Who Is The Second Greatest Batsman Ever?

[G.I.Joe]

almost all good batsmen do.

I'm surprised you'd think that, bagapath. Its one of those things thats intuitively obvious, and gwo's list shows how much.

 

[bagapath]

I'm surprised you'd think that, bagapath. Its one of those things thats intuitively obvious, and gwo's list shows how much.

oops... i was wrong... shud have checked

 

[Malleeboy]

Voted for Hobbs, was between Trumper, Grace and Hobbs for me. But decreasing Tendulkar's lead seemed a worthy cause.

 

[Cevno]

Voted for Tendulkar.

It is always difficult to compare players accross different Era's ,though.
Almost Impossible comparing someone from the 30's to someone playing currently.

 

[JBH001]

Dont think there is a clear #2. For my money I'd have Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Sobers, Richards, and G Chappell in a group after Bradman (in no discernible order). But, for the sake of the poll, I cant go pass Hobbs.

 

[Ikki]

Not necessarily. If your bowling attack is excellent, you'll tend to have a higher average in wins because many of your runs scored in potential draws would end up being included among the wins instead.

Not exactly. Just which and how many of those "potential draws" happen to sneak by to victory to help your average is contentious. Without going into analysing every innings; I am sure there are many innings where a certain player (i.e Viv) doesn't have good innings and where being in a starstudded team has caused his average to go down. If he has a bad innings and his team still win, that doesn't help him at all.

Anyway, Teja is more or less right on what I wanted to say.

Also, to Sean, if a player is in a regularly winning team and still averages highly; it seems to suggest that said player was very important to many of the wins, even with the competition in his team.

 

[Sir Alex]

Poll a fair reflection.

 

[Sir Alex]

so is it fair to say that the general consensus among fans is that tendulkar is the second greatest of all time? i'm only asking because i really don't know.

Yes.

 

[Sir Alex]

No it isn't. If it was a general consensus he'd have more than 26% of the votes.

Many fell for the irrelevant option (12%)

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not exactly. Just which and how many of those "potential draws" happen to sneak by to victory to help your average is contentious. Without going into analysing every innings; I am sure there are many innings where a certain player (i.e Viv) doesn't have good innings and where being in a starstudded team has caused his average to go down. If he has a bad innings and his team still win, that doesn't help him at all.

Anyway, Teja is more or less right on what I wanted to say.

Also, to Sean, if a player is in a regularly winning team and still averages highly; it seems to suggest that said player was very important to many of the wins, even with the competition in his team.

Thats a good point there. However its no less contentious that the first one.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

There are quite a few who can claim to be the second best of all time.The five below have the strongest cases IMHO

1.Viv Richards
2.Sunil Gavaskar
3.Graeme Pollock
4.Sachin Tendulkar
5.Barry Richards

in no order

 

[Sir Alex]

There are quite a few who can claim to be the second best of all time.The five below have the strongest cases IMHO

1.Viv Richards
2.Sunil Gavaskar
3.Graeme Pollock
4.Sachin Tendulkar
5.Barry Richards

in no order

Barry Richards and Pollock, absolutely brilliant they were, didn't play enough matches to arrive at such conclusion, unless a substantial amount of subjectivity is involved more than in case of others.

 

[Ikki]

Thats a good point there. However its no less contentious that the first one.

I would expect Viv to not perform and his team to win more regularly than his team snatching a win from a sure draw. It's not like the WIndies didn't draw matches and in his era it was generally more desirable, compared to our current result orientated cricket.

Also, on the other side of the coin, it is far less likely that a team with relatively few stars will compare. Their comparatively fewer wins will be most likely due to their star's performances and are less likely to create wins where their best player has failed - hence helping his average in wins.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Barry Richards and Pollock, absolutely brilliant they were, didn't play enough matches to arrive at such conclusion, unless a substantial amount of subjectivity is involved more than in case of others.

True in which case I would bring up Alan Border and Sobers.

 

[bagapath]

the strongest claims would come from hobbs, hutton, hammond, richards, sobers, lara, headley and tendulkar. it could be any one of them. but if you point a gun me i would rank them in the following order.

hobbs
hammonds
sobers
richards
lara
tendulkar
hutton
headley

 

[G.I.Joe]

I would expect Viv to not perform and his team to win more regularly than his team snatching a win from a sure draw. It's not like the WIndies didn't draw matches and in his era it was generally more desirable, compared to our current result orientated cricket.

Also, on the other side of the coin, it is far less likely that a team with relatively few stars will compare. Their comparatively fewer wins will be most likely due to their star's performances and are less likely to create wins where their best player has failed - hence helping his average in wins.

A potential draw isn't the same as a sure draw. If you've got a bowling attack of Kapil plus change against one of four great pacemen, the latter would convert more matches into wins even before they got to the stage where you could classify them as sure draws.

 

[Sir Alex]

True in which case I would bring up Alan Border and Sobers.

Excellent calls those.

 

[Ikki]

A potential draw isn't the same as a sure draw. If you've got a bowling attack of Kapil plus change against one of four great pacemen, the latter would convert more matches into wins even before they got to the stage where you could classify them as sure draws.

Every match is a potential draw. I assumed you're talkig about the draws where because of the teammates of a batsman in question a win was gotten that hadn't wasted his strong innings - i.e. a sure draw.

In fact the above example is probably why I disagree with you. Richards not only had the bowlers but also the batsmen around him to win matches without even him playing a substantial innings. These will dilute his average in wins and are probably more likely to occur than his team turning matches that would have been draws but for said teammates.

 

[satyam]

A potential draw isn't the same as a sure draw. If you've got a bowling attack of Kapil plus change against one of four great pacemen, the latter would convert more matches into wins even before they got to the stage where you could classify them as sure draws.

I agree with you on this point. The amount of time Australia have fluked away against India is amazing . If Kumble had a support bowler at the other end, India would have surely won a series in Australia in 2003. They fluked in 2004 tour also when rain saved them in chennai.
Again they got away in adelaide in 2008 and India in 2008. So Australia have consistently
got away with a draw against India when a one more great bowler would have converted those draws into a victory

 

[G.I.Joe]

Every match is a potential draw. I assumed you're talkig about the draws where because of the teammates of a batsman in question a win was gotten that hadn't wasted his strong innings - i.e. a sure draw.

In fact the above example is probably why I disagree with you. Richards not only had the bowlers but also the batsmen around him to win matches without even him playing a substantial innings. These will dilute his average in wins and are probably more likely to occur than his team turning matches that would have been draws but for said teammates.

I actually think the bowling attack is a far greater factor here than the batting teammates. I don't entirely agree with the 'bowlers win matches' cliche, but its true to a great extent. A stronger bowling attack is more likely to convert PD's to wins than a stronger batting lineup.