Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of batsmen poll

[subshakerz]

I once said on this forum that Gavaskar’s record against Great fast bowlers was better than Sachin/Lara .
Averaged 50 vs Imran
Averaged 40 vs WI pace quartet
Had a very good tour of England in 1979 against Botham, Willis and Underwood.
But many on this forum considered this opinion highly controversial

Gavaskar's record is top drawer.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara faced just as good attacks, McWarne, Donald and Pollock, 2Ws, Murali.

But how about again, Hammond, Hutton post war outside of Lindwall and Miller, Bradman.

Viv faced Imran, Wasim, Snow, Underwood, Lillee, Thompson, Quartet, Botham, Hadlee. Never played minnows.

Who besides Lara, Sachin, possibly Sobers faced names like that, and succeeded. And not just succeeded, dominated them, everywhere.

The revisionist history is ridiculous.

Yes. The difference is Viv dominated at various points these respective ATGs. Whereas Lara never dominated Donald and 2Ws.

 

[subshakerz]

Qadir averaged 47 away....

Viv played and dominated him at home in 80 series.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes. The difference is Viv dominated at various points these respective ATGs. Whereas Lara never dominated Donald and 2Ws.

Name all the bowlers Viv dominated who are better than Murali and Warne....

 

[subshakerz]

Hard to see a strong case for Smith over Viv or Lara. I get the case but it’s a weak one

Smith isn't better than Viv but he is surely better than Lara as an all-round bat.

Lara has a dodgy away record. So-so in Aus, unproven in India, poor in NZ, salvaged records in SA, Eng and Pak in absence of ATG/worldclass quality bowlers.

Also, for an entire mid-career portion between 96 to 2001, he was outright poor by ATG standards averaging less than forty, not because of age but basically because of his own poor work ethic.

Also, he has a weakness against higher quality pace due to a faulty technique.

 

[subshakerz]

Name all the bowlers Viv dominated who are better than Murali and Warne....

Talking about pace. Lara is king against spin.

 

[subshakerz]

Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers, Viv and Smith are all best of their respective eras and belong in a single group with only first among equals.

 

[ma1978]

Smith isn't better than Viv but he is surely better than Lara as an all-round bat.

Lara has a dodgy away record. So-so in Aus, unproven in India, poor in NZ, salvaged records in SA, Eng and Pak in absence of ATG/worldclass quality bowlers.

Also, for an entire mid-career portion between 96 to 2001, he was outright poor by ATG standards averaging less than forty, not because of age but basically because of his own poor work ethic.

Also, he has a weakness against higher quality pace due to a faulty technique.

just your prejudices coming up with random opinions that mean nothing in the overall analysis

he was better for longer than Smith

 

[kyear2]

Gavaskar. And again, I don't have Hammond and Hutton ahead of Viv, and let's not talk Don. Viv played great attacks and dominated plenty of them, but saying Lara didn't faced around equal attacks is ridiculous to me and the definition of toxic nostalgia. And Pakistan and New Zealand did had pretty weak overall attacks, which got heavily carried by Hadlee and Imran. Also, Indian bowling post quartet wasn't really much better than minnow level, if not for Kapil Dev.

I'm not arguing about Lara, he was brilliant and without doubt the best batsman I've ever seen in real time.

And we've discussed Sunny already.

 

[kyear2]

I am including only 83 series

Wasn't that basically one innings?

 

[BazBall21]

Smith isn't better than Viv but he is surely better than Lara as an all-round bat.

Lara has a dodgy away record. So-so in Aus, unproven in India, poor in NZ, salvaged records in SA, Eng and Pak in absence of ATG/worldclass quality bowlers.

Also, for an entire mid-career portion between 96 to 2001, he was outright poor by ATG standards averaging less than forty, not because of age but basically because of his own poor work ethic.

Also, he has a weakness against higher quality pace due to a faulty technique.

Smith had a better peak than Lara. More dominant against pace and better overseas production.

Does he have enough outside that peak though?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wasn't that basically one innings?

His 76 series was also great; and he scored a century and a half century in the other two draws in the 83 home series as well.

 

[subshakerz]

just your prejudices coming up with random opinions that mean nothing in the overall analysis

he was better for longer than Smith

Not really. I love Lara but the truth is the truth.

 

[subshakerz]

Smith had a better peak than Lara. More dominant against pace and better overseas production.

Does he have enough outside that peak though?

Even if Smith continues to decline he will end up with a better overall record than Lara. And without any noticeable weakness in his game in his prime.

 

[kyear2]

Not really. I love Lara but the truth is the truth.

You do not,

 

[subshakerz]

You do not,

I do. He is a flawed genius and my favorite bat growing up but I think that blinded me to his lowlights.

CW does a really bad job of remembering how poor a particular great seemed when outside their element except for Ponting in India.

We forget how toothless Murali seemed in Aus in 2007 or how staggeringly bad Lara was in 1996 against McGrath. It's just not considered polite to bring up.

 

[Prince EWS]

CW does a really bad job of remembering how poor a particular great seemed when outside their element except for Ponting in India.

We forget how toothless Murali seemed in Aus in 2007 or how staggeringly bad Lara was in 1996 against McGrath. It's just not considered polite to bring up.

Shane Warne bowling in India with a broken toenail.

 

[subshakerz]

Shane Warne bowling in India with a broken toenail.

Yeah that everyone remembers to the point where we forget that Warne actually had spells in India that weren't that bad amidst the caning.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I do. He is a flawed genius and my favorite bat growing up but I think that blinded me to his lowlights.

CW does a really bad job of remembering how poor a particular great seemed when outside their element except for Ponting in India.

We forget how toothless Murali seemed in Aus in 2007 or how staggeringly bad Lara was in 1996 against McGrath. It's just not considered polite to bring up.

Really? If anything, Murali gets too much flank for essentially what was one bad series, and you work overtime to point how poor Lara was against express pace....

 

[BazBall21]

Even if Smith continues to decline he will end up with a better overall record than Lara. And without any noticeable weakness in his game in his prime.

Smith did hit a higher level than Lara but cross-career consistency does matter too. Think it's debatable because of that. Would have Viv over Smith too for now.