Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[kyear2]

Martin Crowe rated Sunil Gavaskar as the best batsman of his generation ahead of Viv and Greg.

Gary Sobers rated Sunil Gavaskar as the greatest batsman hailing for his achievements especially facing some of the most hostile fast bowlers.

Imran Khan rated Sunil Gavaskar higher than even Sachin saying his contribution was more than what his actual record showed.

Martin Crowe also called Barry Richards the best post war opening batsman, and had him on his first team until he was ready to produce the article for Cricinfo.

He also said this about Viv Richards, and note, before '76 the best batsman in the world was Barry, not Sunny.



Garry has named too many batsmen to mention as the greatest he's seen, think the ones his stuck to the most was Weekes actually, not to add Sunny calling Sobers the best batsman he's seen, even when pressed again for a response to verify it wasn't Sachin or Virat, he said no, Sobers.

Imran has noted that Viv was by some distance the best batsman he's ever bowled to.

Lillee basically had Barry, Viv and Garry as the best he's bowled to.

Suffice to say the list for Barry is linger than the one for Sunny, far less the list for Viv, it dwarfs it.

So no, Crowe didn't call Sunny the best. And Imran was speaking of influence not batting. And no, his quote should have been the opposite. His record is the least representative of all the all time greats.

 

[subshakerz]

Good to know that's all it comes down to.

God no. 17 years is more than enough for a career not to have longevity concerns for a batsman.

No it's not just that.

Sachin could adapt, adjust and refit himself to still score worldclass runs over the length of his career.

Viv could not. His game was almost all physical gifts.

That's a key difference between them and why Tendulkar deserves the edge.

 

[kyear2]

Outlier opinions IMO.

They're not even true

 

[kyear2]

I actually rate Viv slightly ahead of Sobers.

I do marginally as well.

Like same tier, just if I have to rate them, Viv comes first.

 

[subshakerz]

I do marginally as well.

Like same tier, just if I have to rate them, Viv comes first.

My mind says Viv, my heart says Sobers.

 

[kyear2]

Holding considered Gavaskar a fair weather bat.

Gavaskar had a low scoring series overall against Lillee as you know.

And Wasim rated Crowe as the most difficult batsmen he faced.

Sunny was excellent once the pitch was slow and had no movement.

That's the impression all the bowlers had of Sunny, some lace or swing and he wasn't up there with the rest.

There's a reason he was over the course of his career, never seen as the best bat if the era.

Barry, Chappell, Border were at various times seen to be better than him.

 

[kyear2]

Wasim actually rated Gavaskar, Crowe and Viv, all 3 at different interviews the best he faced. Re Holding, Gavaskar did accused him of hurling intentional beamers at him consistently in Kingston (alongside yk, saying the crowd belongs to jungle). Doesn't leads to much comradery after that I suppose. But overall, I don't think it can be denied that Viv>Gavaskar is a pretty much consensus about peers. But I will argue, so is Lillee>Hadlee. Viv and Lillee just where box-office more imo.

That's the thing, even the batsmen of the era, like all of them rated Lillee ahead of Hadlee, from hearing Richard talk, one might think he did as well.

I don't know why, but Viv was adamant, that the two outstanding bowlers of the era were Marshall and Lillee. Holding named 3, Marshall, Steyn and (might be wrong) Lillee was the best he's seen.

And it couldn't have just been box office. Viv could do things that not only no one was or could, but that (out side of Barry) no post war batsman had.

As it's also important to remember than Hadlee's peak didn't really coincide with Lillee's. So he wasn't close to being better in the 70's and by the time he was on it in the 80's it was Marshall's era.

 

[kyear2]

This

Akram has more peer acclaim than McGrath & Ambrose as well

Marshall's overlap with Akram was minimal and even then it was Ambrose who was best in the world after Marshall and untill his shoulder surgery. Only then did Akram get that acclaim.

 

[ankitj]

Let's do Murali vs. Warne too in this thread.

 

[centurymaker]

I think that quality trump's quantity.

I don't rate Anderson as an ATG, don't rate Walsh above Holding, it's about quality. Sachin was all about records, yes he maintained some level of decency, but was it like Punter where it was for the betterment of the team? Was about his numbers, so no longevity for the sake of it doesn't impress me.

So while he's a lock for my and most AT teams and all the like, so is Viv.

So yes, one had the longevity and consistency, one had an unparalleled peak and the ability to destroy an ATG attack and bowlers like no one before or since, well with the exception of possibly one other. There's nothing that one's done that usurps the other.

This is a bullshit narrative. Tendulkar wasn't playing for stats. Indian batting had disintegrated by late 2011, though Tendulkar was still managing to average around 40 till 2011/12 (better than most of his teammates). Midway through his last Australian tour, his career average was still above 56...in Jan 2012.

He achieved his 100th 100th in March 2012. Why then did he play on for another 20 months after that? What phantom record was he looking to achieve? For your information, the reason was he wanted to win the next ODI WC in 2015! That was his goal. Help defend India's title. But he was eventually told in 2013 that they had a different vision for odis (even though in his last odi he'd scored 52 off 48 balls vs Pak). So after BGT 2013, he had time to reflect and decided to retire in the next test series which was in November 2013. Retiring 15 months short of the next wc.

If Tendulkar only cared about records he would've retired in 2011/12 itself with his average around 56. He had nothing to gain playing the last 1-2 years that he did. He had already achieved everything he could. 200 Tests milestone happened as a coincidence due to the sequence of events. He was a guy who only knew batting and loved batting and wanted to play forever even if it meant his stats suffered as a result, which they did.

All he wanted was to win world cups. His childhood dream and reason he took up cricket. He felt he was still contributing just enough to justify his spot, which he kind of was, just barely in 2013. If he had been told in 2012 itself that he would not be picked for ODIs again, he would've retired much sooner. He only prolonged his career as he thought he could make the next WC.

 

[kyear2]

So Sachin kept scoring in a flat 2000s era after scoring in a non-flat 1990s era.

Wow how humiliating for Sachin.

No one said humiliating, but let's not pretend it was even comparable to the 80's or 90's. It was open season and he wants nearly the best batsman in the world for that entire period.

When was Viv's flat pitch era? Which minnows did he pummel?

Just providing context.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It was open season and he wants nearly the best batsman in the world for that entire period.

No he wasn't. His peak was in the 90s. Who are you trying to fool here. As already pointed out Tendulkar's worst slump actually came in the highest scoring road era in 03-06 when everyone was piling on the hundreds.

 

[kyear2]

Sachin between 1992-99:

61 matches, 5224 @60.74


Lara: 64 m, 5522 @52.11
Steve Waugh: 81 m, 6062 @57.2 (25 not outs)
Ponting: 34 m, 2223 @43.51
Kallis: 33m, 1954 @42.47

Look, if someone wants to rate Richards higher for his peak, then fine. Do it. It hardly is unreasonable imo, to think Sachin has clearer case for best since Don.

Listen to me carefully, not trying to suggest that he doesn't have an argument to be the best after Bradman, he was superb and definitely in that tier. When you try to kick the others out is where I take umbrage.

And two things about your graphic that amazes me,

1. Want to claim longevity then cut off years for comps.

2. It's always stated how he dominated the WWs and Donald and Pollock and used to prove his dominance over Lara, but averaged 32 and 33 in the era vs both teams.

And please don't forget, that like SA during the dead era, that India in the 90's was still flat and unhelpful to pacers.

For me there's no clear distinction between the 4 or 5 (possibly even 6) batsmen who vie for that title, everyone may have their preference, but to suggest that Sachin is a half tier above is some retroactive adjustments that didn't exist over Lara even when they played.

 

[DrWolverine]

Marshall's overlap with Akram was minimal and even then it was Ambrose who was best in the world after Marshall and untill his shoulder surgery. Only then did Akram get that acclaim.

It was Donald

 

[DrWolverine]

No one said humiliating, but let's not pretend it was even comparable to the 80's or 90's. It was open season and he wants nearly the best batsman in the world for that entire period.

Sachin faced more quality bowlers(both spin and pace) than Viv and he did it for a much longer time as well.

 

[subshakerz]

No one said humiliating, but let's not pretend it was even comparable to the 80's or 90's. It was open season and he wants nearly the best batsman in the world for that entire period.

When was Viv's flat pitch era? Which minnows did he pummel?

Just providing context.

Tendulkar in his second peak from 2007 to 2011 scored against a number of high quality bowlers to achieve no.1 in the world again. It wasn't simply a run feast.

If you really want to play this game, remember that Viv averaged only 49 in the 1980s.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If you really want to play this game, remember that Viv averaged only 49 in the 1980s.

Yes I was going to point this out lol. The 80s were orders of magnitude harder than the 70s when viv peaked and even that was primarily because of WI pacers who Viv didn't even face.

 

[kyear2]

Dude Kyear himself puts Sachin ahead of Viv in his order. He is just wasting our time with needless points.

I swear you can't read.

And you can go back to see the same things.

I have them as equals, if I have to list them it's in order of strength of attacks faced.

As I said, everyone would have their favorites, but to suggest that some are somehow separated from the rest is silly.

As you yourself have stated and advocated. It's quite simple for batsmen, we can trace that line from Hobbs to Smith for best batsmen of generations and it just lines up.

Hobbs - Bradman - Hutton - Sobers - Richards - Richards - Lara / Tendulkar - Smith.

Hammond probably squeezed in there for a couple years before Bradman, but basically that's it.

Those are the elite guys of the sport.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Viv was very lucky he didn’t have to face his own attack. Might have not even averaged 50 if he did.

Sachin was unlucky to not face his own attack

 

[DrWolverine]

Viv was very lucky he didn’t have to face his own attack. Might have not even averaged 50 if he did.

I know this isn’t fair but take 1976 out and he isn’t really that special anymore.

1977-1988 : 81 Tests. 5381 runs @ 49. 15 tons.
1977-1991 : 100 Tests. 6359 runs @ 46. 16 tons.
1976 : 11 Tests. 1710 runs @ 90. 6 tons.