Best non batsman, batsmen.

[ankitj]

Can't believe it took 16 posts to name Jadeja. We should start every thread with his name, apologize later if occasionally he is not the right answer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

With a 30 innings minimum qualification, top 10 are :
View attachment 27184

deKock must have a very ordinary average in every other position

 

[Burgey]

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

Genuinely under rated test match batsman.

 

[_00_deathscar]

deKock must have a very ordinary average in every other position

6 is a bit average for de Kock. 7 and you're talking...

 

[_00_deathscar]

And clearly the correct answer to this thread is Washington Sundar.
(Or Jadeja).

 

[Migara]

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.

Once again Gilly is not a "non batsman". Picking him defeats the purpose of the thread. There is a case for Jadeja, Kapil, etc. But they batted at #7 too.

Non batsmen bat at #8 or lower.

 

[cnerd123]

And clearly the correct answer to this thread is Washington Sundar.
(Or Jadeja).

Sundar is more of a batter really. always has been.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Once again Gilly is not a "non batsman". Picking him defeats the purpose of the thread. There is a case for Jadeja, Kapil, etc. But they batted at #7 too.

Non batsmen bat at #8 or lower.

Saying "once again" and repeating your wrong statement doesn't make it any less wrong. The OP has been pretty clear what was intended by "non-batsman" and Gilly definitely qualifies. If you want to talk about batting at 8 or lower or whatever you're on about then you can make your own thread.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Curtly Ambrose made a 51 last night for me in the ICC Sim League...he’s a non batsman batsman

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Well there's a former CW member who averages 170 at no 8.

 

[Red]

Once again Gilly is not a "non batsman". Picking him defeats the purpose of the thread. There is a case for Jadeja, Kapil, etc. But they batted at #7 too.

Non batsmen bat at #8 or lower.

Well, I started the thread, and I set the parameters. Conventionally (at least over the last 40 years), teams basically pick batsmen in their top 6s, usually a keeper at #7 and bowlers from 8-11. Sometimes keepers bat lower than 7, sometime a bowling allrounder bats at 7.

You're correct about Gilly being a good batsman, Gilly would probably make any test team in history as a top 6 batsman. But he meets my criteria of having batted at 7 the majority of his career. He wasn't selected as a top six bat, he was selected as a keeper to bat at #7. Therefore he has every right to be included along with Jadeja or Kapil or whoever.

I also mentioned naming 20 players, because I was well aware the best would be Gilchrist and I thought it would be interesting to see who others thought the best batsmen were who didn't spend the majority of the time in your top six.

If that's all alright with you, we'll move on from your Gilchrist fixation.

 

[Burgey]

Migara can't possibly have an Australian sit on top of any cricketing category. It ruins his entire day, if not week when it happens.

He'd pick Samararweera over Bradman in a batting draft, Dilhara Fernando over McGrath in a seam bowling poll and Murali over Symonds in a fielding one. If he was forced to choose anything positive about any Australian cricketer in history he'd be like the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz...

 

[_00_deathscar]

Saying "once again" and repeating your wrong statement doesn't make it any less wrong. The OP has been pretty clear what was intended by "non-batsman" and Gilly definitely qualifies. If you want to talk about batting at 8 or lower or whatever you're on about then you can make your own thread.

The problem with including Gilly is that it's sort of a pointless discussion then?

 

[Burgey]

Not when he asked for a list of 20 odd players it isn't

 

[ataraxia]

The problem with including Gilly is that it's sort of a pointless discussion then?

Not if we're meant to name the top 20.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The problem with including Gilly is that it's sort of a pointless discussion then?

No it's not all about the number 1, still plenty of discussion around the rest

 

[honestbharani]

Like I said, just move the discussion around where it makes sense. Gilly is like Bradman as far as this thread goes. But if we do limit it to 8-11, I feel Shaun Pollock wins it hands down as well. Thoughts?

 

[mr_mister]

Late career Andy Bichel improved immensly with the bat, ended up with more FC tons than Pollock

 

[Red]

Like I said, just move the discussion around where it makes sense. Gilly is like Bradman as far as this thread goes. But if we do limit it to 8-11, I feel Shaun Pollock wins it hands down as well. Thoughts?

Can we just roll with the thread? The best batsmen who didn’t spend the majority of their careers batting top 6? Lol

 

[TheJediBrah]

That awkward moment when the discussion about the parameters of the thread is more interesting than the actual discussion the thread is supposed to be about