Best non batsman, batsmen.

[BoyBrumby]

Honestly never realised Pistol's batting record was so decent.

Not sure I've ever heard him touted as a bowling all rounder, but his figures look a lot better than a few who are.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Pollock, vettori were proper allrounders and so is Jadeja.
I think Wasim Akram is your man and pre VarunAaroned Broad

 

[Coronis]

Thought the thread title said 7, not 8. Would definitely say a keeper’s main focus is (or should be, and was in the case of Gilly imo) their main focus ahead of batting. Outside of Gilly and other keepers, Cairns and Kapil would be my candidates.

 

[AndrewB]

Surprised no-one's mentioned Imran (98 out of 126 innings at 7 or lower).
Dhoni, Dujon, Knott and Prior are among the best keeper-batsmen who were usually at 7 or lower.

 

[Red]

In order from left to right:

View attachment 27179

haha at least on the new forum software we can edit titles!

 

[Red]

Gilchrist don't qualify. A proper batsman.

I said majority of tests at #7 or below, so he most certainlydoes qualify.

He was also an all-rounder, so he qualifies by every metric.

 

[Red]

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.

The majority of tests at #7 or below means they weren't being picked primarily for their batting which is what I want to discuss. Of those, who was the best?

 

[Prince EWS]

I said majority of tests at #7 or below, so he most certainlydoes qualify.

Realistically he then makes the thread a bit of a bust as he's the obvious answer. I'm not really sure a serious argument could be made for any other candidate being better than him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Realistically he then makes the thread a bit of a bust and he's the obvious answer. I'm not really sure a serious argument could be made for any other candidate being better than him.

The opening post says the best 20, so there’s no thread busters.
Just don’t mention Derek Pringle.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Obviously Gilchrist, but ignoring him maybe Botham? He might have batted above 7 a lot though

 

[Red]

Realistically he then makes the thread a bit of a bust and he's the obvious answer. I'm not really sure a serious argument could be made for any other candidate being better than him.

Was looking for some sort of discussion around lists. I mentioned 20 players.

 

[Red]

Title also says “best non batsman, batsmen”

 

[TheBrand]

Mark Craig

 

[AndrewB]

The majority of tests at #7 or below means they weren't being picked primarily for their batting which is what I want to discuss. Of those, who was the best?

There are a few players picked as specialist batsmen batting at 7, or occasionally even lower. I'm not quite sure what India were thinking at the 1948 Adelaide Test, but they had batsmen who neither bowled nor kept wicket - Kishenchand, Adhikari and Rangnekar - batting at 7, 8 and 9 (8, 9 and 10 in the first innings when Sen was nightwatchman). Adhikari had a moderately successful Test career (averaging 31), batting at 7 or lower slightly more often than not.
More recently, Clive Lloyd batted at 7 or lower 21 times in Tests.

 

[AndrewB]

Going by batting average, Greg Matthews (average 41; 46 when batting 7 or lower) is worth a mention.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mark Craig

better batsman than he was a bowler

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I see that Brian MacMillan averaged 57 at 7. Don't know about at 6 and 8 though

 

[ataraxia]

CdG and de Kock both batted more at 7 and below.

 

[jimmy101]

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

Pollock & Symcox are interesting ones. Possibly would have batted a bit higher had they not played in those all-rounder rich South African sides of the 90's.

 

[Engle]

With a 30 innings minimum qualification, top 10 are :