Top 20 greatest batsmen of all time

[Coronis]

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

Meh I don’t give players extra points for the impact they have outside of the game (not denying that Viv did indeed), e.g I don’t give Warne extra points in comparisons for “making legspin cool again”

 

[Burgey]

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

This is a very good list as well, though I'd have Border in it (surprisingly, I know) over Waugh

 

[Zinzan]

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

Crowe for Waugh please.

Oh and Robin Smith really wasn't that good.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Meh I don’t give players extra points for the impact they have outside of the game (not denying that Viv did indeed), e.g I don’t give Warne extra points in comparisons for “making legspin cool again”

That's just one aspect. The impact it has on the game itself is incalculable. I've gone into this at length plenty of times before and don't really feel like doing it again at 4:30pm and I'm about to knock off but suffice it to say that having an aggressive, dominating batsman at the crease changes things immensely in the batting team's favour and makes it a lot harder for the fielding team via a variety of mechanisms

 

[OverratedSanity]

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).

Border Gavaskar averaged a few decimal points more. It is completely insignificant.

 

[ataraxia]

1. Bradman
2. Hobbs
3. Hutton
4. Sobers
5. Tendulkar
6. Viv
7. Lara
8. Gavaskar
9. Sutcliffe
10. Kallis
11. Border
12. Hammond
13. Ponting
14. Headley
15. Sangakkara
16. Waugh
17. Pollock
18. Nourse
19. Chappell
20. Weekes

No one pre-Hobbs or still playing, or less tests than Pollock/Headley allowed. Definitely could switch it around any time - currently it's admittedly quite meme at the bottom of the list

 

[Coronis]

Border Gavaskar averaged a few decimal points more. It is completely insignificant.

I never said omg Border and Gavaskar averaged more they’re better. I said they played over 100 tests during his career, with a higher average and pointed out that statistically he doesn’t clearly stand out amongst his peers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I never said omg Border and Gavaskar averaged more they’re better. I said they played over 100 tests during his career, with a higher average and pointed out that statistically he doesn’t clearly stand out amongst his peers.

Sure, but I don't think he's considered far better than Border and co anyway. Just a general consensus that he was marginally better. If he was considered miles better than the rest it'd be fair to call him overrated.

 

[Coronis]

Sure, but I don't think he's considered far better than Border and co anyway. Just a general consensus that he was marginally better. If he was considered miles better than the rest it'd be fair to call him overrated.

I often see him mentioned here and other places as a candidate for best after Bradman whereas for example Border is usually mentioned in the back end of the top 20.

 

[Slifer]

I often see him mentioned here and other places as a candidate for best after Bradman whereas for example Border is usually mentioned in the back end of the top 20.

Tbf you can say the same for quite a few batsmen: Hobbs and Sutcliffe, Sobers and Barrington, Sachin and Sanga/Kallis, Ponting and Dravid/Sanga/Kallis etc. The former in the pairs listed are all always rated above the latter, even though they have comparable records.

 

[Sunil1z]

@Coronis

Did you watch BG trophy 2021 ?
Who do you believe Australia feared more : Pant or Pujara ?
I believe Pujara is a better test bat than Pant .
Now use similar analogy for Richards and Tendulkar/Lara. I believe captain would fear Richards more than Tendulkar/Lara.

 

[Coronis]

@Coronis

Did you watch BG trophy 2021 ?
Who do you believe Australia feared more : Pant or Pujara ?
I believe Pujara is a better test bat than Pant .
Now use similar analogy for Richards and Tendulkar/Lara. I believe captain would fear Richards more than Tendulkar/Lara.

I’d say they probably feared the bloke who averaged ~70 more than the bloke who averaged ~35.

Also I don’t really care who the captains fear. If u a GUD cap’n u shuld fear nuffin.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would only fear Pant if he walked into where I was running an all you can eat buffet

 

[ankitj]

Tbf you can say the same for quite a few batsmen: Hobbs and Sutcliffe, Sobers and Barrington, Sachin and Sanga/Kallis, Ponting and Dravid/Sanga/Kallis etc. The former in the pairs listed are all always rated above the latter, even though they have comparable records.

No

 

[trundler]

No

You're wrong and you should feel bad.

 

[Slifer]

No

??? Ponting is always rated over Dravid, Sanga, Kallis etc, Sobers over Barrington etc.

 

[Ashes81]

Tendulkar features highly on most lists and would certainly feature highly on my list.

However, on the ICC best ever ratings list, poor old Sachin doesn't make the top 20.

Now it's easy to say list is a load old shite, but it's a comprehensively compiled, taking a wide range of factors in to consideration.

One factor it doesn't consider is longevity, the list is based on a players best ever rating

So how important is longevity. I'd rank it as a key factor but if we talking best ever players, should a players peak be more important.

The ICC list ranks Pollock at 17 and Tendulkar at 34. So at his best the stats suggest Pollock was the better player, but obviously Sachin played over a much longer period and I'd argue that should be taken into account but would it move Sachin from 34th to the top 5 - probably not.

 

[Slifer]

Tendulkar features highly on most lists and would certainly feature highly on my list.

However, on the ICC best ever ratings list, poor old Sachin doesn't make the top 20.

Now it's easy to say list is a load old ****e, but it's a comprehensively compiled, taking a wide range of factors in to consideration.

One factor it doesn't consider is longevity, the list is based on a players best ever rating

So how important is longevity. I'd rank it as a key factor but if we talking best ever players, should a players peak be more important.

The ICC list ranks Pollock at 17 and Tendulkar at 34. So at his best the stats suggest Pollock was the better player, but obviously Sachin played over a much longer period and I'd argue that should be taken into account but would it move Sachin from 34th to the top 5 - probably not.

That list is based on peak form more than anything else, not their actually rating over the course of their career.

 

[Ashes81]

That list is based on peak form more than anything else, not their actually rating over the course of their career.

It is indeed.

My point was when judging ATG players, how much emphasis should be given to peak performance as opposed to longevity.

 

[subshakerz]

I never said omg Border and Gavaskar averaged more they’re better. I said they played over 100 tests during his career, with a higher average and pointed out that statistically he doesn’t clearly stand out amongst his peers.

Viv
- Probably the best peak year in cricket history in 1976
- best batsman at the WSC
- Monster series against Lillee, Imran and Hadlee at their peak
- No real weak record in and against each country
- Unusually high SR in the 70s, far ahead of his peers
- unanimously considered the best bat of his era by all who played him

All good reasons to rate him highly.