• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW Ranks the Batsmen

silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
pasag said:
YouTube - Barry Richards 129 Hampshire Vs Lancashire 1972

Uploaded that a while back. Has over 10,000 views now :)
Click to expand...
Mark Ramprakash IMO. He looks good in county cricket too.


Nah, I'm just kidding. I would have preferred people not include guys who haven't played a lot of international cricket ahead of those who have, but since that rule has been broken already, maybe he should get in. But if we hold to that, why aren't guys like Merchant even getting a vote? He did play in a less ***ier league.
 
Last edited:
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
With that said, I'll still go:

Inzamam
Dravid

There are too many guys who have done a lot of good work in Test cricket to be left out for guys who haven't, in my estimation at least.
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
BTW, dennis lillee ranked the best contemporary batsmen since his retirement in his book. purely in terms of batting ablity, the top three were tendulkar, lara and gilchrist.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nourse
Richards

It's a bit silly voting Inzi ahead of Nourse to be honest. Both came from eras of good batting, but Nourse was in a far worse team and still averaged higher.

Nourse seems to be overlooked by many here, which is a shame as he is close to being the most accomplished South African batsman of all time.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
stephen said:
Nourse
Richards

It's a bit silly voting Inzi ahead of Nourse to be honest. Both came from eras of good batting, but Nourse was in a far worse team and still averaged higher.

Nourse seems to be overlooked by many here, which is a shame as he is close to being the most accomplished South African batsman of all time.
Click to expand...
Nourse should definitely be receiving more votes. He performed very well against the best sides of his time but hasn't received the acclaim and recognition that he deserves.
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
bagapath said:
1. adam gilchrist (test centuries against all nations, second fastest hundred of all time, fastest double century of all time (since broken), first and only man so far to hit 100 sixers, best no.7 of all time, highest strike rate in test cricket, great ODI opener, three defnitive knocks in WC finals - one, a blistering century, probably the best ever)
Click to expand...
With due respect to the great man, I ask - If Gilchrist, then why not Sehwag?

For one moment let us forget that Gilchrist added immense value to any team because he was a wicketkeeper. Sehwag, as a batsman, has done everything that Gilchrist has done. Sehwag is as devastating as Gilchrist was, if not more. He has two triple centuries, averages over 50, has performed extremely well in all corners of the globe, against all teams. He is also a genuine match-winner in the ODI version. So, if we forget Gilchrist's identity as a wicketkeeper-batsman (which we should, in this thread), Sehwag has as strong a case for inclusion as Gilchrist does. Probably Gilchrist was a slightly better ODI batsman, and Sehwag has been a slightly better test batsman, till now. And then, if you are including Sehwag, then you are doing injustice to a host of other test openers, and middle-order batsmen. Then why Gilchrist?

Seriously, don't you think that players like Walcott, Barry Richards, Barrington, Steve Waugh, Dravid, Kallis etc. will be remembered more as batsmen than Gilchrist? The last three of them played ODIs too, and none of them was misfit in that format. In fact, all three of them excelled.

Of course, I respect your choice, and believe that people here should vote based on their personal opinion. And I don't deny that Gilchrist should be in contension for the top 25, but then so should be a host of other batsmen, including his long-time opening partner in ODIs.
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I want the last four place sto go to Walcott, Barrington, Barry Richards and Steve Waugh.

1. Barry Richards
2. Clyde Walcott
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
1) KF Barrington
2) CL Walcott

Barry looks to have this one sewn up, but two blokes with over 3000 test runs scored in excess of 55 runs per innings are worthy of support, so am lending mine.
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
weldone said:
With due respect to the great man, I ask - If Gilchrist, then why not Sehwag?

For one moment let us forget that Gilchrist added immense value to any team because he was a wicketkeeper. Sehwag, as a batsman, has done everything that Gilchrist has done. Sehwag is as devastating as Gilchrist was, if not more. He has two triple centuries, averages over 50, has performed extremely well in all corners of the globe, against all teams. He is also a genuine match-winner in the ODI version. So, if we forget Gilchrist's identity as a wicketkeeper-batsman (which we should, in this thread), Sehwag has as strong a case for inclusion as Gilchrist does. Probably Gilchrist was a slightly better ODI batsman, and Sehwag has been a slightly better test batsman, till now. And then, if you are including Sehwag, then you are doing injustice to a host of other test openers, and middle-order batsmen. Then why Gilchrist?

Seriously, don't you think that players like Walcott, Barry Richards, Barrington, Steve Waugh, Dravid, Kallis etc. will be remembered more as batsmen than Gilchrist? The last three of them played ODIs too, and none of them was misfit in that format. In fact, all three of them excelled.

Of course, I respect your choice, and believe that people here should vote based on their personal opinion. And I don't deny that Gilchrist should be in contension for the top 25, but then so should be a host of other batsmen, including his long-time opening partner in ODIs.
Click to expand...
i love sehwag. but thought gilly has played more match winning, series turning knocks in tests. 2 or may be 3 of sehwag's hundreds have actually contributed to test victories. you can add to that list the 83 against england last year also. whereas gilly has actually played 7,8 knocks more than viru that have really put australia in driver's seat. some of them have actually turned the series around. also you can slot sehwag with hayden, greenidge and, even, smith as an aggressive opener. but never before have we had a batsman who could walk in at 5 down and hit the leather ball to all corners of the park consistently and cleanly against anyone anywhere and still average 47 at an unheard of 80+ SR. sehwag is a wonderful, wonderful player. but we should cherish gilly even more.

as for the inclusion walcott, dravid, kallis, s.waugh, b.richards and may be a few more such champs, they all have legit claims. just that with the unique qualities of gilly's batsmanship combined with his test and one day records for a decade of serious international cricket, he should be given an inch of extra space IMO.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
Vote for #23 batsman of all-time

That's enough.

1. Don Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Garry Sobers
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Viv Richards
6. WG Grace
7. Wally Hammond
8. Brian Lara
9. Greg Chappell
10. Len Hutton
11. George Headley
12. Sunil Gavaskar
13. Herbert Sutcliffe
14. Ranji
15. Ricky Ponting
16. Victor Trumper
17. Everton Weekes
18. Graeme Pollock
19. Javed Miandad
20. Allan Border
21. Dennis Compton
22. Barry Richards

The vote for the #23 batsman of all-time begins now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top