Who has been the worst ever best batsman in the world?

[sammy2]

Good shout, Sammy. Chanderpaul fits this criteria.

I don't know why he is always forgotten or maybe some people just don't respect him because he isn't flashy. But he has been a few classes above all the other batsmen and his record over the last couple years co-sign my assessment.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For much of the mid to late 60's Graeme Pollock was considered the best batsman in the world, certainly ahead of Barrington and along side Sobers.

 

[Matt79]

Chanderpaul has been the best batsman over the last few years. Get the hell outta here with your rubbish.

I don't know why he is always forgotten or maybe some people just don't respect him because he isn't flashy. But he has been a few classes above all the other batsmen and his record over the last couple years co-sign my assessment.

"And I've always admired your ability to be personally offended by broad social trends"

 

[The Sean]

But they don't show who's the best, just who's the most in-form.

Tendulkar, in my view, was indisputably the best batsman around between 1996 and 2002. Between '94 and '96 it'd have been Lara; '90 to '94 Gooch.

Between '03 and '06 I'd say Lara again; in '06/07 Ponting; currently Pietersen.

Richards probably stopped being the best in, what... '88? So if we say Vengsarkar for 2 years there until Gooch took over in '90?

Before Richards (whose reign started in '76) it'd have been Greg Chappell. Before Chappell, Sobers. When did he establish himself again? And who between him and Bradman's retirement in '48?

Not too difficult, I don't think, to say:
Hobbs - 1918 to 1926
Hammond - 1936 to 1929/30
Bradman - 1930 to 1948
Weekes - 1949 to 1958 (was he still playing then?)
Sobers - 1958 to 1973
Greg Chappell - 1974 to 1975/76
Vivian Richards - 1976 to 1988
Vengsarkar - 1989
Gooch - 1990 to 1993
Lara - 1994 to 1996
Tendulkar - 1996 to 2002
Lara - 2003 to 2006
Ponting - 2006/07
Pietersen - 2007 to current

Just a couple of gaps to fill - the first would obviously need at least 2 players. EDIT: based on Sean's post, yes, that Everton Weekes wasn't bad, was he?

Hutton continuing to be overlooked in these lists - in the late 40s/early 50s he was generally considered the best in the world, ahead even of the three Ws, Compton and Harvey.

Weekes is an interesting one - his peak years were also late 40s and early 50s so it's questionable whether he was the best or second best batsman in the world for that period. By the mid-50s Walcott was reigning supreme and so it could be argued that it was he and not Weekes who was no.1 during that time.

 

[The Sean]

Is anyone else disappointed that Bond21 and sammy2 never had the chance to get acquainted?

 

[sammy2]

Headly was never the best during his career ?

 

[Richard]

Hutton continuing to be overlooked in these lists - in the late 40s/early 50s he was generally considered the best in the world, ahead even of the three Ws, Compton and Harvey.

Weekes is an interesting one - his peak years were also late 40s and early 50s so it's questionable whether he was the best or second best batsman in the world for that period. By the mid-50s Walcott was reigning supreme and so it could be argued that it was he and not Weekes who was no.1 during that time.

Unforgiveable.

So we go:
1918 to 1926 - Hobbs
1926 to 1929/30 - Hammond
1930 to 1948 - Bradman (maybe McCabe in the 1 year in which he was ill - if so, he's certainly a good candidate)
1949 to 1954/55 - Len Hutton
1955 to 1958 - Weekes (\ Walcott)
1958 to 1973 - Sobers
1973/74 to 1975/76 - Greg Chappell
1976 to 1988 - Richards
1989 and 1989/90 - Vengsarkar
1990 to 1993 - Gooch
1993/94 to 1996 - Lara
1996 to 2002 - Tendulkar
2003 to 2006 - Lara
2006/07 - Ponting
2007 to current - Chanderpaul

Basically, it has to be Vengsarkar or McCabe - if you count McCabe, which given that he only qualifies because Bradman was ill, I don't know if you should.

 

[Richard]

Headly was never the best during his career ?

No. Much as he may well be the second-best there ever was, Bradman and Headley's careers coincided exactly. And if Headley played on a little after Bradman - can't remember whether he did - then he was never as good as Hutton by that time.

Goes without saying that Ron Headley was never the best in The World.

 

[Matt79]

No. Much as he may well be the second-best there ever was, Bradman and Headley's careers coincided exactly. And if Headley played on a little after Bradman - can't remember whether he did - then he was never as good as Hutton by that time.

Goes without saying that Ron Headley was never the best in The World.

And Dean?

 

[Richard]

He's excused due to the excellence of his bowling.

Frank and Sammy though - no, not at all. Diabolical.

 

[sammy2]

No. Much as he may well be the second-best there ever was, Bradman and Headley's careers coincided exactly. And if Headley played on a little after Bradman - can't remember whether he did - then he was never as good as Hutton by that time.

Goes without saying that Ron Headley was never the best in The World.

Cricinfo has him playing from 1930 to 1954

@ his first class Avg ...

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - George Headley

Centuries and fifties. Amazing. This man never lost his touch with the bat.

 

[Matt79]

Cricinfo has him playing from 1930 to 1954

@ his first class Avg ...

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - George Headley

Centuries and fifties. Amazing. This man never lost his touch with the bat.

He played one test after 1948 - the one in 1954 and he only scored 17 runs in that match. My understanding is that if Headley had not picked up a bat after WWII, his career average would have been significantly closer to Bradman's "unapproachable" figure - not to knock him for having a crack after the war, or "only" averaging 60.

 

[Matt79]

He played one test after 1948 - the one in 1954 and he only scored 17 runs in that match. My understanding is that if Headley had not picked up a bat after WWII, his career average would have been significantly closer to Bradman's "unapproachable" figure - not to knock him for having a crack after the war, or "only" averaging 60.

Yeah, his average dropped 6 runs in his last three tests.

 

[sammy2]

He played one test after 1948 - the one in 1954 and he only scored 17 runs in that match. My understanding is that if Headley had not picked up a bat after WWII, his career average would have been significantly closer to Bradman's "unapproachable" figure - not to knock him for having a crack after the war, or "only" averaging 60.

Yeah I realize that aswell, well he was still good enough to make the WI team tho.

Someone should get his stats pre WW2, probably too difficult to do.

 

[Uppercut]

Cricinfo has him playing from 1930 to 1954

@ his first class Avg ...

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - George Headley

Centuries and fifties. Amazing. This man never lost his touch with the bat.

His penultimate test was in 1948 though, so he played just one test in the years after Bradman's retirement.

It's kinda funny how if he'd been around in any other era, he'd have attained an even more legendary status, but even his incredible ability and figures pale in comparison with the Don's FC average of 95.

 

[Richard]

He played one test after 1948 - the one in 1954 and he only scored 17 runs in that match. My understanding is that if Headley had not picked up a bat after WWII, his career average would have been significantly closer to Bradman's "unapproachable" figure - not to knock him for having a crack after the war, or "only" averaging 60.

I've often wished he'd never played those Tests after WW2 myself TBH. It's a shame, as it really dilutes just how incredible he was before it.

The biggest shame of all, though, is of course that West Indies had an inadaquete schedule in the 1930s.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah I realize that aswell, well he was still good enough to make the WI team tho.

Someone should get his stats pre WW2, probably too difficult to do.

Cricinfo Statsguru - GA Headley - Test matches - Batting analysis

Not difficult at all.

 

[sammy2]

Yeah, his average dropped 6 runs in his last three tests.

poor guy.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah I realize that aswell, well he was still good enough to make the WI team tho.

Someone should get his stats pre WW2, probably too difficult to do.

Off the top of my head I think he was averaging 69-odd pre-war. I want to say 69.86 but I'm not sure...

EDIT - not even close, as Matt has shown.

 

[Matt79]

I've often wished he'd never played those Tests after WW2 myself TBH. It's a shame, as it really dilutes just how incredible he was before it.

The biggest shame of all, though, is of course that West Indies had an inadaquete schedule in the 1930s.

More matches for the WI would have addressed this problem, but at least the post war matches got him past the 20 Test threshold that seems to be often used as a criteria for inclusion in serious lists of career stats etc. Reckon that seems to be the figure most commonly used from my very non-scientific overview of such things. Up to the commencement of WWII, he only had 19 tests.