Best Batsman Besides Bradman (inactive players only)

[Prince EWS]

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.

I would like to vote for Vusi.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Sachin

 

[the big bambino]

w/o looking at the list I'd go Sobers.

 

[ZK$]

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.

I guess the difference is that Weekes averages 59, while Waugh averages 42.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I guess the difference is that Weekes averages 59, while Waugh averages 42.

And Weekes was the best in his family.

 

[subshakerz]

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 made the single greatest adjustment in shifting from uncovered to covered pitches
*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.

Maybe its a bias, but I tend to opt for more players from the modern era of 70s onwards unless that player was far ahead of contemporaries. I think there was a difference in intensity/professionalism level in cricket that WSC and Australia in the mid-70s brought.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Tendulkar simply had a range of strokes that Kallis did not. Kallis was the same set of traditional cookie cutter strokes that you have seen a million times.

Look at this shot:

Or this:

Or this:

Tendulkar's strokeplay wasn't Lara's flair but it had its own satisfying mix of elegance and power with a simplicity of movement.

 

[Godard]

Maybe its a bias, but I tend to opt for more players from the modern era of 70s onwards unless that player was far ahead of contemporaries. I think there was a difference in intensity/professionalism level in cricket that WSC and Australia in the mid-70s brought.

Hobbs was far ahead of his contemporaries. Both in average on sticky wickets and in the pre war era(only Bradman is more ahead of his contemporaries). And did while playing the toughest role in those already especially tough conditions.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Grace, Hobbs, Hutton, Sobers, Sachin and Bopara all ahead of Smith at the moment.

 

[Godard]

Grace, Hobbs, Hutton, Sobers, Sachin and Bopara all ahead of Smith at the moment.

I’d Smith ahead of Sobers. The second half of Smith’s career has been in clearly tougher conditions than Sobers. Both have had equally good long term peaks(averaged 70 for about a decade) and short term peaks. Smith clearly has the better home/away record despite touring more countries, and clearly less minnow bashing.

 

[Red]

Sobers, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Hutton, Viv, with not much splitting them but roughly in that order. For reasons I cbf typing.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Tendulkar for me , longevity , memorable innings , great stats , star power , great story , entertaining to watch ..just brilliant ?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I’d Smith ahead of Sobers. The second half of Smith’s career has been in clearly tougher conditions than Sobers. Both have had equally good long term peaks(averaged 70 for about a decade) and short term peaks. Smith clearly has the better home/away record despite touring more countries, and clearly less minnow bashing.

That's fair enough. I'd agree that Sobers is the most marginal of the 6 guys I named but still just about ahead of Smith on longevity for now.

 

[Godard]

That's fair enough. I'd agree that Sobers is the most marginal of the 6 guys I named but still just about ahead of Smith on longevity for now.

Sobers did maintain his average for longer, in terms of years. However Smith has done it for more matches. I would personally rate the longevity of Sachin the highest, both years and matches. Hobbs, Sobers and Smith would rank similar in the next tier, Hobbs and Sobers having averaged 63-64 for 15 years(Hobbs for 52-55 matches, and Sobers for 70) and Smith having done it for more matches but less years. But should wait for the end of Smith’s career before coming to a conclusion.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

Added WG Grace

 

[shortpitched713]

Hobbs was far ahead of his contemporaries. Both in average on sticky wickets and in the pre war era(only Bradman is more ahead of his contemporaries). And did while playing the toughest role in those already especially tough conditions.

Agree with the rest, but this part is debatable, as new ball bowling wasn't that great in his Era. Spinners tended to do more of the real damage ( obviously, depends on the circumstance, but I'm talking about a general trend ).

 

[Godard]

Maybe, but it is said that fast bowlers due to less restrictions were quite dangerous. But still even without the part, my point is made.

 

[Slifer]

I’d Smith ahead of Sobers. The second half of Smith’s career has been in clearly tougher conditions than Sobers. Both have had equally good long term peaks(averaged 70 for about a decade) and short term peaks. Smith clearly has the better home/away record despite touring more countries, and clearly less minnow bashing.

What minnows did Sobers bash? India? Pakistan?

 

[Godard]

What minnows did Sobers bash? India? Pakistan?

Yes. Ind and Pak atleast in terms of bowling were nearly minnow level. Except maybe towards the end, when Ind had the quartet.

 

[Godard]

For me between Hobbs and Tendulkar it comes down to this: Tendulkar’s longevity vs Hobbs dominance on sticky wickets and the pre war, Tendulkar’s perfect home/away record vs Hobbs masterful adaptation between uncovered sticky wickets to matted pitches to fast and dry pitches. Perhaps because Hobbs dominated series more(scoring 500+ on 4 occasions), I am marginally inclined towards him. But both supreme masters, and genuinely seem the 2 nicest cricketers to ever live.