Rank in order as batsmen: Chappell vs Gavaskar vs Richards vs Kallis vs Lara

[_00_deathscar]

1. Brian Lara
2. Barry Richards
3. Greg Chappell
4. Jacques Kallis
5. Sunil Gavaskar

Ranking them on both formats considered

Stop this nonsense

 

[Silver Line]

Stop this nonsense

judging a players ability to manage to adapt to both of cricket’s formats isnt non-sense.

 

[shortpitched713]

You have to be like at least 75+ in age to remember watching sobers. No way our grandpas are considered modern in todays world, alot of them are still unfamiliar with tech which defines modernism.

modern should be 1970+

There's plenty of footage of him, showing dominance with the bat that only grew over the course of his 2 decades in Test cricket, with the nascent modern era being in the tail end of it. And he played as late as 1974. He's the only exception I'd say would have no difficulty making it into a modern conditions XI, just due to the conditions he played in being more similar to modern ones compared to say a Hobbs, or even a Hutton, Weekes, Barrington, etc.

Obviously he's also a Best Besides Bradman candidate as well, so was dominant within his own time, ( actually the second best ATG batsman, for mine ) so that doesn't hurt.

Edit: Even though I put him at Number 1. I don't think that Sobers would necessarily be definitively the best of all batsmen in the modern era. Just that I can't keep him out of a top 10 list, when I know he almost certainly would be better than a Kallis or Chappell. And given his record, how do I slot him below any true modern era batsman?

 

[_00_deathscar]

judging a players ability to manage to adapt to both of cricket’s formats isnt non-sense.

Forum etiquette is that only tests are discussed, unless it’s mentioned in the subject or by the OP.

 

[number11]

Lara
Richards
Chappell
Gavaskar
Kallis

The bottom 2 didn't have that extra gear to murder attacks.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Lara
Richards
Chappell
Gavaskar
Kallis

The bottom 2 didn't have that extra gear to murder attacks.

Gavaskar scored a 90 ball 100 against Marshall and Holding to equal Bradman's world record of most centuries. And it was pre determined.

 

[number11]

Gavaskar scored a 90 ball 100 against Marshall and Holding to equal Bradman's world record of most centuries. And it was pre determined.

The statement remains true as a rule of thumb. Great accumulator but not a destroyer.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Batsmen don't need to be destroyers to be better than those who are. Chappell should be ranked last because he was unproven/untested against quality spin in Asian conditions. All the others faced a much wider variety of challenges and mostly succeeded. Also had a relatively short career (~12 years) when all the others were 15+

Richards (Viv)
Lara
Gavaskar
Kallis
Chappell


Richards (Barry)

 

[number11]

Batsmen don't need to be destroyers to be better than those who are. Chappell should be ranked last because he was unproven/untested against quality spin in Asian conditions. All the others faced a much wider variety of challenges and mostly succeeded. Also had a relatively short career (~12 years) when all the others were 15+

Richards (Viv)
Lara
Gavaskar
Kallis
Chappell


Richards (Barry)

I disagree. Batsmen need to be able to destroy attacks to help transfer pressure/blitz the opposition when needed. Captains would not worry about accumulators in the same way: when they go big they take so long to score that they make it easier to survive [if needed] by consuming so much time.

Destructive bats both demoralize the opposition and buy their own bowlers time to get 20 wickets.

 

[GoonBag]

In the past (end of 2000s), I would have gone with this. Although probably could have had Gavaskar = Richards .

Now, in the context of the intervening years' of cricket, I think I'd have to adjust it. Back in those times, we were in the great Tendulkara/Lara debates. The great middle order bats of the time were them/Ponting/Kallis/Sanga . The premier run scoring attacking openers of that time Hayden/Sehwag, were constantly ragged on by CW in comparison to these middle order players, as one dimensional FTBs ( wrongly IMO ).

Since then we've got to see the flourishing of the Fab 4 middle order bats, but those standards for opening performance that the 2000s eras openers supposedly couldn't meet seems laugahable now, as there's not much since that even compares, like for real Warner? Alistair Cook? These guys are obviously inferior bats, or have significant holes in their record compared to the best middle order comparisons.

And for all our poking fun at Hayden/Sehwag flat track run inflation, their era adjusted run scoring is still dwarfed by Gavaskar's in a way that middle order bats simply don't have a comparison to ( maybe Smith compared to other modern middle order bats, depending on how the remainder of his career pans out ).

So I'm left in a world in which Gavaskar is so far ahead of all other modern openers, it's not even funny. And so, wouldn't he by definition be at the top of the heap, even including the modern ATG middle order bats?

It feels wrong, according to our "conventional CW wisdom", so I'm looking for counterarguments. Did Gavaskar make hay in the earlier part of the 70s, before international pace attack quality ( including the WI pace quartet, implemented in 75 ) truly became established? It seems a quite flimsy argument, if I were to confront it, as just at a cursory glance Gavaskar's big run scoring continued throughout his Test career, but maybe someone else could flesh it out.

Has opening become that less important of a role, and the consensus is to send sacrificial lambs in with low expectations? I doubt that one as well, because it's still primarily a specialist batsman only position, in Test cricket. If it wasn't very important, you'd see more all-rounders, or even wicketkeeper batsmen slotting in there more often.

So yeah, tl;dr:

Opening is hard, and unless someone has a decent argument otherwise, my rating of these would now go:

Gavaskar
Lara
Richards
Kallis
Chappell

Edit:

Lara is my batting idol too. Someone walk me back from this, because it feels so wrong to do this, regardless of the so called evidence and logic.

I'd go:
Richards
Chappell
Lara
Kallis
Gavaskar

but the best opener I saw was Barry Richards. I'd mark Gavaskar down for struggling against genuine pace. He only faced the WI pace quartet in one series, 1983. Averaged 30....Both Chappell and Barry Richards faced them on numerous occasions (frequently during WSC) and both averaged high 50s. Chappell faced all the bowlers Gavaskar did, and averaged 54.

 

[Coronis]

I'd go:
Richards
Chappell
Lara
Kallis
Gavaskar

but the best opener I saw was Barry Richards. I'd mark Gavaskar down for struggling against genuine pace. He only faced the WI pace quartet in one series, 1983. Averaged 30....Both Chappell and Barry Richards faced them on numerous occasions (frequently during WSC) and both averaged high 50s. Chappell faced all the bowlers Gavaskar did, and averaged 54.

No they didn’t. Marshall never played WSC.

 

[ataraxia]

No they didn’t. Marshall never played WSC.

Not part of the quartet.

 

[Thala_0710]

I'd go:
Lara
Richards
Gavaskar
Chappell
Kallis

My top 15 for the modern era (From 1970s) is:
1. Tendulkar
2. Lara
3. Richards
4. Smith
5. Gavaskar
6. Ponting
7. Chappell
8. Kallis
9. Border
10. Waugh
11. Root
12. Dravid
13. Sangakkara
14. Miandad
15. AB De Villiers

 

[BazBall21]

Richards
Lara
Chappell
Gavaskar
Kallis.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I really don't get rating Chappell over Gavaskar..... Had any batsman from the subcontinent had record like him (dominant in home, hardly toured anywhere tough frequently except England where he averaged 40), they won't get rated in top 30.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'd go:
Richards
Chappell
Lara
Kallis
Gavaskar

but the best opener I saw was Barry Richards. I'd mark Gavaskar down for struggling against genuine pace. He only faced the WI pace quartet in one series, 1983. Averaged 30....Both Chappell and Barry Richards faced them on numerous occasions (frequently during WSC) and both averaged high 50s. Chappell faced all the bowlers Gavaskar did, and averaged 54.

Again, did great vs Marshall and Holding in India and Holding and Roberts away in 76. Chappell never proved himself away, and I don't even want to get into the hoax of Barry Richards.....

 

[BazBall21]

He was feast or famine at best against WI when they became a juggernaut. I prefer consistency.

Gavaskar's best accomplishment is his work v peak Imran Khan in Pakistan. England away was generally a struggle outside the 1979 tour and he slipped up on the toughest tours of Australia, New Zealand and the West Indies.

 

[Coronis]

He was feast or famine at best against WI when they became a juggernaut. I prefer consistency.

Gavaskar's best accomplishment is his work v peak Imran Khan in Pakistan. England away was generally a struggle outside the 1979 tour and he slipped up on the toughest tours of Australia, New Zealand and the West Indies.

lol. Far more feast than famine. How many players have 4 series against a single opposition where they average 50+ I wonder. In fact he still holds second place for most tons vs a single opposition, in far fewer innings than most of his competition. (Smith stands just one behind him vs England, could overtake him next Ashes)

 

[capt_Luffy]

He was feast or famine at best against WI when they became a juggernaut. I prefer consistency.

Gavaskar's best accomplishment is his work v peak Imran Khan in Pakistan. England away was generally a struggle outside the 1979 tour and he slipped up on the toughest tours of Australia and New Zealand.

He never slipped on in Australia or New Zealand really. I will still maintain that only fielding Lillee doesn't makes the 1985 tour super tough, and definitely won't call scoring 70 in a second innings successful chase among 1 of 3 matches unsuccessful much. Scored very well in his other 2 tours to Australia, including 2 centuries against peak Thomson and chucker Clarke. In New Zealand, he toured twice. Was bad in one, but scored a century against Hadlee in the other as well. On that series, Hadlee missed the 1st Test in which Gavaskar scored twin tons, scored century against him in the 2nd and was retired hurt in the 3rd. Also, Gavaskar flopped in 1 series vs WI. Consistently scored in 4 others, and now I think the 1971 series gets underrated just because WI didn't had many great bowlers.
Chappell, on the other hand, really didn't do much away. Scored one great century in NZ, but mostly runs against weaker attacks, toured WI when they were weak, stat padded with a double ton in Pakistan in a flat pitch missing Imran and averaged the same as Gavaskar in England, Gavaskar's worst country. Definitely better at home, but overall, record is lackluster compared to Gavaskar without doubt

 

[OverratedSanity]

Chappell's record is immensely overrated. Any Asian batter who had so few overseas runs of note wouldn't be rated anywhere near the very best.