Player to bat for your life?

[Flem274*]

BJ Watling

I guess Bradman would be handy too.

 

[harsh.ag]

In the 80s, The One True AB had blokes like Andrew Hilditch, Graeme Wood, Greg Ritchie and Wayne Phillips. It's a wonder he wasn't driven to an assisted suicide in that era, let alone average what he did against all comers in situations where saving the follow on was regarded as a minor victory. And he was skipper to boot.

Pity he couldn't get Chappell & Co to lay off Kim Hughes. Out toughed by the bullies.

 

[harsh.ag]

Smith was mentally strong, and if it was limited to a fourth innings dig, he would arguably be second to The One True AB. Kallis? Spare me. Like Boycott, he'd bat for your life only if there was something in it for him.

Gavaskar and Miandad rightly not registering on anyone's radar in this poll.

Border's fourth innings record isn't flash at all. Averaging 34 with 2 hundreds in 35 innings. Gavaskar and Miandad surpass him by far on that count.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In a scenario where my life is put on the line and one of these blokes had to bat for me, Dravid is the only one who I can imagine would genuinely put in 100% to make sure I live. He may be a massive **** for all I know but he gives off a vibe of being a genuinely nice bloke who would care for the plight of someone as insignificant as me. Plus he's a great batsman anyway, so that helps.

Kallis would be too robotic and detached to give a ****, Gavaskar and miandad are renowned dickheads who I wouldn't trust enough to lend a 10 dollar bill to let alone trust my life with, Border and Waugh are typical aussie bullies who would tell me to toughen up and strap on a helmet and fight my own fight or some clichéd **** like that.

That leaves Dravid, who'd step in and do it willingly or at the very least have the grace and do it even if he didn't want to. He's also a better batsman than the others anyway. That is all.

 

[Burgey]

Majority of the posters here would've seen Dravid bat day in and day out. Not necessarily the case with AB as am vaguely guessing that a pretty low number who post here have seen AB do it day in day out.

Its pretty obvious to point out every minor flaw of Dravid (technology kicking in) as he did struggle a bit at times, be it in judging line of the delivery or maybe struggling to cope with the bounce at times. (Minor flaws which tend to weigh up when we talk about ATGs or near ATGs).

What about AB? Did he go through a bad phase during his career or was he consistently good? Did he struggle with any technical aspect of batting at times?

He had a period in the late 80s-early 90s where he didn't make a ton for a long time, but he was still averaging nearly 50 during that period. It coincided with Australia getting a lot better, and starting to win a lot more series. Outwardly it seemed that he didn't have to bust his balls as much because other blokes were putting in, but I suspect it was just a coincidence.

Hilarious of watson to mention Border being a wuss against Marshall. Bloke made 98* and 100* to draw a test against a rampant Marshall and Garner in 84. A performance so great that Jeff Dujon listed his biggest disappointment in cricket as The One True AB not scoring a ton in each innings of that match.

 

[Burgey]

Pity he couldn't get Chappell & Co to lay off Kim Hughes. Out toughed by the bullies.

Shame Kim took the blood money and went to SA. Should never be forgiven for that.

 

[Zinzan]

Bullshit. You blokes just have no idea how great the One True AB was at carrying a whole side and keeping it competitive by grinding out tough runs. His record is ridiculous in that regard. No one else goes close.

Boycott used to block because he was a selfish **** and didn't care about his team, only himself. He'd bat the same way at 0/200 as he would at 4/20. He did that because he's a ****.

Dravid did it well in England and at times here, but he failed as often in backs to the wall situations as he succeeded, and he didn't have to do it on the decks the One True AB did either. He also had Mythdulkar, Ganguly and blokes like Sehwag in his side.

In the 80s, The One True AB had blokes like Andrew Hilditch, Graeme Wood, Greg Ritchie and Wayne Phillips. It's a wonder he wasn't driven to an assisted suicide in that era, let alone average what he did against all comers in situations where saving the follow on was regarded as a minor victory. And he was skipper to boot.

Steve Waugh was a hard bloke, but The One True AB taught him how to be hard. Smith was mentally strong, and if it was limited to a fourth innings dig, he would arguably be second to The One True AB. Kallis? Spare me. Like Boycott, he'd bat for your life only if there was something in it for him.

Gavaskar and Miandad rightly not registering on anyone's radar in this poll.

It's a no-brainer, is this question. You should all change your votes to The One True AB.

Lol, for someone who trolls for a living, you're remarkably prickly when defending your own naturally-biased views on some fairly subjective matters aren't you. (just winding you up)

Border's certainly up there, but to imply it's an open/shut case is a touch rich. Think we'll find Indians will generally gravitate towards Dravid on this question, Australian's towards Border, Pakistani's towards Javed the hutt, and the neutrals will probably flick a coin. (although I see a few voted Dravid here). It's not an undisputed thing.

Not entirely sure who to vote for, but surprised the likes of Shoaib Mohammad (who used to bat for days on end) & Chanderpaul (who could be as difficult to dislodge as a 5 year bit of bird poop on your car) haven't even got a mention, saying nothing of Lara, although tbf he won matches rather than saved them.

Difficult to split Dravid, Border, Smith and Miandad for mine.

 

[weldone]

Viv Richards said that he would Javed Miandad to bat for his life

As far as I am aware, this was not said by Viv Richards.

Sunil Gavaskar's wife was asked who her favourite batsman was. She said Viv was her favourite batsman, but she'd have Miandad to bat for her life because Miandad 'plays with his heart'.

 

[Zinzan]

Personally, I'd take the word of Geoffrey Boycott's Grandmother well before Sunil Gavaskar's wife. Did anyone consult with the former on the question?

 

[harsh.ag]

The answer would obviously vary with the context. How many overs, which bowlers, which conditions, which position in the line-up the batsman is supposed to come out, number of runs to be scored (if at all).

Without any knowledge of these things, Bradman is the safest bet if you have the money. Dravid the safest if you are a pauper.

 

[watson]

The answer would obviously vary with the context. How many overs, which bowlers, which conditions, which position in the line-up the batsman is supposed to come out, number of runs to be scored (if at all).

Without any knowledge of these things, Bradman is the safest bet if you have the money. Dravid the safest if you are a pauper.

Unless it's a wet wicket, and then you might want to go for a Tyldesley, Trumper, Hobbs, or Headley? Or maybe Hutton?

But on a flat-track, there's no doubt that Bradman was the ultimate bully.

Headley: Nascitur Non Fit

By CLR James

.....What I want to draw special attention to here is George’s play on wet or uncertain wickets. Here are his scores on such wickets in England;

1933
V Northhamptonshire: 52 out of 129 (Other high scores: 32 and 15)
V Yorkshire: 25 out of 115 (Other high scores: 25 and 16)
V Nottinghamshire: 66 out of 314 (Other high scores: 54 and 51)
V Lancashire: 66 out of 174 (Other high scores: 29 and 18)
V Leistershire: 60 out of 156 (Other high scores: 22 and 19)
V Leveson-Gower’s XI: 35 out of 251 (Other high scores: 70 and 44)

1939
V Surrey: 52 out of 224 (Other high scores: 58 and 52)
V Yorkshire: 61 out of 234 (Other high scores: 72 and 28)
V England: 51 out of 133 & 5 out of 4/43 (Other high scores: 47 and 16 & 13 and 11)
V Somerset: 0 out of 84 (Other high scores: 45 and 17)
V Gloustershire: 40 out of 220 & 5 out of 162 (Other high scores: 50 and 28 & 43 and 26)


In those 13 innings George passed 50 seven times. Three times only he scored less than double figures, and in his other three innings his scores of were 25, 35 and 40. I believe those figures would be hard to beat. Look at a similar list made for Bradman by Ray Robinson in his fascinating book 'Between Wickets';

1928
Brisbane Test: 1 out of 66 (Top scorer: Woodfull 30 n.o)

1929
Sydney: 15 out of 128 (Top scorer: Fairfax 40)

1930
Notts Test: 8 out of 144 (Top scorer: Kippax 64 n.o)
Northants: 22 out of 93 (Top scorer: Bradman 22)
Glouster: 42 out of 157 (Top scorer: Ponsford 51)

1932
Perth: 3 out of 159 (Top scorer: McCabe 43)
Melbourne: 13 out of 19/2

1933
Sydney: 1 out of 180 (Top scorer: Rowe 70)

1934
Lords Test: 13 out of 118 (Top scorer: Woodfull 43)

1936
Brisbane Test: 0 out of 58 (Top scorer: Chipperfield 36)
Sydney Test: 0 out of 80 (Top scorer: O’Reilly 37 n.o)

1938
Middlesex: 5 out of 132 (Top scorer: Chipperfield 36)
Yorkshire: 42 out of 132 (Top scorer: Bradman 42)


In fifteen innings Bradman passed 50 only once, 40 only twice, and 15 only four times. His average is 16.66. George’s average is 39.85. You need not build on these figures a monument, but you cannot ignore them.

Bradman’s curious deficiency on wet wickets has been the subject of much searching comment. George’s superior record has been noticed before, and one critic, I think it was Neville Cardus, has stated that Headley has good claims to be considered an all wickets the finest of the inter-war batsman. I would not go that far. It is easy to give figures and make comparisons and draw rational conclusions. The fact remains that the odds were 10 to 1 that in any Test Bradman would make 150 or 200 runs, and the more runs were needed the more certain he was to make them. Yet if Bradman never failed in a Test series, neither did George. I believe Bradman and Headley are the only two between the wars of whom that can be said. Hammond failed terribly in 1930 in England and almost as badly in the West Indies in 1934-35.

But there is another point I wish to bring out. Between 1930 and 1938 Bradman had with him in England Ponsford, Woodfull, McCabe, Kippax, Brown, and Hassett. All scored heavily. In 1933 and 1939 West Indian batsan scored runs at various times, but George had nobody he could depend on. In 1933 his average in the Tests was 55.40. Among those who played regularly the next average was 23.83. In 1939 his average in Tests was 66.80. The next best batsman averaged 57.66, but of his total of 173 he made in 137 in one innings. Next was 27.50. It can be argued that this stiffened his resistance. I do not think so. And George most certainly does not. ‘I would be putting on my pads and sometimes before I has finished I would hear that the first wicket had gone.’ This is what he carried on his shoulders for nearly 10 years. None, not a single one of the great batsman, has ever been burdened for so long......

 

[Burgey]

Lol, for someone who trolls for a living, you're remarkably prickly when defending your own naturally-biased views on some fairly subjective matters aren't you. (just winding you up)

Border's certainly up there, but to imply it's an open/shut case is a touch rich. Think we'll find Indians will generally gravitate towards Dravid on this question, Australian's towards Border, Pakistani's towards Javed the hutt, and the neutrals will probably flick a coin. (although I see a few voted Dravid here). It's not an undisputed thing.

Not entirely sure who to vote for, but surprised the likes of Shoaib Mohammad (who used to bat for days on end) & Chanderpaul (who could be as difficult to dislodge as a 5 year bit of bird poop on your car) haven't even got a mention, saying nothing of Lara, although tbf he won matches rather than saved them.

Difficult to split Dravid, Border, Smith and Miandad for mine.

It is undisputed though. It's not up for argument. And I'm a massive Dravid fan. He's probably my favourite subcontinental batsman, and definitely my favourite Indian batsman ever.

Let's look at where and against whom Border got his tough scores:

WI - 1984, as mentioned 98* and 100* in an otherwise wretched test match against Garner and Marshall.
Pakistan - 1980, 150 in each dig of a test. Imran and Sarfraz in the side.
England - 1982-83, 62* in the epic last wicket partnership with Thomson when everyone else had failed; 1985 - 196 and 41* at Lord's after they were 2/20 and 4/100 in their respective digs;
India - 1979 - 162 and 50 batting at three in his first test in India; 1986 - ton in the Tied Test
NZ - 1985 (Hadlees match) - 152* in the second dig; 1987 - 205 coming in at 2/30 odd chasing 485.
SL - 1992, away - 106 and 78 coming in at 4-57 and 4/9 respectively.
SA - 1994, away (last test match) - 42* in the fourth dig to secure a draw. He made 80 odd in Adelaide in the preceding series too but most blokes scored a few that day.

Basically The One True AB just had a ridiculous habit of making tough runs. It was like he took it as a personal insult to get out when everyone else was. I don't know why he was like that, probably his limited stroke play meant that when he decided to really limit himself and dig in, he was basically immovable.

 

[harsh.ag]

Basically The One True AB just had a ridiculous habit of making tough runs. It was like he took it as a personal insult to get out when everyone else was. I don't know why he was like that, probably his limited stroke play meant that when he decided to really limit himself and dig in, he was basically immovable.

Fourth innings record though.

 

[Daemon]

Looked up his record and his numbers in the fourth innings and also against SA aren't great so I'm sticking with Southee for the moment

 

[Burgey]

Fourth innings record though.

The One True AB didn't leave it to the fourth innings. You're gonna pick someone to bat for your life in the hope it's only in the fourth innings or that it's played in an era where batting dominated bowling (the Smith/ Dravid/ Kallis era in this instance). You're pulling your pud.

 

[Burgey]

Looked up his record and his numbers in the fourth innings and also against SA aren't great so I'm sticking with Southee for the moment

More a Mitchell Johnson sort of batsman for this role, I would think

 

[Hurricane]

I think the answer is Bradman but from the list provided then I would go Gavaskar. He averaged 51 opening the batting. Studies show that opening knocks 4-5 runs off your average compared to the cushier spots of 3-5. Therefore he would have averaged 55+ from a middle order spot.

Before his final innings in some who-cares-charity bullshit with famous FC and ex international players no one could find him 5 minutes before he was due to open the batting. Finally they tracked him down and he was fully padded up and had been practising his backlift while meditating on this inning. If the took that meaningless inning so seriously I am sure he would come to the party batting for my life.

Gavaskar was a better player than Alan Border by a considerable distance and Burgey would concede in that in the same quiet room that PEWS once claimed that Vusi Sibanda was better than Sehwag. LOL.

Alan Border could be gotten out. He seemed to enter super human levels when his back was against the wall and people said it couldn't be done. And ABs true worth was a captain anyway rather than a batsman despite his 50+ batting average.

Dravid's technique became scattered towards the end - heroics in England notwithstanding.

Sunny's the man.

 

[Zinzan]

It is undisputed though. It's not up for argument. And I'm a massive Dravid fan. He's probably my favourite subcontinental batsman, and definitely my favourite Indian batsman ever.

Let's look at where and against whom Border got his tough scores:

WI - 1984, as mentioned 98* and 100* in an otherwise wretched test match against Garner and Marshall.
Pakistan - 1980, 150 in each dig of a test. Imran and Sarfraz in the side.
England - 1982-83, 62* in the epic last wicket partnership with Thomson when everyone else had failed; 1985 - 196 and 41* at Lord's after they were 2/20 and 4/100 in their respective digs;
India - 1979 - 162 and 50 batting at three in his first test in India; 1986 - ton in the Tied Test
NZ - 1985 (Hadlees match) - 152* in the second dig; 1987 - 205 coming in at 2/30 odd chasing 485.
SL - 1992, away - 106 and 78 coming in at 4-57 and 4/9 respectively.
SA - 1994, away (last test match) - 42* in the fourth dig to secure a draw. He made 80 odd in Adelaide in the preceding series too but most blokes scored a few that day.

Basically The One True AB just had a ridiculous habit of making tough runs. It was like he took it as a personal insult to get out when everyone else was. I don't know why he was like that, probably his limited stroke play meant that when he decided to really limit himself and dig in, he was basically immovable.

There's no doubt that 98* & 100* v the Windies was stuff legends are made of. I recall reading about that particular stoic performance several times.

Re: the Hadlee Match of '85, it is worth noting the pitch had flattened out considerably by the time Australia batting again in that 3rd innings, remembering NZ scored 553/7 IIRC after rolling Aust in their 1st for under 200 (when Hadlee took the 9-fer), I mean didn't little punk-boy Greg Matthews also ton up in that same innings batting at no.6 or7?

I can''t comment much on the others you've listed, so I'll take your word that they were all fine rear-guards, although I'm sure Dravid, Smith & Javed fans could list some similarly impressive ones.

 

[harsh.ag]

The One True AB didn't leave it to the fourth innings. You're gonna pick someone to bat for your life in the hope it's only in the fourth innings or that it's played in an era where batting dominated bowling (the Smith/ Dravid/ Kallis era in this instance). You're pulling your pud.

Again, there are many factors. In absence of any knowledge, Bradman over Border any day.

 

[Burgey]

I think the answer is Bradman but from the list provided then I would go Gavaskar. He averaged 51 opening the batting. Studies show that opening knocks 4-5 runs off your average compared to the cushier spots of 3-5. Therefore he would have averaged 55+ from a middle order spot.

Before his final innings in some who-cares-charity bullshit with famous FC and ex international players no one could find him 5 minutes before he was due to open the batting. Finally they tracked him down and he was fully padded up and had been practising his backlift while meditating on this inning. If the took that meaningless inning so seriously I am sure he would come to the party batting for my life.

Gavaskar was a better player than Alan Border by a considerable distance and Burgey would concede in that in the same quiet room that PEWS once claimed that Vusi Sibanda was better than Sehwag. LOL.

Alan Border could be gotten out. He seemed to enter super human levels when his back was against the wall and people said it couldn't be done. And ABs true worth was a captain anyway rather than a batsman despite his 50+ batting average.

Dravid's technique became scattered towards the end - heroics in England notwithstanding.

Sunny's the man.

Not if Lillee is bowling. Could get him out with a tomato