Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[Bolo.]

I guess we differ. Peak to me is sustained top form of a cricketer over a stretch of a career. Yours to me is arbitrary

I look at cricketers career and pick the periods that make sense as when they truly clicked versus when they were still figuring things out.

Peak lengths are arbitrary if you aren't setting a consistent standard for acceptable length.

But this is a very different discussion to being better earlier.

 

[kyear2]

Not sure if this is a philosophical argument or just a straight up Kallis vs Ponting battle, but Punter was just objectively better and don't know many who watched them who would come to a different conclusion.

Punter was briefly the best batsman in the world and for a time challenged the legacy of even Lara and Tendulkar. But that's just my opinion and memory of the period.

Of greater import to the thread, do these three merit consideration to be in the same tier as Sachin, Sobers and Hobbs?

 

[BazBall21]

Smith 2nd barring a late collapse. I'd probably have Hutton over Lara and Hammond.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not sure if this is a philosophical argument or just a straight up Kallis vs Ponting battle, but Punter was just objectively better and don't know many who watched them who would come to a different conclusion.

Punter was briefly the best batsman in the world and for a time challenged the legacy of even Lara and Tendulkar. But that's just my opinion and memory of the period.

Of greater import to the thread, do these three merit consideration to be in the same tier as Sachin, Sobers and Hobbs?

I believe Smith and Lara are very close to there, Hammond not so much.

As for Ponting vs Kallis; saying Ponting was just better than Kallis due to he was better to watch is the same reason many rate Lillee higher than Hadlee or Akram over McGrath; eye test is very inconsistent. Yes, for a time being Ponting was world's best batsman and had high potential, but that's all. He never quite reached there. And as it stands, his record in India against spin is just very poor; and he wasn't particularly great against lateral movement also.

 

[kyear2]

I believe Smith and Lara are very close to their, Hammond not so much.

As for Ponting vs Kallis; saying Ponting was just better than Kallis due to he was better to watch is the same reason many rate Lillee higher than Hadlee or Akram over McGrath; eye test is very inconsistent. Yes, for a time being Ponting was world's best batsman and had high potential, but that's all. He never quite reached there. And as it stands, his record in India against spin is just very poor; and he wasn't particularly great against lateral movement also.

Yeah, I specifically said 3.

So meaning Lara, Richards and Smith. Didn't include Hammond

 

[kyear2]

I believe Smith and Lara are very close to there, Hammond not so much.

As for Ponting vs Kallis; saying Ponting was just better than Kallis due to he was better to watch is the same reason many rate Lillee higher than Hadlee or Akram over McGrath; eye test is very inconsistent. Yes, for a time being Ponting was world's best batsman and had high potential, but that's all. He never quite reached there. And as it stands, his record in India against spin is just very poor; and he wasn't particularly great against lateral movement also.

As for the rest of the post, I didn't say just because he was better to watch, I said those who watched him knows he was better.

I guess I rate batsmen and bowlers very differently and no I don't believe Lillee to be better than Hadlee or Wasim better than Ambrose . And there is a difference between exciting and better, Wasim and Lillee would have garnered more excitement, but definitely wasn't better in my opinion.

As I've said too many times in this forum, Ponting was heading for 2nd best all time, yes he fell off a cliff. But that shouldn't impact what he did before.

 

[kyear2]

With everything all tied up, if we look at the Hammond votes

@Prince EWS would have gone BCL
@Coronis Smith &
@h_hurricane ????

 

[h_hurricane]

With everything all tied up, if we look at the Hammond votes

@Prince EWS would have gone BCL
@Coronis Smith &
@h_hurricane ????

I voted Hammond because I consider others in the same tier as Tendulkar and Sobers and hence better than Hammond.

This is my order by the way.

1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Viv
4. Sachin/Lara

Will place Smith once he retires.

 

[kyear2]

I voted Hammond because I consider others in the same tier as Tendulkar and Sobers and hence better than Hammond.

This is my order by the way.

1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Viv
4. Sachin/Lara

Will place Smith once he retires.

So your vote here would have been Viv, so would still have been tied,

 

[capt_Luffy]

As for the rest of the post, I didn't say just because he was better to watch, I said those who watched him knows he was better.

I guess I rate batsmen and bowlers very differently and no I don't believe Lillee to be better than Hadlee or Wasim better than Ambrose . And there is a difference between exciting and better, Wasim and Lillee would have garnered more excitement, but definitely wasn't better in my opinion.

As I've said too many times in this forum, Ponting was heading for 2nd best all time, yes he fell off a cliff. But that shouldn't impact what he did before.

I have a problem with this thing. I simple don't understand the reasoning here..... Yes, for a time he was a magnificent, but a fall definitely impacts his overall ratings. And to begin with, even in his prime, he was never any useful, let alone good; in India. I don't think with everything he has done, there's really any case for him to be like a tier above Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

I have a problem with this thing. I simple don't understand the reasoning here..... Yes, for a time he was a magnificent, but a fall definitely impacts his overall ratings. And to begin with, even in his prime, he was never any useful, let alone good; in India. I don't think with everything he has done, there's really any case for him to be like a tier above Kallis.

And that's you opinion, and that's fine.

When I watched cricket I never say down and did checklists, nor saw every innings outside of the big series.

He for me is closer to the Lara / Sachin of the world than Kallis.

That's not a slight on Kallis, and I understand your perspective is based on his performances vs your country, but to be wasn't that big a deal.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not sure if this is a philosophical argument or just a straight up Kallis vs Ponting battle, but Punter was just objectively better

I rate Ponting higher but I'm sorry, saying that the guy who averages 3 runs lower, has a worse away record, much more batting friendly home conditions, worse overall level of consistency, and fewer hundreds is "objectively better" is hilarious.

If anything, picking Ponting would require a lot of subjective preferences to even remotely justify.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Ponting was slightly better than Dravid but not as good as Sangakkara, Williamson, and Kallis

 

[kyear2]

I rate Ponting higher but I'm sorry, saying that the guy who averages 3 runs lower, has a worse away record, much more batting friendly home conditions, worse overall level of consistency, and fewer hundreds is "objectively better" is hilarious.

If anything, picking Ponting would require a lot of subjective preferences to even remotely justify.

Well for me he's subjectively better. I've watched both and honestly believed one to be better than the other.

I'm not slamming Kallis, I think he was a magnificent cricketer, I just prefer Ponting as a batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Ponting was slightly better than Dravid but not as good as Sangakkara, Williamson, and Kallis

We can agree to disagree, and that's perfectly acceptable.

 

[kyear2]

Of greater fascination, we have a 3 way tie for the poll and the conversation seems to revolve around Ponting and Kallis, of whom neither are referenced in said poll.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I rate Ponting higher but I'm sorry, saying that the guy who averages 3 runs lower, has a worse away record, much more batting friendly home conditions, worse overall level of consistency, and fewer hundreds is "objectively better" is hilarious.

If anything, picking Ponting would require a lot of subjective preferences to even remotely justify.

Kallis has two countries of poor record(Eng and SL), Ponting only one(Ind).

 

[ataraxia]

Kallis has two countries of poor record(Eng and SL), Ponting only one(Ind).

Well that settles it then

 

[subshakerz]

Not sure if this is a philosophical argument or just a straight up Kallis vs Ponting battle, but Punter was just objectively better and don't know many who watched them who would come to a different conclusion.

Punter was briefly the best batsman in the world and for a time challenged the legacy of even Lara and Tendulkar. But that's just my opinion and memory of the period.

Of greater import to the thread, do these three merit consideration to be in the same tier as Sachin, Sobers and Hobbs?

Because of playing style. Aggressive scoring, far more threatening. Doesn't matter how many soft runs Kallis scores.

 

[subshakerz]

Well that settles it then

It does show that statistically there isn't much to differentiate Kallis and Ponting except for Ponting's far better SR.