Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of batsmen poll

[kyear2]

This is probably the way to go but half of me wants to see which of Tendulkar, Sobers and Hobbs doesn't make it and how they then do in the 4th/5th/6th battle.

Or just do 4 for the first round. Really want to see some of the Bradman votes.

Either unanimous or see who the crazies are, already identified about 3 from the bowlers votes.

 

[howitzer]

Or just do 4 for the first round. Really want to see some of the Bradman votes.

Either unanimous or see who the crazies are, already identified about 3 from the bowlers votes.

Agreed.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Also, it would be great if you clarify whether we should rank Grace or not....

 

[kyear2]

Also, it would be great if you clarify whether we should rank Grace or not....

Well I don't rank Barnes and Grace is even earlier. Honestly the game was different and not serious tbh, and that doesn't even factor in the techniques, standard of opposition, game just primarily based on one country.

Different game, different time. None of us even have a clue what he looked like at the crease.

 

[howitzer]

Also, it would be great if you clarify whether we should rank Grace or not....

Three options for this:
1. Rank him on whole career. Doesn't work if it's a Test list IMO
2. Rank him only on Test career which happened past his peak. I feel like him and his other early Test contemporary Shrewsbury would make the tail end of my top 50 on this.
3. Don't rank him at all. Obviously Shrewsbury shouldn't be ranked either in this case but one asks where that should stop. Ranji? Trumper? Hill? Even Hobbs?

Edit: I like option 2.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well I don't rank Barnes and Grace is even earlier. Honestly the game was different and not serious tbh, and that doesn't even factor in the techniques, standard of opposition, game just primarily based on one country.

Different game, different time. None of us even have a clue what he looked like at the crease.

The game has changed significantly by Hobbs' time also. We really can't be sure how he would had faired. We can only rank a player based on what did they achieved in their time; and based on that, Grace would had been an undisputed no 2.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Three options for this:
1. Rank him on whole career. Doesn't work if it's a Test list IMO
2. Rank him only on Test career which happened past his peak. I feel like him and his other early Test contemporary Shrewsbury would make the tail end of my top 50 on this.
3. Don't rank him at all. Obviously Shrewsbury shouldn't be ranked either in this case but one asks where that should stop. Ranji? Trumper? Hill? Even Hobbs?

Edit: I like option 2.

I honestly prefer no 3 much more. It would feel very wrong to rank WG in the late 40s, and not to mention Test list or not, can we really ignore FC cricket totally? I think we could make 1900 as a cut off, and only those who played afterwards to be eligible. That would deal with Grace, Ranji and Shrewsbury and we can rank Hobbs, Trumpet and Hill.

 

[howitzer]

I honestly prefer no 3 much more. It would feel very wrong to rank WG in the late 40s, and not to mention Test list or not, can we really ignore FC cricket totally? I think we could make 1900 as a cut off, and only those who played afterwards to be eligible. That would deal with Grace, Ranji and Shrewsbury and we can rank Hobbs, Trumpet and Hill.

He blows. Hill better. @trundler

 

[kyear2]

The game has changed significantly by Hobbs' time also. We really can't be sure how he would had faired. We can only rank a player based on what did they achieved in their time; and based on that, Grace would had been an undisputed no 2.

Playing against whom and in a time when it was just basically first class cricket. And let's not forget the bails story.

Think it's impossible to rank him among the greats. Plus wasn't it Hobbs that Bradman surpassed and not Grace?

 

[kyear2]

I honestly prefer no 3 much more. It would feel very wrong to rank WG in the late 40s, and not to mention Test list or not, can we really ignore FC cricket totally? I think we could make 1900 as a cut off, and only those who played afterwards to be eligible. That would deal with Grace, Ranji and Shrewsbury and we can rank Hobbs, Trumpet and Hill.

1900 works, that's my cut off eligibility, but for rankings I favor guys at least post mid '30's.

 

[Coronis]

I honestly prefer no 3 much more. It would feel very wrong to rank WG in the late 40s, and not to mention Test list or not, can we really ignore FC cricket totally? I think we could make 1900 as a cut off, and only those who played afterwards to be eligible. That would deal with Grace, Ranji and Shrewsbury and we can rank Hobbs, Trumpet and Hill.

Yes.

We can do a FC ranking poll too if you want. I’ll even vote for Barry Richards.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes.

We can do a FC ranking poll too if you want. I’ll even vote for Barry Richards.

I am not asking you to vote for Barry, but Grace did played Test way after his peak.

 

[trundler]

By the golden age, tests were definitively seen as the ultimate form of the game and thus Hobb's was test cricket's first all time great batsman. In Grace's time, certain county fixtures would probably have been the highlight of the season rather than matches against Australia. Matches in this era were only assigned test status retrospectively.

I love reading about 19th century cricket but you have to judge it by different parameters.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Playing against whom and in a time when it was just basically first class cricket. And let's not forget the bails story.

Think it's impossible to rank him among the greats. Plus wasn't it Hobbs that Bradman surpassed and not Grace?

In his time FC was the main cricket though. And I take that bails story with a huge grain of salt.

As far as I am concerned, as a Test batsman it was Hobbs whom Bradman surpassed, but I doubt how many rated Hobbs overall over Grace back then.

 

[Coronis]

I am not asking you to vote for Barry, but Grace did played Test way after his peak.

I know that. But its a poll on test batsmen, so thats what I’m going to judge him on… his test career.

I know that sounds crazy, but I’m sticking to it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know that. But its a poll on test batsmen, so thats what I’m going to judge him on… his test career.

I know that sounds crazy, but I’m sticking to it.

I mean, if it's their Test careers alone, then have even Graeme Pollock and George Headley played enough to be Top 15 over the likes of Border, Ponting and Miandad?

 

[trundler]

I mean, if it's their Test careers alone, then have even Graeme Pollock and George Headley played enough to be Top 15 over the likes of Border, Ponting and Miandad?

No.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No.

My point exactly. Same for someone like Bill O'Reilly over Ashwin or Barnes over Trueman.

 

[Coronis]

I mean, if it's their Test careers alone, then have even Graeme Pollock and George Headley played enough to be Top 15 over the likes of Border, Ponting and Miandad?

I don’t personally have either in my top 15, no. They would be rated higher if they had been able to play more tests, but I “downgrade” them accordingly imo.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, if it's their Test careers alone, then have even Graeme Pollock and George Headley played enough to be Top 15 over the likes of Border, Ponting and Miandad?

Yes, quality but lack of opportunity doesn't quite equate to being dominant before the game's infancy.