Best Batsman Besides Bradman (inactive players only)

[ZK$]

Hobbs
Sobers
Tendulkar
Smith
Richards
Lara
Hutton
Hammond
Gavaskar
Sutcliffe
Chappell
Ponting
Sangakkara
Kallis

Border
Waugh
Barrington

These are the main candidates. The bottom three have output issues, so I wasn’t sure about them. Weekes and Walcott could also be added.

 

[Godard]

Nah should be a 3 man poll. Cbf choosing between those 3 right now, gonna have a nap and might decide after work.



Also wow at voting for Weekes and even bigger wow at the reasoning behind it.

Which 3 would you have?

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar:

- Prodigy, scoring hundreds across the globe

- 18 year peak of success across eras and high quality attacks

- Immaculate technique and high level of batting intelligence and adaptability

Benaud says it best:

There was just a feeling watching Tendulkar in the nineties, that you are literally watching the perfect batsman

 

[shortpitched713]

We voted on top 50 batsman about a year ago.


The top 10 was:
Bradman
Hobbs
Sobers
Tendulkar
Richards
Lara
Hutton
Hammond
Gavaskar
Smith

Maybe make a poll of 8 with Bradman and Smith removed from those 10.

It wouldn't be the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, then...

 

[Godard]

Will go Hobbs today. Could be Tendulkar tomorrow(impossible to separate these two):

* Dominated his peers in the pre-war era and on uncovered wickets(the toughest of all pitches), while playing the toughest role of all(opening)
* His career transcended eras, and tho he may not have faced the same varieties of pitches as some modern batsmen, but would have to had to make a much bigger single adjustment while batting on uncovered wickets, which could vastly be different depending on whether it rained or not. In addition mastered batting on matting wickets(unfamiliar to English batsmen), fast wickets in Aus(even that infamous MCG pitch). Also batting against hostile fast bowling with lesser restrictions than modern batsmen.
*Ridiculous consistency over 16-17 years of playing and averaged 62-63 for 15 years(same tier as Sobers, but less than Sachin, since SRT played a lot more tests per year), while also dominating series more than Sachin.

 

[honestbharani]

I actually find it hard to rate openers or even compare them to MO batsmen. Esp the ones I have not seen.

 

[CricAddict]

We voted on top 50 batsman about a year ago.


The top 10 was:
Bradman
Hobbs
Sobers
Tendulkar
Richards
Lara
Hutton
Hammond
Gavaskar
Smith

Maybe make a poll of 8 with Bradman and Smith removed from those 10.

This ranking looks perfect.

 

[shortpitched713]

Also wow at voting for Weekes and even bigger wow at the reasoning behind it.

I mean, I could say it's because he scored shitloads of runs... But all of these guys have scored shitloads of runs. There's going to be a level of subjectivity in opinions like this.

Here's a hot take. I found Kallis and Tendulkar both rather boring to watch bat, even though obviously they are both masters. There was something a bit too "technical" about their run scoring strokes.

Always preferred watching Sanga, to them. Maybe being a lefty makes him look better, as Lara was always my favorite to watch, growing up. But Viv Richards as well, I always enjoy any knock of his I find some footage of. It's just a more "natural" looking game from him.

 

[CricAddict]

Tendulkar:

- Prodigy, scoring hundreds across the globe

- 18 year peak of success across eras and high quality attacks

- Immaculate technique and high level of batting intelligence and adaptability

Benaud says it best:

There was just a feeling watching Tendulkar in the nineties, that you are literally watching the perfect batsman

Perfectly put. Lara had flair, Steve Smith has his own unique style, Viv had the aggressive style and Sobers was a beast. But if you want to choose the perfect batsman to play cricket as per the books, you can't go past Sachin. Every shot of his was just like how it ought to be done.

 

[CricAddict]

I mean, I could say it's because he scored ****loads of runs... But all of these guys have scored ****loads of runs. There's going to be a level of subjectivity in opinions like this.

Here's a hot take. I found Kallis and Tendulkar both rather boring to watch bat, even though obviously they are both masters. There was something a bit too "technical" about their run scoring strokes.

Always preferred watching Sanga, to them. Maybe being a lefty makes him look better, as Lara was always my favorite to watch, growing up. But Viv Richards as well, I always enjoy any knock of his I find some footage of. It's just a more "natural" looking game from him.

I loved watching Lara bat too with that high backlift and superb execution. But the timing and class of Sachin's shots still gave goosebumps for me and never for a second did I find it boring.

 

[shortpitched713]

I loved watching Lara bat too with that high backlift and superb execution. But the timing and class of Sachin's shots still gave goosebumps for me and never for a second did I find it boring.

I'm a smooth brained bowler at heart, so maybe that's why I didn't enjoy Tendulkar as much, but yeah every damn shot looked like he'd done it a million times in front of a mirror. The visceral joy of batting wasn't as much evoked, as the mastery of something to a level I couldn't hope to touch.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just say their names, I guess.

@Athlai @RossTaylorsBox

 

[Athlai]

Michael Bracewell

 

[Coronis]

Which 3 would you have?

Chronologically, Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar.

 

[Coronis]

I mean, I could say it's because he scored ****loads of runs... But all of these guys have scored ****loads of runs. There's going to be a level of subjectivity in opinions like this.

Heres my non-subjective take on Weekes. He has an amazing home record. He sucked in Australia and England, against the two strongest sides of his era. His great record mostly comes from his performances against India. In fact he has 7 tons against India in 10 matches, 8 tons against everyone else in 38 matches. He was a great batsman. Not a candidate for best after Bradman.

 

[shortpitched713]

Michael Bracewell

No.

 

[shortpitched713]

Heres my non-subjective take on Weekes. He has an amazing home record. He sucked in Australia and England, against the two strongest sides of his era. His great record mostly comes from his performances against India. In fact he has 7 tons against India in 10 matches, 8 tons against everyone else in 38 matches. He was a great batsman. Not a candidate for best after Bradman.

To be honest, that also subjective. As why you value those specific factors over others are influenced by your personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

[Bolo.]

With the oldies in the shortlist, W.G. is the clear answer. W.G. > Don is an easier sell than anyone else > W.G.

At test level only, and assessing by the standards of their time it's Hobbs for me, or Sachin if you want to be a bit less relative.

 

[honestbharani]

Regarding Sachin, usually there is genius behind perfection but you don't always end up seeing it coz it is so perfect and the totally perfect craftmasters do one thing more than anything else - make it look easy, simple, repeatable.

That said I still think Lara was a better test batsman and more of a genius overall, simply because I think he could play shots to good balls that no one else could.

 

[Coronis]

To be honest, that also subjective. As why you value those specific factors over others are influenced by your personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Whatever. His record falls short everywhere when comparing him to top tier bats. You literally said you voted Weekes because aesthetics. Can you put Mark Waugh on the poll? I want to vote him since I could watch him bat all day.