CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
which should ideally not be the case. Longevity should always be rated higher.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
CW's Ranking of Batsmen (Tests)
- Thread starter gftw
- Start date
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Also, during the 90s, Steve Waugh was spoken about on par with Sachin and Lara but doesn`t get even a single vote these days. Being the best number 5 batsman of all time, he sure is under-rated here.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Gavaskar did so much More.. Broke world records.. Started 10K runs club, 30 hundreds club, elevated India to a major cricket nation..
Imagine A man who has zero experience of playing quality pacers in domestic cricket, setting batting milestones in an era of most brutal fast bowling in the history.. That too as an Opener for a weak team. And he is the only Elite Opener in last 70 years ( bar Barry)
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
That last point is what got my vote for Gavaskar over Border. There are so many elite middle order batsmen but elite openers are very rare, implying how much more difficult that job is.
And in the other thread, Gavaskar is in the second XI while Border is in 4th.
I think Greg Chappell has always been rated ahead of Ponting. I found examples of this exercise being done a long time ago where it seems Chappell was still rated ahead even during Pontings peak. Attached them below. The difference in longevity isn't that big - only 2-3 years. The guy who's really dropped is Steve Waugh. Kinda unfortunate considering there's probably no one who's faced as much high quality pace as him. Pretty sure he's faced all of Marshall/Garner/Holding/Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop/Patterson/Wasim/Waqar/Imran/Hadlee/Donald/Pollock/Shoaib. Most of those at their peak.
CW Ranks the Batsmen
CW's Ranking of the Top 25 Batsmen of All-Time 1. Don Bradman 2. Jack Hobbs 3. Garry Sobers 4. Sachin Tendulkar 5. Viv Richards 6. WG Grace 7. Wally Hammond 8. Brian Lara 9. Greg Chappell 10. Len Hutton 11. George Headley 12. Sunil Gavaskar 13. Herbert Sutcliffe 14. Ranji 15. Ricky Ponting 16...
www.cricketweb.net
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
strong profile picture to comment ratio
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
We should just merge all these threads into one big thing.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Gavaskar
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hammond
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Nah... its a lot more subjective than that. Ultimately you are rating careers and the troughs are as much part of it as the highs.
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
When someone plays at age of less than 20 and more than 35, even if they average only 20 at that point, that is better than those who have not been able to be good to be selected for international cricket at that point. The fact that they are being able to play in those years while the others couldn`t should count as a positive towards them.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Not at all coz first of all, you are just assuming the other one could not. And second of all, if the net benefit of your presence in the team is only 20 runs, you are most likely keeping someone who can do better out. Like I said, its not a cut and dry issue at all. I agree that longevity and being successful as teenagers should be a credit to those players but at the same time, you just cant assume the others wont have done just as well. I already pointed it out to OS (maybe in another thread) but its one thing to say its a credit to those players but another to use it as some sort of clincher in a comparison.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
HB is right
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
We are not differing too much in our thoughts. I am also saying that it should be an important factor that should be considered, not the final clincher.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Factoring in longevity is a tricky thing. But I would go with the below.
Lets say there are 2 players A and B averaging 53 and 55 in 100 tests over similar conditions, same era. As their powers start waning, A retired but B kept playing for another 50 tests averaging 46, taking his overall average to 52. I would rate B higher though he averages 1 run less.
Lets say there are 2 players A and B averaging 53 and 55 in 100 tests over similar conditions, same era. As their powers start waning, A retired but B kept playing for another 50 tests averaging 46, taking his overall average to 52. I would rate B higher though he averages 1 run less.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
It's again not that cut and dry. Why did A retire? Why did B keep playing? Did B keep someone who could have averaged more than 46 out of the team? All these things matter but ultimately beyond a point, I feel in this sort of comparison if A looked the better player in those 100 tests then he probably is. It's as simple as that.
