• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank in order as batsmen: Chappell vs Gavaskar vs Richards vs Kallis vs Lara

shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Not a poll thread, but rather a discussion thread, where you guys would rank them against each other. All almost certainly modern ATGs, but what would be your order?

I have some expectations of people's general orders but want to confirm. Hot takes incoming, from yours truly.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
honestbharani said:
Lara
Richards
Gavaskar
Kallis
Chappell
Click to expand...
In the past (end of 2000s), I would have gone with this. Although probably could have had Gavaskar = Richards .

Now, in the context of the intervening years' of cricket, I think I'd have to adjust it. Back in those times, we were in the great Tendulkara/Lara debates. The great middle order bats of the time were them/Ponting/Kallis/Sanga . The premier run scoring attacking openers of that time Hayden/Sehwag, were constantly ragged on by CW in comparison to these middle order players, as one dimensional FTBs ( wrongly IMO ).

Since then we've got to see the flourishing of the Fab 4 middle order bats, but those standards for opening performance that the 2000s eras openers supposedly couldn't meet seems laugahable now, as there's not much since that even compares, like for real Warner? Alistair Cook? These guys are obviously inferior bats, or have significant holes in their record compared to the best middle order comparisons.

And for all our poking fun at Hayden/Sehwag flat track run inflation, their era adjusted run scoring is still dwarfed by Gavaskar's in a way that middle order bats simply don't have a comparison to ( maybe Smith compared to other modern middle order bats, depending on how the remainder of his career pans out ).

So I'm left in a world in which Gavaskar is so far ahead of all other modern openers, it's not even funny. And so, wouldn't he by definition be at the top of the heap, even including the modern ATG middle order bats?

It feels wrong, according to our "conventional CW wisdom", so I'm looking for counterarguments. Did Gavaskar make hay in the earlier part of the 70s, before international pace attack quality ( including the WI pace quartet, implemented in 75 ) truly became established? It seems a quite flimsy argument, if I were to confront it, as just at a cursory glance Gavaskar's big run scoring continued throughout his Test career, but maybe someone else could flesh it out.

Has opening become that less important of a role, and the consensus is to send sacrificial lambs in with low expectations? I doubt that one as well, because it's still primarily a specialist batsman only position, in Test cricket. If it wasn't very important, you'd see more all-rounders, or even wicketkeeper batsmen slotting in there more often.

So yeah, tl;dr:

Opening is hard, and unless someone has a decent argument otherwise, my rating of these would now go:

Gavaskar
Lara
Richards
Kallis
Chappell

Edit:

Lara is my batting idol too. Someone walk me back from this, because it feels so wrong to do this, regardless of the so called evidence and logic.
 
Last edited:
P

peterhrt

U19 Captain
In 1998 Simon Wilde began writing for The Times. That year his book Number One attempted to identify the world's leading batsmen and bowlers through time since 1768.

He reckoned Barry Richards was top from 1970 until some time during 1976 when handing over to Viv Richards, who then held the crown until 1990. It is doubtful whether Viv was regarded as number one for that long. But Barry Richards was widely considered the best during the first half of the 1970s. Lillee said he was the “personification of batting perfection.” Cowdrey rated him the best batsman of the 1970s as a whole, followed by Greg Chappell. Followers in South Africa reckoned Graeme Pollock was another candidate.

Following a brilliant 107 in 160 minutes against the visiting Australians at East London in December 1966, Richards was inked in for the Tests. But drunken misdemeanours that evening almost landed him in prison and cost him a place in the national team.

The 1970 England v Rest of the World matches were regarded as Tests at the time, and until 1972 by the ICC and 1980 by Wisden. The almanack removed them against the wishes of the editor. By then Richards could have played 14 Tests rather than 4. And during the early 1970s it was by no means certain that South Africa wouldn't be playing Tests again soon. In 1975 Richards scored 96 and 69 retired “hurt” for Hampshire against the Australians, reportedly making Thomson look like a medium-pacer. No bowler seemed to bother him. He said that Bedi presented the greatest challenge.

Gavaskar made his Test debut in 1971 but wasn't in the conversation until 1979 when India failed by just 9 runs to chase down 438 at The Oval. Gavaskar scored 221. Len Hutton said he was now ahead of Viv Richards and the best batsman in the world. Given Hutton's credentials it was an opinion that carried weight, although the similarity of Hutton's and Gavaskar's approach to batting was noted. So were claims that Merchant was still India's best-ever batsman. Hutton again:

"Some of my generation might stand by Vijay Merchant as India’s greatest, and Alec Bedser insists he remains the finest Indian batsman he has seen on all types of pitches, with none from overseas better in difficult English conditions. But I do not think in my span of playing and watching I have seen a better Indian batsman than Sunil Gavaskar, who probably had more relish for the big score than Merchant, as well as having a technique that gave bowlers less chance.

Certainly Gavaskar has a model technique. If I were to recommend a schoolboy to copy a modern master, I would go for Sunil Gavaskar rather than Viv Richards who, though a great player in every sense, depends enormously on his eagle eye."

Of course Gavaskar had played plenty of fine innings up to that time. He was averaging 57 in Tests (some against Packer-weakened opponents) with 20 centuries. Viv Richards, then with Packer, had a Test average of 55 with 8 hundreds. Greg Chappell, also with Packer, averaged 53 with 14 three-figure scores. Richards and Chappell both enhanced their reputations in World Series Cricket. Like his namesake, Viv could make the best bowling look rubbish.

Lara was also the undisputed world's leading batsman for a time. Kallis, fine player though he was, never enjoyed that status.

Apologies for the over-long post. Would probably go Richards, Lara, Gavaskar, Chappell, Kallis.
 
Last edited:
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
peterhrt said:
In 1998 Simon Wilde began writing for The Times. That year his book Number One attempted to identify the world's leading batsmen and bowlers through time since 1768.

He reckoned Barry Richards was top from 1970 until some time during 1976 when handing over to Viv Richards, who then held the crown until 1990. It is doubtful whether Viv was regarded as number one for that long. But Barry Richards was widely considered the best during the first half of the 1970s. Lillee said he was the “personification of batting perfection.” Cowdrey rated him the best batsman of the 1970s as a whole, followed by Greg Chappell. Followers in South Africa reckoned Graeme Pollock was another candidate.

Following a brilliant 107 in 160 minutes against the visiting Australians at East London in December 1966, Richards was inked in for the Tests. But drunken misdemeanours that evening almost landed him in prison and cost him a place in the national team.

The 1970 England v Rest of the World matches were regarded as Tests at the time, and until 1972 by the ICC and 1980 by Wisden. The almanack removed them against the wishes of the editor. By then Richards could have played 14 Tests rather than 4. And during the early 1970s it was by no means certain that South Africa wouldn't be playing Tests again soon. In 1975 Richards scored 96 and 69 retired “hurt” for Hampshire against the Australians, reportedly making Thomson look like a medium-pacer. No bowler seemed to bother him. He said that Bedi presented the greatest challenge.

Gavaskar made his Test debut in 1971 but wasn't in the conversation until 1979 when India failed by just 9 runs to chase down 438 at The Oval. Gavaskar scored 221. Len Hutton said he was now ahead of Viv Richards and the best batsman in the world. Given Hutton's credentials it was an opinion that carried weight, although the similarity of Hutton's and Gavaskar's approach to batting was noted. So were claims that Merchant was still India's best-ever batsman. Hutton again:

"Some of my generation might stand by Vijay Merchant as India’s greatest, and Alec Bedser insists he remains the finest Indian batsman he has seen on all types of pitches, with none from overseas better in difficult English conditions. But I do not think in my span of playing and watching I have seen a better Indian batsman than Sunil Gavaskar, who probably had more relish for the big score than Merchant, as well as having a technique that gave bowlers less chance.

Certainly Gavaskar has a model technique. If I were to recommend a schoolboy to copy a modern master, I would go for Sunil Gavaskar rather than Viv Richards who, though a great player in every sense, depends enormously on his eagle eye."

Of course Gavaskar had played plenty of fine innings up to that time. He was averaging 57 in Tests (some against Packer-weakened opponents) with 20 centuries. Viv Richards, then with Packer, had a Test average of 55 with 8 hundreds. Greg Chappell, also with Packer, averaged 53 with 14 three-figure scores. Richards and Chappell both enhanced their reputations in World Series Cricket. Like his namesake, Viv could make the best bowling look rubbish.

Lara was also the undisputed world's leading batsman for a time. Kallis, fine player though he was, never enjoyed that status.

Apologies for the over-long post. Would probably go Richards, Lara, Gavaskar, Chappell, Kallis.
Click to expand...
No doubt. He had some quality competition to be fair, Tendulkar, Lara and Waugh initially followed by Pontings insane peak and then Sanga’s.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
shortpitched713 said:
In the past (end of 2000s), I would have gone with this. Although probably could have had Gavaskar = Richards .

Now, in the context of the intervening years' of cricket, I think I'd have to adjust it. Back in those times, we were in the great Tendulkara/Lara debates. The great middle order bats of the time were them/Ponting/Kallis/Sanga . The premier run scoring attacking openers of that time Hayden/Sehwag, were constantly ragged on by CW in comparison to these middle order players, as one dimensional FTBs ( wrongly IMO ).

Since then we've got to see the flourishing of the Fab 4 middle order bats, but those standards for opening performance that the 2000s eras openers supposedly couldn't meet seems laugahable now, as there's not much since that even compares, like for real Warner? Alistair Cook? These guys are obviously inferior bats, or have significant holes in their record compared to the best middle order comparisons.

And for all our poking fun at Hayden/Sehwag flat track run inflation, their era adjusted run scoring is still dwarfed by Gavaskar's in a way that middle order bats simply don't have a comparison to ( maybe Smith compared to other modern middle order bats, depending on how the remainder of his career pans out ).

So I'm left in a world in which Gavaskar is so far ahead of all other modern openers, it's not even funny. And so, wouldn't he by definition be at the top of the heap, even including the modern ATG middle order bats?

It feels wrong, according to our "conventional CW wisdom", so I'm looking for counterarguments. Did Gavaskar make hay in the earlier part of the 70s, before international pace attack quality ( including the WI pace quartet, implemented in 75 ) truly became established? It seems a quite flimsy argument, if I were to confront it, as just at a cursory glance Gavaskar's big run scoring continued throughout his Test career, but maybe someone else could flesh it out.

Has opening become that less important of a role, and the consensus is to send sacrificial lambs in with low expectations? I doubt that one as well, because it's still primarily a specialist batsman only position, in Test cricket. If it wasn't very important, you'd see more all-rounders, or even wicketkeeper batsmen slotting in there more often.

So yeah, tl;dr:

Opening is hard, and unless someone has a decent argument otherwise, my rating of these would now go:

Gavaskar
Lara
Richards
Kallis
Chappell

Edit:

Lara is my batting idol too. Someone walk me back from this, because it feels so wrong to do this, regardless of the so called evidence and logic.
Click to expand...
I dont have any qualms about someone rating an opener averaging 50 over a MO bat averaging 53/54, as long as its consistent. To me, Lara is just the better batsman. I have obviously not seen Gavaskar, Chappell and Richards so I always agree there maybe some bias towards the ones I have seen, because those 3 are just numbers for me but Lara and Kallis or anyone post 90 is a real memory.
 
P

peterhrt

U19 Captain
honestbharani said:
I dont have any qualms about someone rating an opener averaging 50 over a MO bat averaging 53/54, as long as its consistent. To me, Lara is just the better batsman. I have obviously not seen Gavaskar, Chappell and Richards so I always agree there maybe some bias towards the ones I have seen, because those 3 are just numbers for me but Lara and Kallis or anyone post 90 is a real memory.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a generational thing.

Old writers often stressed how little notice they took of statistics, preferring to rely on what they and those before them had seen.

Folk these days want hard data to back up their claims and challenge those of others, which is understandable given what is now available.

The ideal is probably a combination of the two.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
honestbharani said:
I dont have any qualms about someone rating an opener averaging 50 over a MO bat averaging 53/54, as long as its consistent. To me, Lara is just the better batsman. I have obviously not seen Gavaskar, Chappell and Richards so I always agree there maybe some bias towards the ones I have seen, because those 3 are just numbers for me but Lara and Kallis or anyone post 90 is a real memory.
Click to expand...
You've convinced me.

I'm going:

Lara
Gavaskar
Richards
Kalis
Chappell

With not much room between the first 3, in particular.

Lara and Smith are going to be the only modern batsmen I rank above Gavaskar. All else have to take a back seat to the great Indian opener.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top