• 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 chooses the second greatest batsman ever redux, 100 men from 5 eras whittled to 1

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
The full top 10s were posted on the forum at the time here.

(Hobbs, Barrington, Gavaskar, Chappell, Lara completes the batting top 10; McGrath, Lillee, Marshall, Imran, Walsh are the other bowlers. There were also ODI top 10s).
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
Allan Border in the Top 5 is a little surprising;
Really? You watched the same cricket I did.

Allan Border scored real runs. None of these namby pamsy runs Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and Sanga scored. None of these home ground inflated averages that all of these fails played with. When Allan played, he had only one home ground advantage, and that was Queensland, because back when he played, Australia was 5 very different grounds, not the 5 standardised main streets like now that are the same the world over. If you put the modern players back in the world of Allan border, where men had moustaches and faced up to hostile bowlers on supportive pitches, they would **** themselves and look like the children they are.

Border is not the best batsman ever, and probably not the 2nd best, but to me, he is certain top 5.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
That Wisden exercise boosted the rankings for people with very long careers. Border at that stage had most test runs. I won't be surprised if Ponting, Kallis and Snagakkara all make it to top 10 if they refresh their numbers.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
Nah, once they work it again, they will detract longevity from modern players. Longevity will be gauged in another method, because it is certainly ridiculous to think the ten best batsman ever played in the last 15 years.
 

nick-o

State 12th Man
That was a fun competition and an interesting outcome. But I always feel disappointed at the end of these things, because it seems that somewhere along the way someone always decrees that it's "test-match only."

Because cricket has never been "test-match only."

Look at the way cricket is played in real life today -- they play T20, they play ODIs, they play tests, they play first-class. Then go back 20 years -- so there wasn't T20, but ODIs were more important then. Then go back another 20 years -- ODIs had hardly started, and first-class matches were much more important. And so on and so on -- a hundred years ago, the Lancashire leagues were really important; fifty more years and test matches were some new-fangled idea...

So the whole "test-match only" thing doesn't work for me, because the actual cricketers going out there and playing actual cricket have never played "test-match only." They play cricket. They play cricket in whatever format is available to them -- Lancashire league or Gillette Cup or rebel tours like the Packer circus -- that's what cricketers do. And they don't do it in isolation: it's not as if county cricket is just a pastime before the test matches and the ODIs start -- it's all part of the same season, the same act of playing cricket.

So I think WG and Barry Richards have an equal claim to be the "second greatest batsman ever" as Hobbs and Sobers, even if they didn't play much test-match cricket; and I think Sachin or ABdeV can also claim that because they played so much more than just test-match cricket.

So I guess what I want to say is that if you want to compare cricketers from different ages, you cannot say "test-match only" because doing so automatically prevents you from comparing cricketers from different ages. There has never been an age in which cricket was "test-match only." Obviously test-match achievements are highly relevant, but they always belong in a context, which is the actual life of the actual people doing it. And the context matters just as much as the "test-match only" statistics.

So I think we are no closer to knowing who we think was the "second greatest batsman ever" like it said in the title. But, as always, it was fun watching it unfold.
 

viriya

International Captain
That Wisden exercise boosted the rankings for people with very long careers. Border at that stage had most test runs. I won't be surprised if Ponting, Kallis and Snagakkara all make it to top 10 if they refresh their numbers.
Sydney Barnes in top 5.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Sydney Barnes in top 5.
It also boosted the rankings of short careers with extra-ordinary success in that period. Hence also Grimmet. Remember analyzing this a lot when it was released and those were my conclusions. So Courtney Walsh above Ambrose on one hand and Grimmet above several other contenders on the other. Barnes is placed about right IMO.

As an aside this Wisden 100 exercise is what got me started into exploring history of the game. Until then I was only into cricket that was current.
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
Really? You watched the same cricket I did.

Allan Border scored real runs. None of these namby pamsy runs Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and Sanga scored. None of these home ground inflated averages that all of these fails played with. When Allan played, he had only one home ground advantage, and that was Queensland, because back when he played, Australia was 5 very different grounds, not the 5 standardised main streets like now that are the same the world over. If you put the modern players back in the world of Allan border, where men had moustaches and faced up to hostile bowlers on supportive pitches, they would **** themselves and look like the children they are.

Border is not the best batsman ever, and probably not the 2nd best, but to me, he is certain top 5.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/60597-bagapath-s-greatest-xi-7.html#post3134765

Time to get a little personal here.

I have always hesitated before naming my most favorite cricketer of all time to anybody. Because once I name him, this choice of mine has always looked strange to people who know that I am a die hard fan of aggressive batsmen like Gilchrist. My favorite cricketer is a huge star in his own right. But he was never a connoisseur's delight. And compared to the 360 degree stroke production of some batting geniuses, his range was a bit limited. That way he is the antithesis of the kind of batsman I go openly gaga about all the time.

It is not that I am totally blinkered and I hold on to a lesser legend without appreciating the talents of superior batsmen. I loved Gavaskar's intensity and Lara's artistry throughout their careers, except when Lara lost the plot for a few self-centered years in between. And of course, I love Sehwag whenever he is in good form. I am not a Tendulkar fanboy. But I respect his immense talent. Everyone's favorites like Richards and Ponting are my favorites too. All these guys are worth comparing with that God among modern batsmen, Gary Sobers.

But all things considered, you put a gun to my head, and ask me to name one batsman as my favorite I will always name Allan Border.



For starters he was a man's man. No silly melodrama worked with him. At the crease, his job was to score runs; and nothing but score runs. He did what he had to do, as the team demanded in the given situation. Only when he square cut, or pulled, he expressed; he expressed his desire to dominate and win. Those were his bread and butter strokes and his stomach muscle tightening whack over the point region is the most violent shot in his book. With him at the wicket, the opposition knew they had a fight to win; this man stood between them and victory. For Australia, he could enlarge his presence at will and seemingly fill up the entire ground. He hated to lose. But if his team was sliding towards an inevitable defeat, he was always their last hope to salvage a draw. When he too failed, you knew nobody could've saved those matches anyway. If Border could not, who else could?

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 4s 6s Ct
156 265 44 11174 205 50.56 27 63 1161 28 156

Yes. He was a celebrated cricketer. Enjoyed uninterrupted captaincy. World cup win. Ashes. Most runs. Most matches. Most catches. Yet, he never played the game for personal glory. He was a team man first. And last. His job was to take Australia to victory. By keeping his batting frills free, he guided everyone else to work only towards that end goal.

But every time you mention him as your favorite cricketer, you hear murmurs and see heads shaking. It is okay to call him a great batsman, a legend even. But naming him above a Richards or Lara is considered silly simply because Border lacked their range of stroke production.

My most favorite cricketer, and the last of my selections, was truthful to his task, absolutely incorruptible, and a champion achiever who scaled mountains without drawing too much attention to self. He probably lacked the style of a Tendulkar, and he was too grumpy for the old fashioned who liked to put him down with faint praise calling him "gutsy" and "focused" deliberately underplaying his immense talent. Despite his rock solid personality and impeccable record, if you are in doubt of his actual value to test cricket, just watch the videos of his twin knocks in Windies and his third innings masterpiece in Melbourne against India. Then watch that 196 at Lords. And play that video of him putting McDermott in place using colorful language. Now tell me why I can't love him as my number 1 cricketer and as the captain of my dream team.

Sunil Gavaskar
Gordon Greenidge
Sir Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Allan Border (C)
Adam Gilchrist (WK)
Sir Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Joel Garner
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Meh. he s still no AB :p


But honestly, Border is the reason Australia have had a second coming as The Invincibles in the late 90s and early noughties. Can you imagine if they had a captain like Clarke in the 80s when their side was basically ****...
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can you imagine if they had a captain like Clarke in the 80s when their side was basically ****...
What does this mean? Clarke captained an Australian team, which post 2010 was pretty mediocre for a good 2-3 years and he handled the situation perfectly fine as captain and often carried the batting lineup on his back. What makes you think he'd have been some disaster in the 80s?
 

Top