Top 20 greatest batsmen of all time

[cnerd123]

Mate you're in a funny mood today, your not normally like this are you?

i have gears

 

[trundler]

Scoring the same amount of runs more slowly helps outplayed teams draw matches. Drawing matches you're behind in wins series.

Obviously scoring the same amount of runs faster helps you win when you're on top too, so I'd never argue that batsmen with lower SRs were better - but I just don't think the opposite is true either. It depends on context really.

And you still arouse me even though you're wrong about this (and libertarianism) btw. One of my favourite posters in these threads, even if you pick on my boy GAS.

I would generally dismiss any list that has Kallis over Lara as nerdy hipsterism but you've probably thought this through so it's ****ing with my world view a bit. I realize I've put myself in a weird place where I'm with the intent memers and bros on SR and basement dwelling nerds on longevity. Radical centrism etc.

Also, the ignore function has served me well for a year now.

 

[Prince EWS]

In most scenarios for a top order batsman, if the batsman ends up with a small-medium range score of say 40-60 odd, I'd prefer it if he took more balls to do it. But once we go lower down the order and get into bigger scores of 100+, the value of a higher strike rate obviously goes up quite a bit and the value of consuming deliveries goes down (no new ball to see through anymore etc.).

I actually largely agree with this. I don't rate Chanderpaul or Barrington as highly as my spreadsheet tells me to - red-inking with a low strike rate in the lower middle order is always gonna make it over-rate you a bit IMO - but I think it's 'right' about Kallis and Dravid (and if anything it underrated post-1955 openers).

 

[Prince EWS]

I would generally dismiss any list that has Kallis over Lara as nerdy hipsterism but you've probably thought this through so it's ****ing with my world view a bit. I realize I've put myself in a weird place where I'm with the intent memers and bros on SR and basement dwelling nerds on longevity. Radical centrism etc.

Also, the ignore function has served me well for a year now.

I don't think Kallis and Lara are really separated by much, if anything. I won't die on that hill. If I wanted to spend 20 minutes making a list I definitely wanted it to be the subject of the thread for the next 30 posts though, so I may have taken the trollier option whenever I thought something was close.

I do enjoy saying that I think Kallis > Sobers with the bat but Sobers was a better allrounder because he was so much better with the ball. This tends to make everyone's brains explode. It's very fun.

 

[ankitj]

1 Bradman
2 Hobbs
3 Hammond
4 Tendulkar
5 Hutton
6 Kallis
7 Sobers
8 Lara
9 Sutcliffe
10 Border
11 Chappell
12 Sanga
13 Gavaskar
14 Compton
15 Headley
16 Pollock
17 Dravid
18 Miandad
19 Nourse
20 Harvey

Jadeja just missed out.

Both Ponting and Smith missing?

 

[Prince EWS]

Both Ponting and Smith missing?

Smith still playing so not included until he's finished and I can analyse him properly, but I do think I rate him lower than most of CW because of how I see the pitches he batted on compared to Kohli, Root, Williamson etc.

Ponting over-rated here IMO. Would be 21-30 somewhere.

 

[ataraxia]

Both Ponting and Smith missing?

Richards too.

Also there's this guy Viv who isn't there. I've heard some rate him

 

[Fuller Pilch]

your list is garbage

Tell me what you really think.

 

[Xix2565]

Tell me what you really think.

Not enough teams @cnerd123 loves are being represented.

 

[Burgey]

1)Bradman
2)Viv
3)Sachin
4)Hobbs
5)Sobers
6)Lara
7)Smith
8)Hutton
9)Hammond
10)Border
11)Gavaskar
12)Sutcliffe
13)Ponting
14)Kallis
15)Sangakkara
16)Dravid
17)Waugh
18)Younis
19)Miandad
20)Chappell

I think this is pretty decent list tbh. Will be differences around rankings but there aren't too many obvious omissions I can think of. Maybe G Pollock & Headley, but there's arguments there because of their small sample sizes I suppose.

 

[Burgey]

Mate you're in a funny mood today, your not normally like this are you?

Nah he's always a jerk

 

[_00_deathscar]

I think this is pretty decent list tbh. Will be differences around rankings but there aren't too many obvious omissions I can think of. Maybe G Pollock & Headley, but there's arguments there because of their small sample sizes I suppose.

It would have been but the lack of a space after the ) should rule it out. In fact, a ban should be handed out for having to make everyone to read a list like that.

 

[harsh.ag]

1) Bradman
2) Hobbs
3) Tendulkar
4) Lara
5) Sobers
6) Viv
7) Smith
8) Gavaskar
9) Waugh
10) Hutton

Bradman because freak
Hobbs because of difficulty of era and a long career
Tendulkar because of technique, watchability, large body of work with little flaw, and lack of support
Lara because of watchability, ability to go big, and lack of support
Sobers because of watchability, technique, a long peak, and a wonderful sporting personality
Viv because of watchability, technique, and the will to dominate
Smith because of ability to go huge when it matters and great fortitude
Gavaskar because of technique, lack of support, and a great body of work
Waugh because of sheer tenacity and a large body of work
Hutton because of a great body of work with no flaws

 

[Slifer]

Just realised I forgot Viv! I'd probably put him 7th. Forgot Ponting too!

Phew. I was just about to read you the riot act. Carry on.....

 

[Coronis]

Viv is definitely the most overrated cricketer in history.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara > Sachin >> Kallis.

PEWS and his algorithms can suck it.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Viv is definitely the most overrated cricketer in history.

Strange way to spell Kallis

 

[Coronis]

Nah its definitely Viv. Somehow he’s considered a candidate for best after Bradman despite an average (for an ATG) record, because muh swag and SR. Bloke had an amazing peak, theres no doubt, but outside of that, eh. And its not like he was exceeding his peers throughout that time either, throught out his career you have Border, Gavaskar and Miandad all playing 100+ tests and averaging more, as well as Chappell (63) and Lloyd (74).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah its definitely Viv. Somehow he’s considered a candidate for best after Bradman despite an average (for an ATG) record, because muh swag and SR. Bloke had an amazing peak, theres no doubt, but outside of that, eh. And its not like he was exceeding his peers throughout that time either, throught out his career you have Border, Gavaskar and Miandad all playing 100+ tests and averaging more, as well as Chappell (63) and Lloyd (74).

Only if you severely underrate the value his batting style has on the opposition, his own side, the state of the game, supporters and the sport in his country (countries?) and around the world as a whole

Impossible to calculate the difference having such a player can make on the youth of the time. Complete wild speculation and almost certainly completely untrue hypothesis coming up: If Viv batted like Geoff Boycott maybe a young Brian Lara isn't interested in cricket and becomes an accountant instead

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Chanderpaul would've been the worst accountant given his desire for red ink.