Everyone's criteria is obviously different, but Hutton and Chappell never really dominated attacks, Tendulkar played nearly 10 times as many tests as Headley and Pollock and Hammond from everything I have read (and which is admittedly disputed on CW) wasn't that comfortable against quality fast bowling at test level.
I think he did. And he played against some very strong attacks.
can you get some high quality googs there?You been to Goa lately for the Indian rave parties?
Plenty of raving happening there.
Imagine if he wasn't able to get tickets to Tendulkar's last Test because of all the Johnny-come-latelys. Would be so rough.
Didn't mean he didn't have big scores, he was a great batsman, one of the best of all time and was beautifully elegant. Compared to the other names mentioned he was generally more of an accumulator who didn't take as much chances and had cut some shots out of his repertoire.
To be fair, he is right.
Hammond was second best to Bradman. And Tendulkar is too.
There is a separation for me. Bradman and the other 5 batsman I named are for me just slightly ahead of the second tier I named and they in turn (probably add Ponting to that list) are just ahead of the batsmen below them. The Weekes, Barringtons, Miandads ect all have little niggles that just keep them below the players named for me.
But neither Tendulkar or Lara played at the time time as Bradman. That's the point.
Been impressed with his recent form?
Tend to agree but probably not 15-20. There would be 20 I would be so happy to have in most any side, probably more tbh. But the class of some seems a bit higher as Kyear said.
Think I've just had the giggles today but this cracked me up
Deleted because it was very silly
yeah he's been hitting the ball well lately
Point taken. Deleted. My apologies
gtfo