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

[Gob]

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).

Didn't he had an insane run in county cricket around 92/93. By insane i mean bat**** crazy

 

[OverratedSanity]

Didn't he had an insane run in county cricket around 92/93. By insane i mean bat**** crazy

94 I think. 8 consecutive hundreds including the 501

 

[Victor Ian]

I asked this before, and this period is the one I have my memory of Lara taking time off cricket. Did he? Did he miss any games or was stuff going on then? I seem to remember something, but not quite sure what.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

WW1 ended 6 years before sutcliffes debut.
Pitches flattened out after WW1, which is why I cant rank him the equal of Hobbs.
I rank opening bats primarilly on their ability to play pace, as that is their primary job through most of cricket history.
Cricket was generally weak in the era. And there was also a recent influx of minnows like India and NZ.

This said, I am fine with ranking him just about anywhere. I would throw my toys if anyone was ranking him above Hobbs, and disagree somewhat if he was above Hutton, but I wouldnt blink about him being ranked 3rd best bat, or 20th.

 

[Coronis]

WW1 ended 6 years before sutcliffes debut.
Pitches flattened out after WW1, which is why I cant rank him the equal of Hobbs.
I rank opening bats primarilly on their ability to play pace, as that is their primary job through most of cricket history.
Cricket was generally weak in the era. And there was also a recent influx of minnows like India and NZ.

This said, I am fine with ranking him just about anywhere. I would throw my toys if anyone was ranking him above Hobbs, and disagree somewhat if he was above Hutton, but I wouldnt blink about him being ranked 3rd best bat, or 20th.

Yes but he wasn’t able to break into first class cricket until 1919 because it was the first county season after since 1914. Which delayed everything in his career. Pitches flattened out after WWI yes and that is a valid point comparing him to Hobbs but I don’t recall that ever being the argument, and pitch condition and preparation has continued to improve over the years, giving Sutcliffe an advantage on that point over Gavaskar. I assume btw, since Hobbs didn’t face many notable fast bowlers either you downgrade him for that as well? Sutcliffe faced many great bowlers and performed excellently against the strongest opposition of his time, averaging 66.85 against Australia. Actually, of the 3 teams that joined test cricket after WWI, against 2 of them Sutcliffe had his lowest 2 averages against any country (11 vs India and 41 vs WI). In total he played only 10 of his matches against those 3 sides, and exactly 27/54 against Australia.

 

[Slifer]

I asked this before, and this period is the one I have my memory of Lara taking time off cricket. Did he? Did he miss any games or was stuff going on then? I seem to remember something, but not quite sure what.

I know for sure Lara missed the 2000 series at home to Pakistan (3 tests) due to personal demons. Don't know if he missed any other games.

 

[Chrish]

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.

Sachin > Lara sentiment comes from the fact that he continued playing some amazing knocks after Lara retired (arguably had his best away tour when he scored two 100s in SA). Of course he hung around two years longer than he should but people tend to remember good performance over slump.. Lara finished strong but had slumps along the way throughout his career. Tendy never really had it until last couple years.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes but he wasn’t able to break into first class cricket until 1919 because it was the first county season after since 1914. Which delayed everything in his career. Pitches flattened out after WWI yes and that is a valid point comparing him to Hobbs but I don’t recall that ever being the argument, and pitch condition and preparation has continued to improve over the years, giving Sutcliffe an advantage on that point over Gavaskar. I assume btw, since Hobbs didn’t face many notable fast bowlers either you downgrade him for that as well? Sutcliffe faced many great bowlers and performed excellently against the strongest opposition of his time, averaging 66.85 against Australia. Actually, of the 3 teams that joined test cricket after WWI, against 2 of them Sutcliffe had his lowest 2 averages against any country (11 vs India and 41 vs WI). In total he played only 10 of his matches against those 3 sides, and exactly 27/54 against Australia.

My rankings of the best bats ever are:

Bradman
Grace
.
.
.
Hobbs
.
A huge bunch of other bats who are very comparable.

But I would never consider picking Grace for an ATG side, and vacillate about whether Hobbs should be picked. I hope this answers your question.

I don't really disagree with anything you are saying and don't think we have anything to debate. I am very comfortable placing Sutcliffe 3rd on this list, which is a lot higher than anyone else has him. I am just saying there are good reasons to put him lower as well, and am just as comfortable with him missing the top 10 if people want to go this route.

 

[subshakerz]

I know for sure Lara missed the 2000 series at home to Pakistan (3 tests) due to personal demons. Don't know if he missed any other games.

Didn't he have some eye issues? I recall him wearing special shades on a tour to England.

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin > Lara sentiment comes from the fact that he continued playing some amazing knocks after Lara retired (arguably had his best away tour when he scored two 100s in SA). Of course he hung around two years longer than he should but people tend to remember good performance over slump.. Lara finished strong but had slumps along the way throughout his career. Tendy never really had it until last couple years.

Yeah, the main argument of Tendulkar over Lara is the former's consistency. Even Tendulkar's dip between 2003-2006 was still fairly productive compared to Lara's slump between 96 to 2001.

 

[honestbharani]

Irrespective of selective bits of their careers, overall, there has hardly been anything to choose between them both in terms of stats and in terms of peer opinion. I know of many who tend to think of cricket as all formats and in that case, I would also put Sachin ahead. But in terms of pure batsmanship, I have not seen anyone who can claim to be better than Lara. The Prince was just something else.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I'd walk from here to Perth to watch Lara bat. He was next level when he was on-song. Just something about him, maybe it was dat back lift or something, I dunno. Had a God level I've not seen the likes of in watching cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah I'd walk from here to Perth to watch Lara bat. He was next level when he was on-song. Just something about him, maybe it was dat back lift or something, I dunno. Had a God level I've not seen the likes of in watching cricket.

Think he had the exact right mix of arrogance and elegance in his stroke making. It is hard to explain but that is the best I can do.

 

[subshakerz]

Irrespective of selective bits of their careers, overall, there has hardly been anything to choose between them both in terms of stats and in terms of peer opinion. I know of many who tend to think of cricket as all formats and in that case, I would also put Sachin ahead. But in terms of pure batsmanship, I have not seen anyone who can claim to be better than Lara. The Prince was just something else.

Yeah, nothing compares to Lara on song.

I used to favor Lara over Tendulkar, but since their careers ended it is pretty clear to me that Tendulkar was the slightly superior bat, both technically and based on record.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, nothing compares to Lara on song.

I used to favor Lara over Tendulkar, but since their careers ended it is pretty clear to me that Tendulkar was the slightly superior bat, both technically and based on record.

And I feel the exact opposite, which is why I said there is very little to choose based on anything, in Tests at least.

I really wish we have another left handed great batsman emerging soon. They are just so awesome to watch. Pant, Conway and QdK are the only ones with promise at the moment, I guess.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And I feel the exact opposite, which is why I said there is very little to choose based on anything, in Tests at least.

I really wish we have another left handed great batsman emerging soon. They are just so awesome to watch. Pant, Conway and QdK are the only ones with promise at the moment, I guess.

Stokes and Warner might be offended at being left out

 

[honestbharani]

Stokes and Warner might be offended at being left out

True but especially Warner is closer to his retirement than his debut right now... So I went with the younger ones. And Stokes yeah, that was a definite miss. He is awesome. Should add him.

 

[Burgey]

lefties always overlooked and hard done by.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Deservedly so. The redheads of the cricketing world.

 

[subshakerz]

And I feel the exact opposite, which is why I said there is very little to choose based on anything, in Tests at least.

I really wish we have another left handed great batsman emerging soon. They are just so awesome to watch. Pant, Conway and QdK are the only ones with promise at the moment, I guess.

You believe Lara somehow has a better record and technique than Tendulkar? Not to reignite that debate, but I assumed the arguments in favor of Lara had more to do with his peak performances, his style and mastery over spin.