Viv Richards, right behind Garner.Who was the second best Windies bat of the 70s/80s?
That list, wow.....Will vote for Lloyd too. Wisden ranked him higher of the two.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/wisden-ranks-all-time-best.2479/#post-39141
Worth noting that Tendulkar's points for second in batting would only be good enough to get him 44th in bowling, behind Merv Hughes of all people. Either something is a bit off with the weighting or @shortpitched713 was right all along.That list, wow.....
Couple belated observations.
Was going to ask what did Hutton do to them, but then noticed that Hammond was even, and much lower. He was behind Weekes, Walcott and Headley. How bad were the attacks he faced?
Bowling wise, Murali according to those ratings are practically the equal of Bradman. Don't get me wrong, the bowling ratings are horrible, but as you or @OverratedSanity sanity asked recently, do we underrate Murali and Warne?
Hammond faced very weak bowling across his career and that seems to be a key parameter with Gooch so high.That list, wow.....
Couple belated observations.
Was going to ask what did Hutton do to them, but then noticed that Hammond was even, and much lower. He was behind Weekes, Walcott and Headley. How bad were the attacks he faced?
Bowling wise, Murali according to those ratings are practically the equal of Bradman. Don't get me wrong, the bowling ratings are horrible, but as you or @OverratedSanity sanity asked recently, do we underrate Murali and Warne?
Well since the last one can't be true, the weightings are wayyy off.Worth noting that Tendulkar's points for second in batting would only be good enough to get him 44th in bowling, behind Merv Hughes of all people. Either something is a bit off with the weighting or @shortpitched713 was right all along.
Yeah, bowling and pitch quality were heavily factored in.Hammond faced very weak bowling across his career and that seems to be a key parameter with Gooch so high.
Would say Weekes/Walcott faced better bowling for sure but with kinder home conditions and less longevity.
Well if Wisden says so that’s completely changed my mind on Viv.Well since the last one can't be true, the weightings are wayyy off.
Firstly the bowler rating way too heavily favors lone warriors and penalizes for having stronger team mates. Grimmett at 4 and Walsh at 10 are jokes tbh.
The batting ratings are eye openers though. Viv at 3 and Hammond at 20 @Coronis & @Prince EWS ummmm
But on a serious note, wonder where Smith would slot in.
You know I'm just kiddingWell if Wisden says so that’s completely changed my mind on Viv.
Coronis' view of Viv is down to the Penrith Panthers anyway.You know I'm just kidding
No! Shocking!You know I'm just kidding