Because, I think that in years to come, he may be talked about as leaving the same amount of influence on the game as Viv Richards.

 

[Athlai]

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.

I'll just name the players I have watched.

1. Lara
2. Tendulkar
3. Ponting
4. Dravid
5. Inzamam
6. Kallis
7. Flower
8. Gilchrist
9. Kirsten (G)
10. Langer

1. Bradman
2. M.Taylor
3. Ponting
4. Hayden
5. Border
6. S.Waugh
7. Lara
8. Langer
9. M.Waugh
10. Gilchrist


Duno why people put Chappell above Border....Greg Chappell couldnt handle the West Indian pace attack....

First time Gilly has appeared in anyone's list...

Hmm.

 

[Richard]

DoG clearly meant lists that anyone would be likely to take seriously, though.

 

[Richard]

First time Gilly has appeared in anyone's list, which actually surprises me.

Because, I think that in years to come, he may be talked about as leaving the same amount of influence on the game as Viv Richards.

Nah.

Purely on their batting, there's little if anything to divide the two, though Richards' decline wasn't as swift.

There's no way on Earth the two will ever be considered equals though. Why? Because Richards, even if he could bat no better than Gilchrist in their respective heydays, had the attitude of a destroyer - Gilchrist never did, he was the most gentlemanly destroyer you'll ever see.

And much as people may deny it, it's obvious to, well IMO any good judge of character, that this makes a huge impact.

 

[Richard]

You guys arguing the merits of Peter May amuse me. Did any of you ever see the man play? Judging by your responses here to his ability, I think not. May was a class batsman who could glide/guide the ball to any part of the field he wanted to. He had style and guile and was a good leader of men.To not include him in this top 10 is a definite misnomer.

May was indeed beyond question a class batsman, one of England's best. However, there were those who could be and were more productive than him. And there are many, many, many brilliant players who would never make an all-time top-ten. Not doing so is no real slight.

 

[JBMAC]

May was indeed beyond question a class batsman, one of England's best. However, there were those who could be and were more productive than him. And there are many, many, many brilliant players who would never make an all-time top-ten. Not doing so is no real slight.

It's not often I agree with your sentiments Richard but you are right this time.IMPO the only way to do a "top ten" is by decade and even then there would be contention but not as much.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nah.

Purely on their batting, there's little if anything to divide the two, though Richards' decline wasn't as swift.

There's no way on Earth the two will ever be considered equals though. Why? Because Richards, even if he could bat no better than Gilchrist in their respective heydays, had the attitude of a destroyer - Gilchrist never did, he was the most gentlemanly destroyer you'll ever see.

And much as people may deny it, it's obvious to, well IMO any good judge of character, that this makes a huge impact.

There's little doubt that Viv Richards was an arrogant sod with the bat (which in truth was his undoing on many occasions) and fairly unpleasant and not particularly sporting as a captain. He's still way ahead of Gilchrist as a batsman but if you want to combine batting skills with the Mother Teresa Award to judge a batsman then Gilchrist wins.

 

[Richard]

So then... how exactly was it Richards in his 1970s heyday was more effective with bat in hand than Gilchrist was between his debut in 1999\2000 and 2003?