Its really not.
While you may be right that many people on here would toss those three names, there are quite a few regulars who would consider Viv for that title (Lillian Thompson, OS (although seems like he has changed his stance) etc. from top of my head). I also used to frequent other forum and some very knowledgeable posters on there considered Viv as the best batsman of last 50 years. So, not a useful metric.
Worse at that than Sachin too.
I guess I don’t really have many issues with his overall record, he has a good record home and away, and against multiple opposition. I don’t rate him as highly as others do because of his highly concentrated peak. Obviously one of the best peaks ever, but quality declined more over his career compared to others like Sobers, Tendulkar, Smith (so far at least) etc.
Viv would of averaged 70 if he wore a helmet
Nah being such a hand eye player it would’ve impeded his vision and he’d average 30.
You really, really need to learn to read past career averages. Viv played nearly two-thirds of his matches away and averaged 50 both home and away and did well anywhere he played multiple series. He was the world's best batsman for a loooong time. The difference in averages between Richards and Sobers/Tendulkar is almost entirely down how much each got to minnow bash. Ftr, it was never for Viv. Unfortunately there's colour footage of him so he loses points for that.
Somehow, "would of" is the second worst part of this post.
You really need to learn to read peoples posts. I literally just said he had a quality record in multiple countries and against multiple opposution. Also I would personally argue for batsmen such as Gavaskar or Miandad being better batsmen at significant points during his career.
You also really need a new schtick, this one’s quite worn out.
Averages when translated and defined properly do tell the story. As a batsman kallis is on par with them. His batting kicked of from 1999, wherareas lara and sachin started playing 10 years before him and this caused them to look better as they were already established when kallis batting started getting better. As for ponting, despite starting a bit after lara and sachin he kicked off immediately, but that resulted in a big decline as well.
Then your initial post was wrong.
Of course they were. So was Crowe towards the end. I didn't say he was the world's best for his entire career.
You should stop having simpleton reasoning like big average gud old guy best.
Quality =/= impeccable
You said a looooooong time. Forgive me for assuming you meant more than his peak.
You can do better than that. Not much better mind you, but better.
The idea that Viv isn't statistically on par with other batsmen generally considered to be the best after Bradman is demonstrably false and usually only propounded by contrarian simpletons swayed by big numbers without context.
He was #1 for a considerably long time. Think only Sobers would be better among post War batsmen and Richards would be on par with Tendulkar or Smith by that metric.
I don't need to. Overrating Barrington or Sanga and underrating Viv would be the hallmark of a simpleton. Oh...
No, strike-rate, "when translated and defined properly" can be very important
This is test cricket lad
Please demonstrate. He is literally at the bottom of every statistical measure bar strike rate when comparing him to Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar.
Again, shorter periods of time than the other players we’re talking about an perhaps more importantly, outside of his peak, no, unlike the others.
Ah yes very relevant, helping your point. I believe you overrate certain players and underrate certain players. You believe I overrate certain players and underrate certain players. We clearly look for different things when rating test cricketers.
You tell him mate.
This was literally dealt with on this very page. Scroll up.
Just false.
Things that are relevant to you are usually superficial and devoid of context unfortunately.
Where exactly?
When then?
Very nice to meet you pot, I’m kettle.