Top ten greatest bowlers and batsmen of all time

[oblongballs]

Wasim Akram is in many ways the Victor Trumper of bowling. Certainly, many of his peers rated Wasim as the best bowler they ever faced, but the stats just don't back it up.

Much has been made of Tendulkar never reaching 900 points on the ICC batting ratings, but Wasim never even exceeded 830 with the ball, which puts him outside the top 70 on the all time list. Unsurprisingly, he also never got close to world number 1 in the rankings list, and was more than 50 points below world number 1 for almost his entire career. Wasim also took less than 4 wickets per match, and, compared to other great fast bowlers, a high proportion of his wickets were tail enders.

Don't get me wrong - a test average of under 24 and the one time world record for ODI wickets shows he certainly was a fine bowler. But there were a number of bowlers in his own era who got better players out more often and more cheaply (Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath, Donald).

Some say he could bowl 6 different balls an over with perfect control and without a noticeable change in action or wrist position. But if another player with less variety can get better players out more frequently with a single lethal delivery (Waqar's in swinging yorker?), then the latter bowler is actually going to win you more matches.

He certainly had a massive box of tricks and was one of the most skilled exponents of swing bowling ever seen. But at the end of the day, a number of his contemporaries who could NOT do all that and did not possess that skill level were more effective bowlers.

I stopped reading at "ICC ratings". For future reference, none of that rubbish interests me nor should it interest anyone in the habit of actually watching cricket.

 

[Coronis]

Except that for some extended proportion of Viv's career, he clearly was the most effective batsman. Scored 4,743 runs @ 60 between January 1976 and July 1984. The next best average over that period was 55 by Miandad, Chappell and Greenidge. Gavaskar made more runs and more centuries but averaged 'only' 53.

As a matter of fact, there was no extended period of Wasim's career where he was statistically the most effective bowler.

And we come to the point of why I don't rate Viv up there with the others. You look past July 1984, and you see this: 54 tests 83 innings 3326 runs @ 43.76. He wasn't even the best batsman in his own team at this point, let alone the world. To have that kind of a record over so many tests is why I rank him below the likes of Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

My Granddad reckons the best batsman he ever saw was Sobers, quickly followed by Viv Ricards and Lara. He was old enough to recall Bradman but never saw him in the flesh, or even an a TV set til after his the Don's retirement.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Viv's strike rate was obscene for the era. His strike rate intrigues me even more than his impressive average.

A SR of 50 was brisk, and 55 positively rapid. 68 was lunacy.

 

[Starfighter]

I stopped reading at "ICC ratings". For future reference, none of that rubbish interests me nor should it interest anyone in the habit of actually watching cricket.

If you actually watched cricket you might release that despite Wasim's guile there were more effective bowlers than him out there.

 

[Victor Ian]

If you must remember Viv's end then you should equally remember his start. Phenomenal. His presence eclipsed everyone else.

 

[Coronis]

If you must remember Viv's end then you should equally remember his start. Phenomenal. His presence eclipsed everyone else.

I do remember his start. Yes, it was amazing, I don't deny that. Ponting's peak was amazing, yet he is judged much more harshly than Viv for his decline. Where would Smith sit all time if he averages 43 over his next 60 tests, and retires with an average of 50? Equal to Viv? Doubtful. These are the reasons why I feel that he is overrated compared to others, since his decline is far more glossed over than almost any other batsman I see talked about on here.

 

[a massive zebra]

My Granddad reckons the best batsman he ever saw was Sobers, quickly followed by Viv Ricards and Lara.

For what it's worth, my dad holds the exact same opinion!

 

[Gob]

Didn't Viv needed 20 odd runs in is last innings to have an average up over 50?

He ended up with a half century i think but it would have been fascinating had he failed in that knock. Not that i have anything against Viv but that innings would not have made any difference to his career in isolation yet an average below 50 would definitely make a huge difference even if its a fraction

 

[oblongballs]

An entire career can not be judged on a player's decline. Yes it should be taken into account but it should not count more than how that guy played at his peak. Viv was, along with Khan and Hadlee, imho anyway, the standout cricketers of the 80s.

Wasim, Waqar, Tendulkar and Lara were the standouts of the 90s, regardless of how they may have depleted. Lara in particular spent the last few years hopping all over his crease and although he did ok in tests, in ODIs he looked lost at times. It would have been funny if it wasn't so sad BUT that should not stop us from regarding him as, prime for prime, one of the best ever.

 

[Coronis]

An entire career can not be judged on a player's decline. Yes it should be taken into account but it should not count more than how that guy played at his peak. Viv was, along with Khan and Hadlee, imho anyway, the standout cricketers of the 80s.

Wasim, Waqar, Tendulkar and Lara were the standouts of the 90s, regardless of how they may have depleted. Lara in particular spent the last few years hopping all over his crease and although he did ok in tests, in ODIs he looked lost at times. It would have been funny if it wasn't so sad BUT that should not stop us from regarding him as, prime for prime, one of the best ever.

In the second half of the 80's Viv was a non-factor. Border was the standout batsman of the 80's imo. I didn't know we only rated players on their prime.... is that why Ponting is rated higher than Tendulkar? Is that why MoYo is a shoe in for an ATG XI?

 

[OverratedSanity]

In the second half of the 80's Viv was a non-factor. Border was the standout batsman of the 80's imo. I didn't know we only rated players on their prime.... is that why Ponting is rated higher than Tendulkar? Is that why MoYo is a shoe in for an ATG XI?

Viv's prime was almost a whole decade tbh.

 

[oblongballs]

In the second half of the 80's Viv was a non-factor. Border was the standout batsman of the 80's imo. I didn't know we only rated players on their prime.... is that why Ponting is rated higher than Tendulkar? Is that why MoYo is a shoe in for an ATG XI?

I would rank Tendulkar higher than Ponting but there isn't a whole lot between the two (or Lara who I'd rate just below those two).

As for Viv, he already had 10+ years behind him by the time the late 80s rolled around but even then, he was very good throughout. Yes he wasn't going to hit the peaks of what he had done a handful of years earlier but he was far from as bad as you make it out to be. He still looked special at times in England in 88, where I got to watch him play 4 times, twice in tests and in 2 tour matches. He was rarely required to bat long or bat often (I believe two tests had the WI only batting once). So he went out there and gave it a wallop. There was never a need for a big innings.

If you listened to the English players at the time, the only one they feared more than Viv was Marshal (who was so special in that series).

So yes, he was still more than world class in the late 80s.

 

[Coronis]

Viv's prime was almost a whole decade tbh.

So after the first 10 years of his career he averaged 60 and by the end he averaged 50.... sound familiar to a certain Australian batsman?

I would rank Tendulkar higher than Ponting but there isn't a whole lot between the two (or Lara who I'd rate just below those two).

As for Viv, he already had 10+ years behind him by the time the late 80s rolled around but even then, he was very good throughout. Yes he wasn't going to hit the peaks of what he had done a handful of years earlier but he was far from as bad as you make it out to be. He still looked special at times in England in 88, where I got to watch him play 4 times, twice in tests and in 2 tour matches. He was rarely required to bat long or bat often (I believe two tests had the WI only batting once). So he went out there and gave it a wallop. There was never a need for a big innings.

If you listened to the English players at the time, the only one they feared more than Viv was Marshal (who was so special in that series).

So yes, he was still more than world class in the late 80s.

He averaged 43 over a period of 7 years. Extremely mediocre for somebody considered to be one of the greatest batsmen ever. Fearing somebody doesn't mean **** if they can't actually deliver. Just because there might not have been a "need" for a big innings doesn't mean you can just slack off and bat like it doesn't matter. That's not something I or anyone would want in a batsman I believe.



I want to be clear here, I'm not saying Viv wasn't a great batsman, he was, one of the best the West Indies produced. But he's just not up there with the very top tier below Bradman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think any of what you're saying is necessarily wrong. But it's all irrelevant to why people rate him highly. The rate of his scoring is what is the difference... averaging 50 with a SR of ~70 is absolutely bonkers.

It's not really about consistency or longevity. You don't think strike rate/the manner of scoring runs matters, but a lot of people do.

 

[smash84]

Plus, Viv could dominate some of the greatest pacemen who ever played the game which is a very rare quality to have

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Averaging 43 across a number of years at the back end of your career isn't bad. Not in the 1980s. That probably converts to an average of 48 today. Which isn't shoddy.

Viv's Century conversation rate isn't in the top echelon compared to the more statistically ruthless of the greats. But he's better by a number of other metrics.

His overall average of 50 and strike rate of 68 are phenomenal for the era

 

[Coronis]

I don't think any of what you're saying is necessarily wrong. But it's all irrelevant to why people rate him highly. The rate of his scoring is what is the difference... averaging 50 with a SR of ~70 is absolutely bonkers.

It's not really about consistency or longevity. You don't think strike rate/the manner of scoring runs matters, but a lot of people do.

His strike rate was indeed phenomenal, the only other players I can think of who have come close to playing at his pace with quality would be Sehwag, Gilchrist and Warner. I just don't find it to be the most important part of batting, though it certainly is a factor.

Averaging 43 across a number of years at the back end of your career isn't bad. Not in the 1980s. That probably converts to an average of 48 today. Which isn't shoddy.

Viv's Century conversation rate isn't in the top echelon compared to the more statistically ruthless of the greats. But he's better by a number of other metrics.

His overall average of 50 and strike rate of 68 are phenomenal for the era

God that's a ridiculous argument. I thought we'd moved on from that on this forum. Yeah his strike rate was phenomenal, average was up there with other greats,
but I wouldn't call that phenomenal really.

 

[Slifer]

His strike rate was indeed phenomenal, the only other players I can think of who have come close to playing at his pace with quality would be Sehwag, Gilchrist and Warner. I just don't find it to be the most important part of batting, though it certainly is a factor.



God that's a ridiculous argument. I thought we'd moved on from that on this forum. Yeah his strike rate was phenomenal, average was up there with other greats,
but I wouldn't call that phenomenal really.

Bro let it go. Viv is an atg and worthy of being in the discussion for 2nd best. He averaged 50 and struck at 70. But more than that, he averaged 40+ home and away everywhere (except nz 3 tests!!!). Also, he averaged 50 away from home and 48 across all test innings. There wasn't a great fast bowler during viv's time who didn't feel the weight of his bat at some point. Sachin/bcl never averaged 50+ in a series vs ww or donald for example. You're welcome to say this person or that person was better but please dont start this crap that viv is not worthy of being considered 2nd best to the Don.

 

[Gob]

Yeah Viv did play pretty well away from home by all accounts. Especially in India (just ask Neena Gupta)