Best Batsman Besides Bradman (inactive players only)

[Godard]

Please. I don’t know which(I think Bedi was one) but at least two players out of the quarter took 20+ wickets in the 75/76 series(equal to the highest wicket takers of WI). And Viv struggled vs Chandra only in his first test that too only one year back before this. So it wasn’t as if Chandra was suddenly past his peak. And even if he was the other members of the quartet were not. I’m not saying Viv was a better player of spin than Sobers, but as you said both played comparable spinners, and Viv too dominated them. And for the second point, Allan Donald says Sachin is the best player he has to bowled to, doesn’t make Sachin the best performer against him(especially when Sachin averages in low to mid thirties against him). Like that player opinions may not be the best judge of how to objectively view performances. Plus Lara’s problem against pace is a much bigger issue than Viv not facing Murali or Warne or struggling in one test against Chandra.

EDIT: Just checked but Chandra was the highest wicket taker in the 1976 series vs WI. Also Chandra was in fine form in 76-77 taking 85 wickets at around 26, probably the best two years of his bowling considering the amount of wickets taken and average.

 

[fredfertang]

Based on FC batting record, or what?

Honestly, a guy with only 4 Tests played seems barely beyond the joke entry level...

You're clearly a man who never saw him bat

 

[shortpitched713]

super tests were several levels higher than test cricket. You just need to look at the personnel to understand something that should be obvious to you.

I know the personnel was great. So was the personnel for Australia XI vs World XI "Tests" played in the early 70s. They're still not counted in Test records though. Because in the strictest definition they're more of exhibitions than Tests, as there isn't national pride on the line for all sides, and so there's a good reason that you can say the motivation / output of certain players could be skewed and it's not a proper output. The analogy would be something like picking Kobe over Michael Jordan because he scored more points in All Star games. Technically, the personnel would indicate it's a higher level, but...

Even if you count that output, Barry Richards still has a serious sample size problem. Doesn't mean he's not great, just that to be BBBB, such a big gap in record is basically disqualifying.

 

[the big bambino]

I know the personnel was great. So was the personnel for Australia XI vs World XI "Tests" played in the early 70s. They're still not counted in Test records though. Because in the strictest definition they're more of exhibitions than Tests, as there isn't national pride on the line for all sides, and so there's a good reason that you can say the motivation / output of certain players could be skewed and it's not a proper output. The analogy would be something like picking Kobe over Michael Jordan because he scored more points in All Star games. Technically, the personnel would indicate it's a higher level, but...

Even if you count that output, Barry Richards still has a serious sample size problem. Doesn't mean he's not great, just that to be BBBB, such a big gap in record is basically disqualifying.

The players risked their entire careers playing for a rebel outfit without any guarantee of success. Of course they played hard. Practically every major player asked his opinion said supertests were the hardest cricket they played.

Look, I don't mind you being ignorant of what you didn't see but the insistence of preferring your fantasy over what people have seen and what players have said is just adolescent beligerance.

 

[shortpitched713]

You're clearly a man who never saw him bat

I've seen footage of him, and he's very impressive as a batsman. However, I can't just go off of what I see and like, as I do take overall records into account. That's why I changed my vote from Weekes to Sobers, even though Weekes looks more pleasing to me.

In light of such a tough criteria, unfortunately Barry Richards could not meet requirements to be the BBBB, although one could put him on a list of candidates if you like don't think it would make much impact.

( Also, it's too late for me to add to the poll, so there is that as well. )

 

[shortpitched713]

The players risked their entire careers playing for a rebel outfit without any guarantee of success. Of course they played hard. Practically every major player asked his opinion said supertests were the hardest cricket they played.

Look, I don't mind you being ignorant of what you didn't see but the insistence of preferring your fantasy over what people have seen and what players have said is just adolescent beligerance.

Sure, go ahead and accuse others of ignorance and adolescent belligerence. I can accuse you of having other motives for propping up old apartheid era South African bats, but I won't.

The fact is I don't care why someone hasn't played a lot of Tests. Or even if you count those Super Tests double or even triple. He didn't play a lot of cricket at the highest level, end of. Also, GAGF.

 

[Coronis]

So the relative weaknesses in each of the no.2 contenders:

Viv - His super high peak was followed by a fairly long period below ATG standards

Tendulkar - Consistent but never quite dominant against great attacks or with great series hauls

Hobbs - Lack of exposure to varied worldclass attacks, smaller sample size of tests

Sobers - Higher home dominance relatively, smaller sample size of tests somewhat

Smith - Didnt face worldclass attacks often enough, played longest in the easiest batting conditions, ugly to watch and that shouldn't be rewarded

Pretty sure Tendulkar played longer in easier conditions in the 00’s, no?

 

[Chrish]

Don’t you folks get tired of discussing the same **** ??

 

[subshakerz]

Pretty sure Tendulkar played longer in easier conditions in the 00’s, no?

Relative to career, compared to Smith who had 60 percent in the flat era, no.

 

[Coronis]

Relative to career, compared to Smith who had 60 percent in the flat era, no.

 

[shortpitched713]

Relative to career, compared to Smith who had 60 percent in the flat era, no.

Run the numbers on Runs/W for those years. I think it's pretty close. Also, it will be in Smith's favor most likely, by the time he retires, as the 00s to early 10s have been by far and away the most batting favored period.

 

[the big bambino]

Sure, go ahead and accuse others of ignorance and adolescent belligerence. I can accuse you of having other motives for propping up old apartheid era South African bats, but I won't.

The fact is I don't care why someone hasn't played a lot of Tests. Or even if you count those Super Tests double or even triple. He didn't play a lot of cricket at the highest level, end of. Also, GAGF.

What? Calling out your stupidity is racist? Not that you’d accuse anyone of that - right after you did. Look I’m sorry for your butthurt. I’m sure they have a soothing cream for it.

 

[shortpitched713]

You started the personal insults mate, not me. And all because I was arguing against your favorite old cricketer online. So you might want to visit that pharmacist first.

 

[Godard]

Pretty sure Tendulkar played longer in easier conditions in the 00’s, no?

Tendulkar also dominated and had his peak in the 90s. Conditions wise only what Viv and Hobbs has been tougher.

 

[Coronis]

Tendulkar also dominated and had his peak in the 90s. Conditions wise only what Viv and Hobbs has been tougher.

Yes but the context was it being used as a “weakness” for Smith.

 

[silentstriker]

It’s between sobers and Tendulkar for me. Longevity and consistency - playing well in all conditions. Obviously goes without saying that Sobers the far superior player overall.

 

[Godard]

Tendulkar played for more years and a higher percentage in a vastly tougher era(12/24 vs 6 or so/15) than Smith and had his peak then, unlike Smith whose record pre 2018 is more impressive than post 2018.

 

[Chrish]

Graeme Pollock, most exciting player to watch

 

[subshakerz]

Run the numbers on Runs/W for those years. I think it's pretty close. Also, it will be in Smith's favor most likely, by the time he retires, as the 00s to early 10s have been by far and away the most batting favored period.

Sure, I agree, as Smith plays longer, this will be less of an issue.

As it stands, there is a notable imbalance in his record in favor of benefitting from the flat era.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Godard]

Sure, I agree, as Smith plays longer, this will be less of an issue.

As it stands, there is a notable imbalance in his record in favor of benefitting from the flat era.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Exactly, he averaged what, 58 then(Tendulkar).