Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current)

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Perhaps starting as a teen helped Sachin. What makes the greats is their mind set. There was that other guy that was his peer that didn't cut it. Sachin got to master his game where he had to have no chinks that went unnoticed, setting him up for a very long career at the highest level. If he played until 25 before debut he'd have 9 years of bad habits (possibly) to fix up. More conjecture.
One may wonder how much greater Smith might be now if he had started earlier, early enough to have stayed a pure batsman, instead of being persuaded to try and become a bowler.
Sachin is great, awesome, and actually has a completed career being that. We don't need to bring other truely phenomenal efforts down with excuses and what ifs. We just need to watch and see how the remainder of Smith's career progresses and be truthful, that at this stage, he is like nothing we've seen.

Dennis Lillee stopped Sachin from becoming a Smith.

 

[Gob]

GOAT

Donald Bradman - 231.4

View attachment 28476

Points: 231.4
Span: 1929-38, 1946-48

Overall points: 227.2
Overseas points: 236.7
Best bowling attack points: 234.6
Peak points: 243

Runs: 6996
Average: 99.94

lol

 

[Gob]

When I started this a few months back, I wasn't sure if I could finish. But after a few pauses I did finish it. The hardest part was devising a method without any major flaws. Since that is done, why not? May be a top 30 test bowlers or ODI batsmen. But not sure when I will find the time again.

I'll give you four weeks

EDIT: make it three

 

[Victor Ian]

When I started this a few months back, I wasn't sure if I could finish. But after a few pauses I did finish it. The hardest part was devising a method without any major flaws. Since that is done, why not? May be a top 30 test bowlers or ODI batsmen. But not sure when I will find the time again.

Time is not an issue. There are some countdowns we are still waiting for completion years after being started.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Mods please make it a rule that if venkyrenga completes another list before Teja does his interview then Teja gets banned.

 

[Burgey]

given that he missed the BG Trophy in 2018-19

Lol, you wouldn't be saying it was such a great attack if it had to bowl to pre-ban Smith. No one can compare bowling to him with rolling the arm over at the Pillow, Travis Head and Marcus Harris.

 

[honestbharani]

Lol, you wouldn't be saying it was such a great attack if it had to bowl to pre-ban Smith. No one can compare bowling to him with rolling the arm over at the Pillow, Travis Head and Marcus Harris.

Could be. But it did not happen. And based on what happened in 20-21, I think it is very possible he could have been kept quiet by the form Bumrah was in during that series as well. The point is 18-21 period has seen him miss or not play against as many tough attacks as he did before this period, that is all.

 

[Burgey]

So Bumrah’s 12 months of good form leading into that series (now a bit of a distant memory, sadly) gets taken into account in analysing this match up, whereas Smith’s five years of world wide dominance before his ban is worth nothing when considering what might have gone on. Glad we’ve got that straight. The only thing that’s slowed down Smith has been a couple of head knocks, sadly.

 

[Bolo.]

don't really get why this is an issue anyway. You're right that he didn't really play Test cricket as a spinner except maybe that game or 2 against Pakistan in 2010, where Marcus North bowled more overs than him anyway. It was ODI and T20I cricket where he played a few years regularly as a spinner. But it doesn't change that he had a couple bad years up until ~2013 that, if you wanted to, you could cut out and get this "6,000 runs @ 75" career.

It ups his career average and reduces his longevity. It isnt relevant to his peak which I havent discussed.

There is a reason we tend to look at peaks over time period rather than number of runs. Batting in almost any other team/era, he would have had much less opportunity to score runs (number of games most particularly, but also stuff like drop in pitches, era SRs and ORs etc.).

The peak you are describing ran for basically 4 years and a series. He isnt alone in maintaining this type of average over a similar period of time. His peak is more impressive than others of comparable length for having proven it by scoring more, and there is a good chance nobody else would have managed it if given the same opportunity. But there really isn't a comparison between a purple patch of a fairly regular length and the full length careers some of the other greats would have needed to maintain it for to score as many runs.

Anyway, I am not sure we will want to judge him on this period as his peak. A couple of good years will give him a much more impressive peak due to how much longer it lasts, even if his peak average isnt quite as silly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The peak you are describing ran for basically 4 years and a series. He isnt alone in maintaining this type of average over a similar period of time. His peak is more impressive than others of comparable length for having proven it by scoring more, and there is a good chance nobody else would have managed it if given the same opportunity. But there really isn't a comparison between a purple patch of a fairly regular length and the full length careers some of

It's harder to maintain such a level of performance over a higher number of games, regardless if the time period is the same.

 

[Bolo.]

It's harder to maintain such a level of performance over a higher number of games, regardless if the time period is the same.

Yup, as I gave him credit for.

But time is still a more fair measure. It's unlikely, but still vaguely plausible, that someone like Pollock could have maintained his peak average over 5ish years to better Smith in his place, and players have come at least close to his numbers over a similar number of runs. But not that Smith could score 400 runs an innings to emulate his own output in Pollocks team.

To me, this leaves Smith with the best peak over this amount of time, even if there are players who have him beat on average. Calling it the best peak is easily justifiable, but there are longer and shorter peaks he cant match that make it a very subjective call.

 

[honestbharani]

So Bumrah’s 12 months of good form leading into that series (now a bit of a distant memory, sadly) gets taken into account in analysing this match up, whereas Smith’s five years of world wide dominance before his ban is worth nothing when considering what might have gone on. Glad we’ve got that straight. The only thing that’s slowed down Smith has been a couple of head knocks, sadly.

lol, I am not denying Smith could have done better too. My point is it could have gone either way but the fact is he did not play those series. His record from 2015 is a much better argument for Smith being a level above than his record specifically in the last 3 years. That is all.

 

[sunilz]

I don't follow Tennis much but is my analogy correct ?

Djokovic : Smith
Federer: Sachin
Nadal: Lara

 

[honestbharani]

I don't follow Tennis much but is my analogy correct ?

Djokovic : Smith
Federer: Sachin
Nadal: Lara

Nope. Those 3 in discussion for GOAT in Tennis terms. Maybe all 3 can be compared to Bradman, perhaps.

 

[Slifer]

Nope. Those 3 in discussion for GOAT in Tennis terms. Maybe all 3 can be compared to Bradman, perhaps.

No tennis player is comparable to Bradman. Period. But if we compared tennis players to batsmen then : Federer: Lara
Novak: Smith. I can't think of a tennis players comparable to Sachin.

Lara/Fed just beautiful artists among the very best at what they do but with noticeable holes in their cv.

Nadal is great especially on clay and has great records but again most of those are on clay. Nadal was never really consistent overall (away from Clay). lSachin was pretty consistent throughout the world. He wasn't really better vs a particular type bowling over another or in one country vs another. Just consistent.

Novak is just in the zone. 2 grand slams (ie each major at least twice), each masters at least twice. 3/4 way to a calendar grandslam. Novak is currently head and shoulders above every other tennis player just like Smith is vs test batsmen.

 

[honestbharani]

No tennis player is comparable to Bradman. Period. But if we compared tennis players to batsmen then : Federer: Lara
Novak: Smith. I can't think of a tennis players comparable to Sachin.

Lara/Fed just beautiful artists among the very best at what they do but with noticeable holes in their cv.

Nadal is great especially on clay and has great records but again most of those are on clay. Nadal was never really consistent overall (away from Clay). lSachin was pretty consistent throughout the world. He wasn't really better vs a particular type bowling over another or in one country vs another. Just consistent.

Novak is just in the zone. 2 grand slams (ie each major at least twice), each masters at least twice. 3/4 way to a calendar grandslam. Novak is currently head and shoulders above every other tennis player just like Smith is vs test batsmen.

The category tbey are vying for is the GOAT, which was my point. That is not true of the batsmen listed.

 

[Slifer]

The category tbey are vying for is the GOAT, which was my point. That is not true of the batsmen listed.

Oh ok. Well then yeah.

 

[ankitj]

Was looking at most hundreds in SENA for a non-home player since 1990. Surprised to see that Kohli is #2 in just 33 tests. Somehow his poor run in last 2 years has cast a shadow on his good showings before (at least in my head).

 

[honestbharani]

If you limit the search to non SENA batsmen, it could settle a few debates.

 

[StephenZA]

Only 5 sixes from Kohli... what a pretender.