Best non batsman, batsmen.

[Red]

Over the course of cricket history, who do you think are the twenty best batsmen who spent the majority of their innings batting at #7 or below in the batting order?

 

[Daemon]

Gilchrist tops the list surely unless I'm missing someone obvious.

 

[Burgey]

In order from left to right:

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Ajit Agarkar.

 

[jcas0167]

Daniel Vettori was the best number 8 in the world for a while.

 

[mr_mister]

Warnie should have averaged higher than he did really. Had all the shots

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Daniel Vettori was the best number 8 in the world for a while.

But he was a proper bowling-allrounder for most part of his career. I mean someone like Johnson or Pollock also come to my mind, but can't really call them "non batsmen".

 

[Flem274*]

its gilchrist by a mile but if we're going specifically for bowlers, vettori

 

[Migara]

Over the course of cricket history, who do you think are the twenty best batsmen who spent the majority of their innings batting at #7 or below in the batting order?

Shaun Pollock, every time

 

[Daemon]

Proctor didn't play much but should be up there too

 

[Migara]

its gilchrist by a mile but if we're going specifically for bowlers, vettori

Nah, Pollock every time. From ones I have seen,

Pollock
Symcox
Vettori (eventually went up to 7)
Vaas
Faheem Ashraff
Richard Snell
Ravi Ratnayeke (opened few times)
Warne
Azhar Mahmood
Abdul Razzaq

These are the o0nes I can rememeber. But Pollock, Symcox, Mahmood and Razzaq were possibly the best around.

 

[Daemon]

Pollock > Gilchrist is certainly one of the more interesting takes I've seen on here

 

[cnerd123]

Gilly was a proper batsman tho, doesn't fit the title.

Should really be abot guys for whome batting was their second discipline. Pollock and Vettori good shouts for that.

Mahmood and Razzaq are interesting ones. They've definitely played on the strength of their batting at certain times, with expectations to score runs.

 

[morgieb]

Pollock > Gilchrist is certainly one of the more interesting takes I've seen on here

I mean he was the better bowler

 

[thierry henry]

Daniel Vettori was the best number 8 in the world for a while.

Feels like a bit of an understatement. Statistically isn’t he clearly the best #8 ever?

He averaged like 30 overall but iirc close to 40 at 8? First part of his career he was a number 9 or lower who averaged under 20, he also sucked when tried above 8. As long as he batted at 8 though, he performed like a specialist batsman.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Jadeja must be there or thereabouts.

Holder too, actually.

 

[honestbharani]

Pollock > Gilchrist is certainly one of the more interesting takes I've seen on here

Who said this? I thought Pollock was the best coz we r leaving out of this like we leave out Bradman.

 

[Migara]

Pollock > Gilchrist is certainly one of the more interesting takes I've seen on here

Gilchrist don't qualify. A proper batsman.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

I think we shouldn't name bowling all-rounders either, some of these guys can bat really well and aren't "non-batsmen" by any stretch.

 

[Migara]

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=11;batting_positionmin1=8;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=20;qualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting

Jadeja @ 35.3
Holder @ 33.3
Pollock @ 32.8
Kapil @ 32.8
Vettori @ 30.7
P. Strang @ 29.5
Reiffel @ 27.5
Benaud @ 27.0
Nadkarni @ 26.9