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

[Coronis]

Also, not sure if anyone has picked up on this, but it is missing a no-brainer... Gavaskar. I am really surprised about how few lists he is making. There are millimeters seperating a huge number of middle order bats. But there really are just 4 openers we should be looking at, and I am not so sure about Sutcliffe, so the others walk in.

Still the underrating of Sutcliffe continues.

 

[Bolo.]

Still the underrating of Sutcliffe continues.

Just less clear. No problem with rating him super high, but there are arguments against him that dont exist against the other 3

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

also Headley and Pollock being known as 'Black Bradman' and 'Left Handed Bradman' always gives them bonus points in my books.

And those 9 names seem to always be in a special tier above the likes of Gavaskar/Ponting/Chappell/Sanga when CW does like mass voting on this matter. I've ran a few batting countdowns myself and noticed this

Gavaskar - Bombay Bradman

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Really, this is an impossible task. You can make the case for no.1 and 2, but after that it is really subjective.

Using the rule 'an all-time great in one era would be the same in another era' I am putting those who were considered as near unanimously the best of their era. To me if within the two decades you were playing, you are recognized as the best that puts you in a special category.

1910-20s Jack Hobbs (followed by Sutcliffe)
1930s - 40s Bradman (followed by Len Hutton)
1950s - 60s Sobers (followed by Graeme Pollock)
1970s - 80s Viv (followed by Gavaskar)
1990s - 00s Sachin (followed by Lara)
2010s - 20s Smith (followed by Kohli)

So, excluding Smith because he is still playing, the top five should be among Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Viv and Sachin. Out of that list, Bradman is no.1 for being so ahead and Sachin in no.2 in my book for his technical and statistical near perfection over the longest international career. The remaining three would be tough to separate but I would go with the order of Viv, Hobbs and Sobers.

The remaining 6-10 can include Hutton, Pollock, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe and Lara. Pollock and likely Sutcliffe would be removed for not playing enough tests. It would then be a tight tussle between Aussies Greg Chappell, Border and Ponting for the remaining two spaces. Chappell and Border to me gets extra points for being in a tougher era. I am going for Lara, Hutton, Gavaskar, Chappell and Border.

Final list;

1. Bradman
2. Sachin
3. Viv
4. Hobbs.
5. Sobers.
6. Lara
7. Hutton
8. Gavaskar
9. Chappell
10. Border
11. Ponting

Hammond and Headley?

Bradman
Smith
Hobbs

Undisputable champions of their Era

 

[Chrish]

Sutcliffe was a compulsive padder.. It’s also reflected in his average before and after new lbw rule took place.. iirc the difference was pretty drastic. Someone here posted the stat in one of the threads. Will try to dig it up.

 

[Chrish]

Really, this is an impossible task. You can make the case for no.1 and 2, but after that it is really subjective.

Using the rule 'an all-time great in one era would be the same in another era' I am putting those who were considered as near unanimously the best of their era. To me if within the two decades you were playing, you are recognized as the best that puts you in a special category.

1910-20s Jack Hobbs (followed by Sutcliffe)
1930s - 40s Bradman (followed by Len Hutton)
1950s - 60s Sobers (followed by Graeme Pollock)
1970s - 80s Viv (followed by Gavaskar)
1990s - 00s Sachin (followed by Lara)
2010s - 20s Smith (followed by Kohli)

So, excluding Smith because he is still playing, the top five should be among Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Viv and Sachin. Out of that list, Bradman is no.1 for being so ahead and Sachin in no.2 in my book for his technical and statistical near perfection over the longest international career. The remaining three would be tough to separate but I would go with the order of Viv, Hobbs and Sobers.

The remaining 6-10 can include Hutton, Pollock, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe and Lara. Pollock and likely Sutcliffe would be removed for not playing enough tests. It would then be a tight tussle between Aussies Greg Chappell, Border and Ponting for the remaining two spaces. Chappell and Border to me gets extra points for being in a tougher era. I am going for Lara, Hutton, Gavaskar, Chappell and Border.

Final list;

1. Bradman
2. Sachin
3. Viv
4. Hobbs.
5. Sobers.
6. Lara
7. Hutton
8. Gavaskar
9. Chappell
10. Border
11. Ponting

Sachin and Lara were considered pretty neck and neck throughout their career; sort of like Messi and Ronaldo. Others were/ are considered indisputable no. one of their respective era. Although Viv arguably benefited from Barry/ Pollock not being there.

 

[Coronis]

Just less clear. No problem with rating him super high, but there are arguments against him that dont exist against the other 3

Such as?

Sutcliffe was a compulsive padder.. It’s also reflected in his average before and after new lbw rule took place.. iirc the difference was pretty drastic. Someone here posted the stat in one of the threads. Will try to dig it up.

So? He played to the rules as they were in his time and found the most efficient way of batting for him. Why denigrate him for that?

 

[Chrish]

So? He played to the rules as they were in his time and found the most efficient way of batting for him. Why denigrate him for that?

He played under both rules and his style didn’t work when the rule changed. It hints he wouldn’t have enjoyed the success he did most of his career in modern era.

 

[Coronis]

He played under both rules and his style didn’t work when the rule changed. It hints he wouldn’t have enjoyed the success he did most of his career in modern era.

I don’t even know where you’re getting this crap from. The year the new lbw law was introduced, Sutcliffe remained 2nd in the county averages behind Hammond, scoring 2494 runs @ 48.90, already at the age of 40. His remaining 4 seasons he averaged 33.30 (a horrible slump, his worst average since near the beginning of his career. fwiw Hutton averaged just 29.94 that season partnering him), 44.12, 41.62 and in his final season aged 44 he averaged 54.46. Not ridiculous stats by any margin but for a bloke over 40 well impressive and doesn’t look to me like he struggled that much with the new law. He only played in 2 tests (3 innings) in 1935 against South Africa with the new law before a leg injury took him out for the rest of the series, scoring 61, 3 and 38 (top score in that innings). Again not an outstanding record by any means, but decent enough for a 40 year old bloke in his final two tests.

 

[subshakerz]

Hammond and Headley?

Bradman
Smith
Hobbs

Undisputable champions of their Era

I forgot Hammond. Headley played too few tests though.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sachin and Lara were considered pretty neck and neck throughout their career; sort of like Messi and Ronaldo. Others were/ are considered indisputable no. one of their respective era. Although Viv arguably benefited from Barry/ Pollock not being there.

Gavaskar was not that behind, in fact there are experts, rating Gavaskar the best since Bradman.
And for the time his records were special too.. Runs more than 10000, centuries 30+.

 

[mr_mister]

What Headley did in the 30s shouldn't be discounted. Hit 10 tons at a rate of one every 2 tests while being the only bat worth a damn in his team.

If he didn't play those Post war tests as a geriatric he'd have averaged close to 70 and there'd be little debate about his greatness

 

[Coronis]

What Headley did in the 30s shouldn't be discounted. Hit 10 tons at a rate of one every 2 tests while being the only bat worth a damn in his team.

If he didn't play those Post war tests as a geriatric he'd have averaged close to 70 and there'd be little debate about his greatness

Completely agreed. The first two tests he played in 1948 he was 38 and 39, but hadn’t played test cricket in 9 years. I have no idea what inspired him to comeback for that extra test in 1954...

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin and Lara were considered pretty neck and neck throughout their career; sort of like Messi and Ronaldo. Others were/ are considered indisputable no. one of their respective era. Although Viv arguably benefited from Barry/ Pollock not being there.

I think in the mid-90s they were pretty neck and neck but by the early 2000s Tendulkar had a clear edge in terms of peer opinion.

 

[honestbharani]

I think in the mid-90s they were pretty neck and neck but by the early 2000s Tendulkar had a clear edge in terms of peer opinion.

And it changed again in Mid Noughties.. There has never been any clear cut bias either way even in peer opinion between them

 

[Bolo.]

Such as?



So? He played to the rules as they were in his time and found the most efficient way of batting for him. Why denigrate him for that?

Longevity, weak era, lack of pace, flat pitches etc. No objection to ranking him ahead of Gavaskar, but Gavaskar is more clearly in the top few bats, because there arent any question marks.

 

[Gob]

I think in the mid-90s they were pretty neck and neck but by the early 2000s Tendulkar had a clear edge in terms of peer opinion.

After a lean run from 96, stocks of Brial Lara pvt ltd sky rocketed post 99 series vs Aus

 

[Coronis]

Longevity, weak era, lack of pace, flat pitches etc.

Longevity was no fault of his own, was not able to play test cricket until he was 30 due to WWI. I’ll give you that he didn’t face as much quality fast bowling as Gavaskar, but on the other hand, Gavaskar definitely didn’t face as much quality spin bowling as Sutcliffe, and on uncovered pitches too at that. Speaking of I don’t get how you can claim they were flat pitches and a weak era. Sutcliffe’s career was part of the best overall batting averages in cricket history, stronger than any other era up until the past two decades. And I’m not even going to debate pitch quality of the 20’s and 30’s with the 70’s and 80’s, no comparison.

 

[subshakerz]

After a lean run from 96, stocks of Brial Lara pvt ltd sky rocketed post 99 series vs Aus

Post that 99 series, he had another dry run and his average dropped below 50, and then the 2001 series against Sri Lanka restored his reputation.

 

[Slifer]

Post that 99 series, he had another dry run and his average dropped below 50, and then the 2001 series against Sri Lanka restored his reputation.

I'd say from the SL series in 2001 til his retirement, Lara went through a pretty purple patch (aside from the time he dislocated his shoulder and struggled vs India et al).