Following up on a request, top 10 greatest batsmen of all time in tests (not including the Don)

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Would no doubt change day to day but something like:

Sachin
Hutton
Hobbs
Sobers
Lara
Conway
V Richards
Sangakkara
Gavaskar
Hammond

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If it didn't specify Tests Barry Richards would be a cert. Pollock and Headley great players but small number of Tests. Steve Smith has been poor since the Ashes apart from the Sydney Test against India, so we'll see if he feasts on the England bowling as usual this winter.

Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Hobbs
Lara
Gavaskar
Hutton
Smith
Hammond
Chappell

 

[Slifer]

I think it is best not to include current batsmen, since a prolonged dip in form for either could result in exclusion from the list.

Agreed. So tempted to include Smith but you never know...If he retired right now, he'd be my #1

 

[TheJediBrah]

Started watching cricket from around 89 or so.... Not gonna rank those who I did not watch, and off the top of my head...

Lara
Sachin
Miandad
Ponting
Aravinda De Silva
Martin Crowe
Steve Waugh
Sangakkara
Younis Khan
Pieterson

You are a lot older than I thought you'd be. Also good list

 

[Migara]

Hutton
Hobbs
Headly
Sobers
Gavaskar
Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Sangakkara
Smith

according to the time they played in. Very hard done for Ponting and Barrington.

 

[Chrish]

What is logical reason to proclaim Smith as no. 1 if he were to retire today? I personally can’t think of any..

 

[a massive zebra]

Bahnz selected 11 so I will too

Hobbs
Hammond
Headley
Hutton
Sobers
Pollock
Gavaskar
V Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Sangakkara

If you are trying to tally up votes and are only allowing 10 points for each list, just give Headley and Pollock half a point each as they didn't play much.

 

[Gob]

What is logical reason to proclaim Smith as no. 1 if he were to retire today? I personally can’t think of any..

Average of 61 with over 7.5k runs

EDIT Ftr I'm not suggesting he is the number 1 if he retires now but he is in a very rare territory as far as stats are concerned especially when you consider haw far ahead he is from his peers statistically and the era he played in is generally low scoring. Also has single handedly carried his team for a while

Again I don't know where he would end but if he goes past 10k runs while keeping that average above 60, hell be very close to number 1 in my book

 

[Chrish]

Average of 61 with over 7.5k runs

EDIT Ftr I'm not suggesting he is the number 1 if he retires now but he is in a very rare territory as far as stats are concerned especially when you consider haw far ahead he is from his peers statistically and the era he played in is generally low scoring. Also has single handedly carried his team for a while

Again I don't know where he would end but if he goes past 10k runs while keeping that average above 60, hell be very close to number 1 in my book

He is undoubtedly no. 1 batsman right now; scores runs and is ridiculously clutch (probably most clutch player I have seen). But there are some flaws in his record just like any other player. His record against one major team of the era leaves much to be desired. If he had a godly series against them like he did in India or England, then I would be much more willing to sympathize with the logic. But as it stands right now, that's not the case.

Also, longevity IS important. No. of grand slams won by Federer is important. No. of world cups won by Australia is important. Longevity means player was good until certain time period for his team. So, higher that no. the better for the team. I too would rank him no.1 if he were to average 60 while scoring 10k runs. But ranking him as no. 1 night now has probably more to do with recency bias.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What is logical reason to proclaim Smith as no. 1 if he were to retire today? I personally can’t think of any..

Would easily be no. 1 IMO. Incredible away record and big game player. Tonned up in all conditions often when no one else could buy a run. Even if he averaged 5 runs less he'd be in the discussion.

 

[Gob]

He is undoubtedly no. 1 batsman right now; scores runs and is ridiculously clutch (probably most clutch player I have seen). But there are some flaws in his record just like any other player. His record against one major team of the era leaves much to be desired. If he had a godly series against them like he did in India or England, then I would be much more willing to sympathize with the logic. But as it stands right now, that's not the case.

Also, longevity IS important. No. of grand slams won by Federer is important. No. of world cups won by Australia is important. Longevity means player was good until certain time period for his team. So, higher that no. the better for the team. I too would rank him no.1 if he were to average 60 while scoring 10k runs. But ranking him as no. 1 night now has probably more to do with recency bias.

RSA? Averaged 60 odd against them in SA in 14 IIRC. Returns were less since but it's no means a hole in the CV like Ponting in India and I don't know what winning world cups has to do with test cricket

As I said earlier I won't consider him the 2nd best right now but like you said 10k runs over 60 is a big deal and he is three fourths the way there

 

[ma1978]

Watching since 1986. Included players since that tjme.

Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting
Richards
Smith
Dravid
Sangakkara
Border
Waugh
Kohli

Honorable Mentions

AB De Villiers
Javed Miandad
Kevin Pietersen
Jacques Kallis
Hashim Amla
Graeme Smith
Kane Williamson

Felt weird not including any Saffers given the quality of the test team but they have four honorable mentions (and if we did bowlers in that timeframe, they would have three ro four)

 

[Chrish]

RSA? Averaged 60 odd against them in SA in 14 IIRC. Returns were less since but it's no means a hole in the CV like Ponting in India and I don't know what winning world cups has to do with test cricket

As I said earlier I won't consider him the 2nd best right now but like you said 10k runs over 60 is a big deal and he is three fourths the way there

Has scored only one hundred against them in fair no. of games. Yes, those numbers don’t do it for me. YMMV.

Winning WC was the analogy regarding longevity. If team wins three consecutive world cups it’s better than winning one or two. Conversely if batsman averages certain no. over the course of 120 tests vs 60, it matters. We aren’t disagreeing on that point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Watching since 1986. Included players since that tjme.

Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting
Richards
Smith
Dravid
Sangakkara
Border
Waugh
Kohli

Honorable Mentions

AB De Villiers
Javed Miandad
Kevin Pietersen
Jacques Kallis
Hashim Amla
Graeme Smith
Kane Williamson

Felt weird not including any Saffers given the quality of the test team but they have four honorable mentions (and if we did bowlers in that timeframe, they would have three ro four)

Five. KP too.

 

[Slifer]

What is logical reason to proclaim Smith as no. 1 if he were to retire today? I personally can’t think of any..

Let's see, he averages 60+ over a reasonable number of tests, none of his contemporaries come close. His conversion of centuries is absurd. His away average is outstanding. He's had at least one series where he's made runs (averaged 50+) against all of the very good to great attacks he's faced. Nothing left for him to prove imo.

 

[Athlai]

Smith is the reincarnation of Sobers

 

[TheJediBrah]

If I had to look for a "hole" in Steve Smith's career it would be 4th innings batting, where he only averages 30. Not sure how that compares to other ATGs but a very big drop from his overall stats. However also serves to emphasize how good he is in the first innings

 

[Slifer]

Smith is the reincarnation of Sobers

Yeah but even Sobers (head scratch) had an awful record vs New Zealand. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but for me, Smith has no such glaring holes.

 

[Chrish]

Let's see, he averages 60+ over a reasonable number of tests, none of his contemporaries come close. His conversion of centuries is absurd. His away average is outstanding. He's had at least one series where he's made runs (averaged 50+) against all of the very good to great attacks he's faced. Nothing left for him to prove imo.

His record against RSA isn’t good enough to rank as no. 1 if he were to retire today for me. Scored one hundred against them after all these innings and didn’t play any impactful inning in last two series when he was supposed to be in his peak. Also, I seem to place more value on longevity compared to others on here. For a modern player, the minimum cut-off would be 100+ tests which isn’t too much to ask, especially for someone playing for big 3.

 

[Slifer]

His record against RSA isn’t good enough to rank as no. 1 if he were to retire today for me. Scored one hundred against them after all these innings and didn’t play any impactful inning in last two series when he was supposed to be in his peak. Also, I seem to place more value on longevity compared to others on here. For a modern player, the minimum cut-off would be 100+ tests which isn’t too much to ask, especially for someone playing for big 3.

Steve Smith averages 41 vs RSA. Similar to the 41 he also averages vs SL. While not earth shatteringly great it's still passable. None of Viv, or Sachin, or Lara or whomever have a record that is (much) more complete if at all....