The greatest batsman from each Test team

[Richard]

When I compare the two players I generally disregard the minnows of their day: Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, respectively.

I always disregard substandard sides too, but only Bangladesh fit the bill in the case of those 2 bowlers, and Wasim bowled about 2 overs against them and didn't take a wicket, IIRR. So substandard sides don't matter in this case.

 

[aussie]

No my dear I did not think you were being rude. I just wanted to know for there is a big difference between discussing with those who have seen a player and those who haven't.

Zaheer was technically stronger, than Miandad while having all the strokes and the mental toughness (even though he was a gentleman on the field)

He was stronger than Inzy in the head and fitter while having all the strokes Inzy had. He was also not reluctant to bat higher up the order as Inzy without doubt was. His record in one day cricket is remarkable - more so since he played in the early days of the limited overs game. His strike rate in odi's for those times is mind boggling when seen in context with his batting average and this from a very orthodox batsman.

Hanif was technically the best of the lot but played the fewest strokes - not because he couldn't I think. I have seen Hanif play but I was very young. He was the original little master but the position of Pakistan in world cricket, the psychological (inferiority complex) problems the sub-continental people suffered from those early independence-from-colonial-rule years affected him as it did most. He was the Sunil Gavaskar of the times. Holding on to his wicket as a child does to its safety blanket.

But for having seen Zaheer almost all through his fabulous career, I would have gone for Hanif.

SJS, one more you prove the point that unless you have seen players play, this ridiculous phase the CW is currently going through in comparing players they have not seen & getting all worked up in a depate is fairly useless.

Its fairly good for CW that guys like you, archie mac, LT, Swervy, Goughy, Baggpath etc are around it keeps the other younger memeber on this site in check.

 

[Ikki]

I always disregard substandard sides too, but only Bangladesh fit the bill in the case of those 2 bowlers, and Wasim bowled about 2 overs against them and didn't take a wicket, IIRR. So substandard sides don't matter in this case.

Sri Lanka in the 80s?

 

[aussie]

Because Headley and Sobers were better at scoring runs.

Disregarding Headley for the time being, but with Sobers & Richards maybe stats (selective or solid) prove Sir Gary was better at scoring runs that Sir Viv although it doesn't sound a bit cheesy. But the idea it get from most who have SEEN both play don't give me that idea at all.

 

[Richard]

Don't disagree entirely and do NOT want to get into a statistically-charged war (I'll lose), but the sheer aura of Warne was more than that of any other bowler. He could be considered a threat in any condition against any opponent. Even now, in the IPL 20/20's, he is considered dangerous when the vast majority of the best bowlers in the world cop a hiding in the same format.

Yep, Warne had a hell of an aura. However, I think there were other bowlers who did the job of bowling better than he TBH.

Also think you have somewhat of a past-player bias; not questioning your argument or your knowledge, for I know both are vast, just something I've noticed...
Interesting, given this is the most I've ever seen you post in CC in my CW career. I don't really think it's a case of past-player bias, simply the fact that my cricket lifetime spans 10 years (16 at best), which is a tiny fraction of cricket's history. Therefore naturally only a tiny number of players from my lifetime will rate the best of anything.

I do think Sachin Tendulkar, for example, is one of the best ever in many respects. And he's a player of my lifetime.

I realise it is difficult to acknowledge someone from your own lifetime as a great

but surely Warne must be considered in Australia's top 5 bowlers of all time?

Possibly. As I say, Lindwall, Lillee and McGrath are the top of the pile for me, Davidson next. Then it's probably whichever of the wristspinners comes-out on top.

 

[Richard]

Sri Lanka in the 80s?

Sri Lanka when they ascended to Test status were easily Test-class. They became a bit weaker later on, but were still not even remotely close to being as bad as Bangladesh always have been, or South Africa were until 1906, or New Zealand until 1960.

I've said it before - your definition of Test-class is far, far too strict. But there's precisely no point in me discussing it further with you - I'm merely pointing this out to others.

 

[Richard]

Disregarding Headley for the time being, but with Sobers & Richards maybe stats (selective or solid) prove Sir Gary was better at scoring runs that Sir Viv although it doesn't sound a bit cheesy. But the idea it get from most who have SEEN both play don't give me that idea at all.

I've not seen a single person who saw both Sobers and Richards play who rates Richards the better. Loads of people who saw Richards and not Sobers (or possibly Sobers at the very end of his career) think Richards the better, but that's it.

I've never met anyone who saw Headley play.

 

[aussie]

I've not seen a single person who saw both Sobers and Richards play who rates Richards the better. Loads of people who saw Richards and not Sobers (or possibly Sobers at the very end of his career) think Richards the better, but that's it.

I've never met anyone who saw Headley play.

I'm not saying Sir Viv was better than Sir Gary i am questioning your notion that Sobers was better @ scoring runs than Richards given you have not SEEN them. The idea i get from people who i know that have seen both play outside the CW community (would include my father his elder friends, astutue global commentators & writers, my white granps who has seen cricket @ OT since 1928/29 although hasn't been able to go to test since 2001 give serious arthritis but his brain is in solid order, other granps in T&T who has seen most test @ the QPO since 1954) give me the idea that you couldn't really separate Viv & Sobers on ability only thing is that Richards was more destructive & intimidating while Sobers was more elegant.

On Headley my white granps doesn't rate him as highly as Viv & Sobers but having just spoken with him does reckon he played the second greatest innings he has seen in a test match here second only the a knock by Hunte in 1961, but after running through OT ground stats i reckon he missed Hunte's actual knock by 2 years but you get the jist son..

My point simply is this to you and many on CWers is that their is absolutely no way we can judge a greatplayers with certaintly who we have not seen throughout their careers & just based it on what the stats tell us because we can be misguided. All we do is make educated guesses and generally loose the plot.

 

[Ikki]

Sri Lanka when they ascended to Test status were easily Test-class. They became a bit weaker later on, but were still not even remotely close to being as bad as Bangladesh always have been, or South Africa were until 1906, or New Zealand until 1960.

I've said it before - your definition of Test-class is far, far too strict. But there's precisely no point in me discussing it further with you - I'm merely pointing this out to others.

When there is so much difference between sides, I take that in consideration. I'm not strict, it's just common sense. Sri Lanka had piss poor batsmen in the 80s and Imran Khan altogether routed them in 10 matches for about 14 runs a wicket taking about 39 balls each. To deny how much this improves Imran Khan's overall figures shows an immaturity to compare.

 

[social]

Just because one player couldn't hack the domestic game, doesn't mean a thing really. Almost invariably, the best players at domestic level are also the best at international.

Like it or not, Headley's phenomenal First-Class average does count for something. And he faced first-choice England attacks often enough, and even some of the non-first-choice bowlers he faced were usually still extremely threatening.

Firstly, do the names Hick, Ramprakash, Kambli, Bevan, etc etc etc mean anything to you?

FC record is one of the criteria for being selected but it is no guarantee of success.

Secondly, what makes you think that 1930s WI domestic cricket is remotely relevant as a guage of success at test level. The WI, as a whole, had very few test class players so, in all likelihood, the standard of the competition would be average at best.

Thirdly, why are we considering fc records when, if you're consistent with countless other threads, you'll ignore possibly the greatest innings ever played in Australia (Sobers' 254 for Rest of the World) because it wasn't "test" cricket

In summary, you're grasping at straws to find non-existent evidence to suit your claim

Furthermore, it's Garry freakin" Sobers, the scorer of 26 hundreds against all comers at an average of 58 and a legend of the game

 

[Richard]

When there is so much difference between sides, I take that in consideration. I'm not strict, it's just common sense. Sri Lanka had piss poor batsmen in the 80s and Imran Khan altogether routed them in 10 matches for about 14 runs a wicket taking about 39 balls each. To deny how much this improves Imran Khan's overall figures shows an immaturity to compare.

Haha, yeah, piss poor batsmen like Roy Dias, Arjuna Ranatunga, Asanka Gurasinha, Ranjan Madugalle, Duleep Mendis, Siduth Wettimuny, Aravinda de Silva and Brendon Kuruppu. Shocking stuff.

Sri Lanka may have not been as good as some Test teams. But they were easily good enough to be involved.

 

[Richard]

Firstly, do the names Hick, Ramprakash, Kambli, Bevan, etc etc etc mean anything to you?

FC record is one of the criteria for being selected but it is no guarantee of success.

Secondly, what makes you think that 1930s WI domestic cricket is remotely relevant as a guage of success at test level. The WI, as a whole, had very few test class players so, in all likelihood, the standard of the competition would be average at best.

Thirdly, why are we considering fc records when, if you're consistent with countless other threads, you'll ignore possibly the greatest innings ever played in Australia (Sobers' 254 for Rest of the World) because it wasn't "test" cricket

In summary, you're grasping at straws to find non-existent evidence to suit your claim

Nah, that'd be pointless. I'd just not make the claim if that were true, it'd be far easier.

Headley dominated First-Class cricket in a way virtually no-one has ever done. And there are many who've played a far lower standard than he did. So why then did no-one else ever do that?

Sobers was a magnificent batsman. Headley simply happened to be a little bit better.

Furthermore, it's Garry freakin" Sobers, the scorer of 26 hundreds against all comers at an average of 58 and a legend of the game

Err - so? Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever recognises both Headley and Sobers as legends of the game.

 

[Ikki]

Haha, yeah, piss poor batsmen like Roy Dias, Arjuna Ranatunga, Asanka Gurasinha, Ranjan Madugalle, Duleep Mendis, Siduth Wettimuny, Aravinda de Silva and Brendon Kuruppu. Shocking stuff.

Sri Lanka may have not been as good as some Test teams. But they were easily good enough to be involved.

Sri Lanka in the 80s, around an average of 24 runs per batsman. That's about how good Zimbabwe was post 2000s.

Whether a team is considered Test standard is a different argument. Whether they are/were minnows is my point.

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying Sir Viv was better than Sir Gary i am questioning your notion that Sobers was better @ scoring runs than Richards given you have not SEEN them. The idea i get from people who i know that have seen both play outside the CW community (would include my father his elder friends, astutue global commentators & writers, my white granps who has seen cricket @ OT since 1928/29 although hasn't been able to go to test since 2001 give serious arthritis but his brain is in solid order, other granps in T&T who has seen most test @ the QPO since 1954) give me the idea that you couldn't really separate Viv & Sobers on ability only thing is that Richards was more destructive & intimidating while Sobers was more elegant.

On Headley my white granps doesn't rate him as highly as Viv & Sobers but having just spoken with him does reckon he played the second greatest innings he has seen in a test match here second only the a knock by Hunte in 1961, but after running through OT ground stats i reckon he missed Hunte's actual knock by 2 years but you get the jist son..

My point simply is this to you and many on CWers is that their is absolutely no way we can judge a greatplayers with certaintly who we have not seen throughout their careers & just based it on what the stats tell us because we can be misguided. All we do is make educated guesses and generally loose the plot.

Nah. We can read, listen and assess - and by doing this we can work-out for ourselves who we think we rate as this and that.

I understand the cases of Sobers, Richards etc. very well. But I don't think that just because some people said Richards was the second-greatest batsman of all-time that that's any reason for me to consider him such.

I also don't really understand your comment about this-and-that outside CW. CW generally enjoys a higher standard of cricket discussion than pretty much anywhere I've experienced.

 

[Richard]

Sri Lanka in the 80s, around an average of 24 runs per batsman. That's about how good Zimbabwe was post 2000s.

Whether a team is considered Test standard is a different argument. Whether they are minnows is a whole different argument.

"Minnow" is a poor term, a term used to politely substitude "substandard" and soften the blow.

You're either Test-standard, and matches involving you should be Tests, or you're not, and they shouldn't. There's no in between. Of course, at Test level there will always be stronger and weaker teams, but once a team is Test-standard there's no good reason to exclude anything involving them.

And yes, the best players will always do better against the weak than the strong. If you fail to do this, you haven't maximised your opportunities.

 

[Ikki]

I also don't really understand your comment about this-and-that outside CW. CW generally enjoys a higher standard of cricket discussion than pretty much anywhere I've experienced.

Generally...yeah.

 

[Ikki]

"Minnow" is a poor term, a term used to politely substitude "substandard" and soften the blow.

You're either Test-standard, and matches involving you should be Tests, or you're not, and they shouldn't. There's no in between. Of course, at Test level there will always be stronger and weaker teams, but once a team is Test-standard there's no good reason to exclude anything involving them.

And yes, the best players will always do better against the weak than the strong. If you fail to do this, you haven't maximised your opportunities.

This said by the same genius who discounts Bangladesh and Zimbabwe because he doesn't consider them Test standard.

I just showed you, the same Zimbabwe post 2000 that you say isn't Test standard did about as good as Sri Lanka in the 80s in terms of batting. You have to stop stepping on your own feet.

 

[aussie]

Nah. We can read, listen and assess - and by doing this we can work-out for ourselves who we think we rate as this and that.

Yes but when we get into debates that get us all worked up about players we have not seen then it gets very foolish which has been the sad case on CW of late.

I understand the cases of Sobers, Richards etc. very well. But I don't think that just because some people said Richards was the second-greatest batsman of all-time that that's any reason for me to consider him such.

Word, but if you want to investigate thus get into the habit of questioning the ability of Richards given you have not seen him play thats when the problem begins.

I also don't really understand your comment about this-and-that outside CW. CW generally enjoys a higher standard of cricket discussion than pretty much anywhere I've experienced.

Yea but not many on CW have were old enough to see the great players of the past that have been debated about of late thats why i mentioned my outside sources.

 

[Richard]

This said by the same genius who discounts Bangladesh and Zimbabwe because he doesn't consider them Test standard.

I just showed you, the same Zimbabwe post 2000 that you say isn't Test standard did about as good as Sri Lanka in the 80s in terms of batting. You have to stop stepping on your own feet.

I consider Zimbabwe substandard from 2003 onwards, not 2000. And no, you haven't shown anything - I look at results, not runs-per-wicket average. Zimbabwe have been thrashed in every "Test" bar 1 since 2003. This makes them not close to Test standard. Try again with the putting words into mouth to manufacture non-existant inconsistencies.

 

[Richard]

Yes but when we get into debates that get us all worked up about players we have not seen then it gets very foolish which has been the sad case on CW of late.

Not really. There's no fun in rating only players whose career has been during your time following.

Word, but if you want to investigate thus get into the habit of questioning the ability of Richards given you have not seen him play thats when the problem begins.

No it's not. Apart from the fact I have seen Richards bat plenty enough, you don't have to do so to understand how they worked.

Yea but not many on CW have were old enough to see the great players of the past that have been debated about of late thats why i mentioned my outside sources.

There are some that have, and we've all read much from those who did.