Best After The Don

[Ikki]

Greg Chappell and Sachin Tendulkar are the stand-out performers against (perhaps) the strongest bowling attacks in history. Consequently, anyone who thinks that Greg Chappell doesn't belong in the top 10 list of ATG batsman really needs his head read.

I was pleasantly surprised by the successes of Robin Smith and VVS Laxman.

Tendulkar, not as much. His better performances against Australia have usually been when the best bowlers have been out.

 

[kyear2]

Chappell was better than Gavaskar for sure. But yeah, no way is he a fix in the top 10.

Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Lara, Sachin, Viv, Pollock, Headley, Hutton, Hammond.

Plus, even though we haven't spoken a lot about WG, but if he is included in the poll, he is the answer to the thread's question.

I personally can't place Hammond or Pollock over Chasppell, but some would differ.

 

[Satyanash89]

Tendulkar, not as much. His better performances against Australia have usually been when the best bowlers have been out.

That's true for virtually everyone though... Most batsmen usually do better when the strongest opposition bowlers are absent.

He's scored several great hundreds against McGrath and Gillespie, and dominated Warne completely. The thing is, apart from a couple of occaaions, I don't think he even had the chance to play much against a truly full strength Aussie attack (ie) McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee so I partly do agree with you.

 

[sobers no:1]

grace
ranji
trumper
hobbs
bradman
hutton
sobers
pollock
barry
gavaskar
viv
sachin
lara

only these guys have been widely acknowledged as best in their eras.
hammond and headley lost it to bradman phenomenon. otherwise they are in.


i have never seen / heard anyone rating chappel (or ponting / dravid / sutcliffe..) as the best.
there should be some reason for that. thats y i rate chappell as the 16th greatest batsman ever behind the special 15.

 

[sobers no:1]

ATG s in weaker teams deserves extra marks.
talents flourish fully only when the competition is tough

 

[Prince EWS]

sobers no:1, where do you rate Dane Tilse?

Wouldn't be far off your 61 man list, surely?

 

[Satyanash89]

grace
ranji
trumper
hobbs
bradman
hutton
sobers
pollock
barry
gavaskar
viv
sachin
lara

only these guys have been widely acknowledged as best in their eras.
hammond and headley lost it to bradman phenomenon. otherwise they are in.


i have never seen / heard anyone rating chappel (or ponting / dravid / sutcliffe..) as the best.
there should be some reason for that. thats y i rate chappell as the 16th greatest batsman ever behind the special 15.

Virtually no one that has a brain rates Gavaskar the best of his era, great batsman though he is. You've also named multiple batsmen from the same era as the "vestw of the era"... So you have no real reason to exclude Chappell from the list. It's quite obvious he should be rated very closely behind Viv in his era

 

[Prince EWS]

GRTST TLNTS 1.sobrs 2.akrm 3.prctr 4.gvskr 5.hdlee 6.schn 7.viv 8.mrshl 9.Lra 10.don 11.WG 12.imrn 13.murli 14.kpil 15.btham 16.g.plck 17.SFB 18.mllr 19.lille 20.httn 21.bary 22.mcgrt 23.hmnd 24.wrne 25.hobs 26.hdly 27.trumn 28.rnji 29.donld 30.trmpr 31.glly 32.ambrs 33.g.chpl 34.worrl 35.pntng 36.wqr 37.s.plck 38.kalis 39.drvd 40.dvdsn 41.holdng 42.a.flwr 43.grnr 44.s.wgh 45.ames 46.brdr 47.rbrts 48.shwg 49.kntt 50.styn fllwd by mndad,kmble,sngkra,wks,wlsh,inzy,grmmt,dslva,wlct, o'rly,knhai,tls..

Make it happen.

 

[sobers no:1]

Virtually no one that has a brain rates Gavaskar the best of his era, great batsman though he is. You've also named multiple batsmen from the same era as the "vestw of the era"... So you have no real reason to exclude Chappell from the list. It's quite obvious he should be rated very closely behind Viv in his era

sobers , crowe , hutton.. etc rates gavaskar as the best. dont know about their brains..

//You've also named multiple batsmen from the same era as the "vestw of the era"... //

whts wrong there ? they r arguably the best .

in the case of chappell , no expert will say he was the best in his era . WHY IS THAT ??

 

[Prince EWS]

sobers , crowe , hutton.. etc rates gavaskar as the best. dont know about their brains..

//You've also named multiple batsmen from the same era as the "vestw of the era"... //

whts wrong there ? they r arguably the best .

in the case of chappell , no expert will say he was the best in his era . WHY IS THAT ??

No expert will say Gavaskar was better than Bradman either.
WHY IS THAT?

We're here to form our own opinions; not just regurgitate "experts". With all your controversial opinions, I'd have thought you of all people would realise that.

And if you won't tell me your opinion on Dane Tilse, will you at least tell me what you think of Sushil Haridas?
Sushil Haridas | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Prince EWS]

Haridas apparently just as good at tenpin bowling as cricket fwiw.

 

[sobers no:1]

No expert will say Gavaskar was better than Bradman either.
WHY IS THAT?

until i become one


but i never said , bradman is not no:1 by majority's / experts opinion

 

[sobers no:1]

on sunny

"I would have been proud to have played cricket with him." (Donald Bradman) "

"The Indian combines Boycott's steadiness and Greenidge's ability to keep the runs flowing." (Ian Botham) "

"Dat little fella is going to get 10,000 runs." (Clyde Walcott - in the beginning of SMG's career) "

"I would have stood in the slips, and let others bowl." (Keith Miller - when asked how he would bowl to SMG) "

"The difference between Richards and Gavaskar is fairly expressive in the lifestyle of the two countries. The Caribbean life is like that, its excitable, its aggressive, its colourful, whereas in India there is method, there is thought, there is art." (David Frith - editor of Wisden) "

 

[Ikki]

That's true for virtually everyone though... Most batsmen usually do better when the strongest opposition bowlers are absent.

He's scored several great hundreds against McGrath and Gillespie, and dominated Warne completely. The thing is, apart from a couple of occaaions, I don't think he even had the chance to play much against a truly full strength Aussie attack (ie) McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee so I partly do agree with you.

He had plenty of matches - 9 matches featuring McGrath where he averaged 37 - he didn't do it. It does go for other batsmen a lot, but the comparison between Chappell's innings against WI/in WSC and Tendulkar's against Aus needs elaborating. The only 'great' bowling line-up he really did well against was WI in the 90s. That to me is largely why I don't have him as high as many and certainly not the best after the Don.

I didn't vote for Chappell, but just look at the bowling line-ups he faced and dominated. And people have the nerve to nickname Tendulkar the 'God of Cricket'.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

It is obviously Marlon Samuels isn't it.

 

[honestbharani]

He had plenty of matches - 9 matches featuring McGrath where he averaged 37 - he didn't do it. It does go for other batsmen a lot, but the comparison between Chappell's innings against WI/in WSC and Tendulkar's against Aus needs elaborating. The only 'great' bowling line-up he really did well against was WI in the 90s. That to me is largely why I don't have him as high as many and certainly not the best after the Don.

I didn't vote for Chappell, but just look at the bowling line-ups he faced and dominated. And people have the nerve to nickname Tendulkar the 'God of Cricket'.

Well, to be totally PC, he would have to be called "God of Cricket/Sports in India"..

 

[Satyanash89]

He had plenty of matches - 9 matches against McGrath where he averaged 37 - he didn't do it. It does go for other batsmen a lot, but the comparison between Chappell's innings against WI and Tendulkar's against Aus needs elaborating. The only 'great' bowling line-up he really did well against was WI in the 90s. That to me is largely why I don't have him as high as many and certainly not the best after the Don.

I didn't vote for Chappell, but just look at the bowling line-ups he faced and dominated. And people have the nerve to nickname Tendulkar the 'God of Cricket'.

I meant Tendulkar didnt get many matches at all against Australia at full strength, not just when playing Mcgrath.

I dont disagree with you that in terms of doing well against the very best, Chappell may have been better (better than pretty much anyone else too), but it shouldnt be the only criteria for judging who's the better batsman. Tendulkar has his own set of reasons why he should rightfully be crowned the best after the Don, so does Chappell, and so do about 15 others

 

[centurymaker]

He had plenty of matches - 9 matches featuring McGrath where he averaged 37 - he didn't do it. It does go for other batsmen a lot, but the comparison between Chappell's innings against WI/in WSC and Tendulkar's against Aus needs elaborating. The only 'great' bowling line-up he really did well against was WI in the 90s. That to me is largely why I don't have him as high as many and certainly not the best after the Don.

I didn't vote for Chappell, but just look at the bowling line-ups he faced and dominated. And people have the nerve to nickname Tendulkar the 'God of Cricket'.

Stop manipulating things.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He actually struggled the most in the 2003/04 series in Aus in which both McGrath and Warne were missing! The only two times McGrath and Tendulkar had any fair go at each other (2 full 3-match series), there's not a problem with his stats (avg of 46 and 50).

Tendulkar's average only goes down to 37 due to his last series against McGrath (2004/05) in which the former only played 2 of the 4 tests due an injury and it was during a time when he was struggling against everyone! Let's not forget that 1 of those 2 tests was played on a BUNSEN- (his 55 in that game is worth 120+ runs)
4th Test: India v Australia at Mumbai, Nov 3-5, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Stats don't reveal the full story do they?

 

[Coronis]

sobers , crowe , hutton.. etc rates gavaskar as the best. dont know about their brains..

//You've also named multiple batsmen from the same era as the "vestw of the era"... //

whts wrong there ? they r arguably the best .

in the case of chappell , no expert will say he was the best in his era . WHY IS THAT ??

I would definitely argue for Chappell being the best in his era. I'm sure many others would argue that too. If tomorrow, Richie Benaud claimed that Brett Lee was the best fast bowler he'd ever seen, would that mean we all suddenly start ranking him amongst our best players? These experts aren't completely right about everything. I'm sure there are some experts who would rate Chappell just as highly, or better, than Viv.

 

[akilana]

There's a reason why Benaud won't say Lee was the best bowler.