The first one is kinda perfectly shared by a few:
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Barnes
Murali
Steyn
Imran
Ambrose
Warne
So 9th here.
And the latter:
Don
Hobbs
Tendulkar
Sobers
Lara
Gavaskar
Smith
Hutton
Viv
Hammond
And I would say you will be horribly wrong to challenge the credibility or either here really.
I think the first list is a bit nonsense, and only challenged by the 2nd.
And you know this.
Bowlers definitely ahead of Warne:
Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee
Bowlers arguably ahead of Warne:
Steyn, Muralitharan
If one rates Barnes, which I don't, then he has an argument as well.
Ambrose and Imran over the course of a career just aren't there.
The second list.
The batsmen who have an argument to be seen as the best after Bradman, in chronological order: Hobbs, Hutton, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Smith.
All of them had extensive periods of being the best in the world and best of their era. Sunny wasn't either.
Hobbs had an advantage over his colleagues surpassed only by Bradman, the first great test batsman and the original GOAT.
Hutton, shattered the world record vs O'Reilly while literally being started down by Bradman. He was spotless during one of the toughest batting eras, dominating the live ball '50's. He too was the best batsman of his era. All of this while having to deal with a horrific injury that caused one arm to be shorter than the other.
Sobers too was the best batsman of his era, also following his breaking of the world record. Despite being shouldered with a tremendous work load he was the best batsman of the 60's and had multiple epic innings vs all the the great bowlers of his era, finishing up with possibly the greatest one of all vs a rampaging Lillee. Again, he too was the best batsman of his era and the dominant batsman of the decade.
After a brief intermission of his namesake it was another Richards that took over the mantle of the best batsman in the world after two dominant years prior to WSC, where again he was one of these batsmen who dominated the series. He's very arguably and likely the greatest ever player of fast bowling, who didn't have a dead pitch era or minnows to boost his numbers. He had one of the greatest peaks in the history of the game, and once again was the best batsman of his era and for most of his career.
Smith also had one of the greatest peaks in the history of the game and statistically along with Hobbs, the closest to Bradman. He had mega series vs great attacks and for quite a substantial period of his career flirted with an average over 60, while being called the best since Bradman. He has a brilliant record vs and in all countries and it bears repeating, that he's been the best batsman if his era.
If one wants to be rated as better than any of these fine gentlemen one has to at least match them as best if their era, not to add that he was in the same era of IVA Richards and it was the latter who was the best batsman in the world throughout.
So the revisionist history doesn't vibe with me. He's not better than Viv or Smith and most would agree that Hutton too was his superior.
