Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of batsmen poll

[Sunil1z]

I only agree with the Aus and Bangladesh assessments here.

His first WI series (nearly half his matches) were against peak Walsh, and Ambrose (who might have been past his peak), who had just come off what might be his strongest series statistically ever.

India had weak attacks, but they always had someone going completely nuts in RSA and bowling like an ATG.

England's bowling was usually pretty mediocre in RSA.

Yeah , Imagine not counting Kallis runs in 2011 series against IND . SA would be losing the series 2-1 .

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kallis had an ATG series at home against peak Flintoff, Jones, Harmison and Hoggard too

 

[centurymaker]

You guys are making your own conclusions. I only commented on the numbers and a reason why he was averaging 80+ against India, 90+ against WI and 100+ vs Bangers. You don't get numbers like that against overall good bowling attacks. They have to be mediocre at best. For eg, he averaged 180 vs WI in 2003/04 scoring 4 tons in 6 innings. You can never do that against a strong attack.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You guys are making your own conclusions. I only commented on the numbers and a reason why he was averaging 80+ against India, 90+ against WI and 100+ vs Bangers. You don't get numbers like that against overall good bowling attacks. They have to be mediocre at best. For eg, he averaged 180 vs WI in 2003/04 scoring 4 tons in 6 innings. You can never do that against a strong attack.

Lara with 688 in 3 matches in a whitewash against Murali and peak Vaas.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I only agree with the Aus and Bangladesh assessments here.

His first WI series (nearly half his matches) were against peak Walsh, and Ambrose (who might have been past his peak), who had just come off what might be his strongest series statistically ever.

He got most of his runs in the last two tests of that series when one of ambrose/Walsh didn't play and the rest of WI's attack was extremely poor.

Still a good series, but I'd say his most impressive home series were vs Eng in 04/05 and against India in 2010/11.

 

[Bolo.]

You guys are making your own conclusions. I only commented on the numbers and a reason why he was averaging 80+ against India, 90+ against WI and 100+ vs Bangers. You don't get numbers like that against overall good bowling attacks. They have to be mediocre at best. For eg, he averaged 180 vs WI in 2003/04 scoring 4 tons in 6 innings. You can never do that against a strong attack.

Everyone has some series where they bruise weak opposition.

You are wrong about India in RSA. They have consistently sent a quick that has had better series in RSA than what most ATGs have managed. Both statistically and to the eye. Srinath, Shreesanth, and to a lesser extent, Zaheer.

 

[Bolo.]

He got most of his runs in the last two tests of that series when one of ambrose/Walsh didn't play and the rest of WI's attack was extremely poor.

Still a good series, but I'd say his most impressive home series were vs Eng in 04/05 and against India in 2010/11.

That's a very low scoring series. I can't remember the conditions, but there are 6 quicks averaging in the teens, so can't have been fun. He's 120 runs and 20 points of average clear of the next best bat from either team. Maybe not his best home series, but still excellent.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kallis also had a good home series against peak Asif

 

[OverratedSanity]

Do people really think Hammond deserves to be as high as he's been voted in the poll? He's the biggest minnow basher among the ATGs imo, got the majority of his runs in the flattest era in test history against some incredibly poor attacks. Even the best opposition he faced in his career (Australia) had two great spinners but absolutely nothing to speak of in the pace department. Literally all the good fast medium pacers of the era were on his own team (Larwood, Voce, Tate, Farnes, Allen) or on a team he had a poor record against (Martindale). He's the only all time great who basically never had proven success against a quality seam bowler.

Don't think I'd have him ahead of most modern greats like Ponting, Sanga, Border, Kallis, Dravid etc. the more I think about it. Having him top 10 is questionable imo. His reputation way exceeds how impressive his record actually is.

 

[Coronis]

Do people really think Hammond deserves to be as high as he's been voted in the poll? He's the biggest minnow basher among the ATGs imo, got the majority of his runs in the flattest era in test history against some incredibly poor attacks. Even the best opposition he faced in his career (Australia) had two great spinners but absolutely nothing to speak of in the pace department. Literally all the good fast medium pacers of the era were on his own team (Larwood, Voce, Tate, Farnes, Allen) or on a team he had a poor record against (Martindale). He's the only all time great who basically never had proven success against a quality seam bowler.

Don't think I'd have him ahead of most modern greats like Ponting, Sanga, Border, Kallis, Dravid etc. the more I think about it. Having him top 10 is questionable imo. His reputation way exceeds how impressive his record actually is.

No.

He should be a few spots higher.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No.

He should be a few spots higher.

Why though?

 

[Line and Length]

Do people really think Hammond deserves to be as high as he's been voted in the poll? He's the biggest minnow basher among the ATGs imo, got the majority of his runs in the flattest era in test history against some incredibly poor attacks. Even the best opposition he faced in his career (Australia) had two great spinners but absolutely nothing to speak of in the pace department. Literally all the good fast medium pacers of the era were on his own team (Larwood, Voce, Tate, Farnes, Allen) or on a team he had a poor record against (Martindale). He's the only all time great who basically never had proven success against a quality seam bowler.

Don't think I'd have him ahead of most modern greats like Ponting, Sanga, Border, Kallis, Dravid etc. the more I think about it. Having him top 10 is questionable imo. His reputation way exceeds how impressive his record actually is.

I agree his impressive record doesn't hold up to closer inspection and rated Headley more highly. I have him on a par with Sutcliffe from the between the wars era but find it difficult to line him up with or below the modern greats you mention.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Do people really think Hammond deserves to be as high as he's been voted in the poll? He's the biggest minnow basher among the ATGs imo, got the majority of his runs in the flattest era in test history against some incredibly poor attacks. Even the best opposition he faced in his career (Australia) had two great spinners but absolutely nothing to speak of in the pace department. Literally all the good fast medium pacers of the era were on his own team (Larwood, Voce, Tate, Farnes, Allen) or on a team he had a poor record against (Martindale). He's the only all time great who basically never had proven success against a quality seam bowler.

Don't think I'd have him ahead of most modern greats like Ponting, Sanga, Border, Kallis, Dravid etc. the more I think about it. Having him top 10 is questionable imo. His reputation way exceeds how impressive his record actually is.

He is noway near the biggest minnow basher amongst the ATGs.... No, not even close. That's Bradman, scoring @201 and @171 vs SA and India respectively.

 

[ataraxia]

F R A U D
R
A
U
D

Frauds.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He is noway near the biggest minnow basher amongst the ATGs.... No, not even close. That's Bradman, scoring @201 and @171 vs SA and India respectively.

Bradman played 10 games against them. If we count NZ as minnows (which we definitely should), Hammond played 39 (!) of his 85 tests against minnow level opposition. It's a huge proportion.

 

[trundler]

Why though?

There's black and white footage of him.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Bradman played 10 games against them. If we count NZ as minnows (which we definitely should), Hammond played 39 (!) of his 85 tests against minnow level opposition. It's a huge proportion.

He still scores @50+ against Australia, who actually had the better bowling line-up during England with O'Reilly, Grum and Ironmongery. He also played McDonald and Gregory, two pacers rated quite highly back then. Hammond was also famous as an excellent player in 'sticky dogs'.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He still scores @50+ against Australia, who actually had the better bowling line-up during England with O'Reilly, Grum and Ironmongery. He also played McDonald and Gregory, two pacers rated quite highly back then. Hammond was also famous as an excellent player in 'sticky dogs'.

That's just not true. England had larwood, voce, tate, Farnes, Allen who all wipe the floor with any pace bowlers Australia had. In terms of spin, maybe Australia had a case , but I don't even think that's true because England had verity and Rhodes.

Hammond also never faced Mcdonald and faced Gregory in a grand total of one match.

I'm not making this up ffs, I've looked it up, he virtually never had to bat against any notable seam bowlers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That's just not true. England had larwood, voce, tate, Farnes, Allen who all wipe the floor with any pace bowlers Australia had. In terms of spin, maybe Australia had a case , but I don't even think that's true because England had verity and Rhodes.

Hammond also never faced Mcdonald and faced Gregory in a grand total of one match.

I'm not making this up ffs, I've looked it up, he virtually never had to bat against any notable seam bowlers.

Overall bowling line-up of Australia was better imo. Rhodes had his best bowling years before the WWI and Verity wasn't a leading bowler. The English had a handful of good pacers, but Voce (who bowled plenty left arm spin) or Allen can't really measure up to O'Reilly and Grum. Their best pacer averaged 35 if not including one particular series. And against NZ, didn't he faced Cowie??

 

[OverratedSanity]

Overall bowling line-up of Australia was better imo. Rhodes had his best bowling years before the WWI and Verity wasn't a leading bowler. The English had a handful of good pacers, but Voce (who bowled plenty left arm spin) or Allen can't really measure up to O'Reilly and Grum.

This has nothing to do with the point that he didn't face any good pace bowlers

And against NZ, didn't he faced Cowie??

So one good pacer in a long career, fair enough I guess lol. The rest of NZ's attack was an abomination. Just admit the quality of seam bowling he faced was extremely poor not just compared to the modern era but even compared to guys like Hutton. Hobbs didn't face notable pace bowlers but faced the most brutal batting conditions of any great batsman. Hammond had the easiest time of any ATG batsman. Top 10 is just a reputation pick not backed up by the facts at all.