Rank your 5 best bats from Australia post-Bradman

[mr_mister]

View attachment 33155

?

Yes I know you meant Pollock, I don't really get your point though.

Fuller bringing him up was probably more referring how CW generally rates him probably top 15 in tests, nobody puts him above Sachin


The Gilchrist example, well 68 tests is more tests than the 3 Ws played iirc

 

[trundler]

Yes I know you meant Pollock, I don't really get your point though.

Fuller bringing him up was probably more referring how CW generally rates him probably top 15 in tests, nobody puts him above Sachin


The Gilchrist example, well 68 tests is more tests than the 3 Was played iirc

Haha I was exaggerating for propaganda.

The 3 Ws played around a decade though. That should put them on par with Barrington imo.

 

[mr_mister]

Barrington's CW rating is a bit of a mystery

58 after 80 tests.... It has to be the 42 FC average that makes people think twice when rating him because really, on merit he should be in the argument for second best after Bradman but nobody has him in that discussion. I reckon Chappell is considered a tier above by most

 

[trundler]

Barrington's CW rating is a bit of a mystery

58 after 80 tests.... It has to be the 42 FC average that makes people think twice when rating him because really, on merit he should be in the argument for second best after Bradman but nobody has him in that discussion. I reckon Chappell is considered a tier above by most

Short career and easy era. Ponting, Dravid etc averaged 60 after a decade too. I think he's retrospectively overrated if anything. Him over Dravid or Younis doesn't compute to me.

 

[mr_mister]

Short career and easy era. Ponting, Dravid etc averaged 60 after a decade too. I think he's retrospectively overrated if anything. Him over Dravid or Younis doesn't compute to me.

I disagree on the short career, played '55 to '68, 82 tests. That's essentially Chappell's career length give or take a smidge

The easy era, yeah I'll cop that for sure

 

[trundler]

I disagree on the short career, played 55-68, 82 tests. That's essentially Chappell's career length give or take a smidge

The easy era, yeah I'll cop that for sure

But he was dropped for the first 3 years. It was effectively 9-10 years. And I'm firmly in the Border > Chappell camp because of the latter's relatively short career by ATG standards so there's that.

 

[social]

Barrington's CW rating is a bit of a mystery

58 after 80 tests.... It has to be the 42 FC average that makes people think twice when rating him because really, on merit he should be in the argument for second best after Bradman but nobody has him in that discussion. I reckon Chappell is considered a tier above by most

Barrington had personal problems but somehow got it done at test level

 

[social]

But he was dropped for the first 3 years. It was effectively 9-10 years. And I'm firmly in the Border > Chappell camp because of the latter's relatively short career by ATG standards so there's that.

Chappell retired at 35 which was old in those days

He lost 3 years to WSC, averaged 57 there and that was arguably the highest standard cricket ever as it was literally the best of the best in every game

He’s underrated if anything

Much better player than Ponting IMO

 

[Gob]

Chappell retired at 35 which was old in those days

He lost 3 years to WSC, averaged 57 there and that was arguably the highest standard cricket ever as it was literally the best of the best in every game

He’s underrated if anything

Much better player than Ponting IMO

Much is stretching it. Better player I agree

 

[Gob]

Smith
Chappell
Ponting
Border
Waugh

Clarke is next ftr

 

[social]

Much is stretching it. Better player I agree

Ponting had weaknesses whereas Chappell didn’t

Border was also better than Ponting

 

[trundler]

Ponting had weaknesses whereas Chappell didn’t

Border was also better than Ponting

Ponting's weakness was exposed in India where Chappell never toured. Ponting was also a top, top player of pace and very gifted.

 

[Gob]

Ponting had weaknesses whereas Chappell didn’t

Border was also better than Ponting

Can't make an educated comment because I didn't watch Chappell. You could also argue that he wasn't tested enough to be exposed from possible weaknesses such as Ponting in India

Disagree with the Border comment

 

[Gob]

Ponting also dominated McGrath and I'm not basing this entirely on robelinda videos

 

[social]

Ponting was a wonderful player

 

[subshakerz]

and imho thats stupid that people do

shouldn't penalise a guy for "playing on for too long" if, and this is an important rider, they had a long enough and sustained enough opus that it's reasonable for that to occupy the majority of the weighting, which is how ya differentiate the vogeses and the pontings

Ponting's post-peak phase was nearly half his career, while Viv's post-peak phase was 60% of his career. So of course they need to be part of how they are assessed overall.

How a player handles their aging years when they lost their pace, their strength, their reflexes, their sharp sightedness is one of the great challenges in cricket and part of most career paths. Judging their post-peak phase as part of their overall career then makes total sense.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There was a decent period that Prior averaged over 50....are we saying he's in Gillys league?

Certainly not with the gloves!

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Clarke is next ftr

Doubt he'd make the top 10.

I'd have Simpson, Harvey, Walters, Hayden, McCabe (if eligible - debuted 1930, Bradman 1928), Gilchrist, Morris (if eligible, 1946) and Lawry ahead of him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The thing about Barrington is, to quote Garfield Sobers, "he tolerated the bowling without ever dominating it". He put Border in the same category.

 

[Gob]

Doubt he'd make the top 10.

I'd have Simpson, Harvey, Walters, Hayden, McCabe (if eligible - debuted 1930, Bradman 1928), Gilchrist, Morris (if eligible, 1946) and Lawry ahead of him.

Lol