Who is the best since Bradman?

[kyear2]

my top 15 ignoring active players

1. Donald Bradman

2. Jack Hobbs
3. Sachin Tendulkar/Viv Richards
4. Sachin Tendulkar/Viv Richards
5. Garfield Sobers
6. Len Hutton
7. Brian Lara
8. Wally Hammond
9. George Headley
10. Sunil Gavaskar
11. Herbert Sutcliffe
12. Greg Chappel
13. Ricky Ponting/Jack Kallis
14. Ricky Ponting/Jack Kallis
15. Graeme Pollock

Mine not too different

Bradman
Hobbs
Tendulkar
Viv
Sobers
Smith
Lara
Hutton
Barry
Hammond
Gavaskar
Chappell
Ponting
Kallis
Headley

 

[kyear2]

Gavaskar way too low, especially behind Hammond and Headley

Gavaskar getting a lot of retroactive love of late.

No issue with Hammond being above him. Hammond was one player away from being the best in the world from '28 till '39. Gavaskar was never in the situation.

 

[kyear2]

you all know what? Hutton is in the BAB discussion

He is, just the back end of it for me. You have to be able to dominate when the opportunity arises.

From all I read, he never did.

 

[kyear2]

You have to draw the line somewhere. CW consensus as I understand it is to count all players who played tests after World War I, but it's certainly fair to move that line back 10–15 years or forward 10 years IMO.

You have to draw the line somewhere. I definitely prefer after WWI for sure, but I prefer from the mid 30's.

Everyone has their own starting point though.

 

[subshakerz]

You have to draw the line somewhere. I definitely prefer after WWI for sure, but I prefer from the mid 30's.

Everyone has their own starting point though.

The starting point should be when we can see videos of them actually playing

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gavaskar getting a lot of retroactive love of late.

No issue with Hammond being above him. Hammond was one player away from being the best in the world from '28 till '39. Gavaskar was never in the situation.

Gavaskar's record is pretty much as impressive as Viv or Lara's

 

[subshakerz]

Gavaskar's record is pretty much as impressive as Viv or Lara's

Not as Viv at least. Lara is debatable.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not as Viv at least. Lara is debatable.

Once you factor in that he opened, and no one since Hutton is really comparable as an opener, imo it is.

 

[subshakerz]

Once you factor in that he opened, and no one since Hutton is really comparable as an opener, imo it is.

Sure but Viv was a main no.3 in the same era so it's not a huge difference, Viv has top series in his record against Lillee and Hadlee that Gavaskar does not, Viv wasnt weak in or against England and he scored far quicker.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sure but Viv was a main no.3 in the same era so it's not a huge difference, Viv has top series in his record against Lillee and Hadlee that Gavaskar does not, Viv wasnt weak in or against England and he scored far quicker.

Viv batted at 5 and 4 more than 3 (especially post peak) and even then he batted behind a very good pair of openers. Gavaskar had top series vs Holding and Roberts and then again them with Marshall, which was the toughest challenge of the era imo. Gavaskar being weak in England is a stretch, but his English and Viv's Pakistan records are similar enough, both in the low 40s with an ATG series each. Scoring quicker isn't a huge boost. Viv is ahead as he had more ATG series against Great bowlers, but that's not an end all be all for me to consider the gap any significantly big.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sunil Gavaskar had way more success than Brian Lara against the legendary fast bowlers though Lara had a higher peak.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sunil Gavaskar had way more success than Brian Lara against the legendary fast bowlers though Lara had a higher peak.

McGrath 99. Gavaskar never had a series that good, simply because no one ever had a series that good. But besides that series, yeah probably.

 

[kyear2]

The starting point should be when we can see videos of them actually playing

That is the ultimate test

 

[kyear2]

Gavaskar's record is pretty much as impressive as Viv or Lara's

It really isn't. But carry on.

One is a legit candidate for the best after Bradman, the other wasn't even the best of his era.

 

[subshakerz]

It really isn't. But carry on.

One is a legit candidate for the best after Bradman, the other wasn't even the best of his era.

It's not like Gavaskar was seriously even debated as being Viv level like Lara vs Sachin. He wasn't even close.

In fact, after the Lord's ATG XI countdown, his peer rating to me seems not that far from with Greenidge.

 

[sayon basak]

In fact, after the Lord's ATG XI countdown, his peer rating to me seems not that far from with Greenidge.

Top 10 reasons why peer rating sucks.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's not like Gavaskar was seriously even debated as being Viv level like Lara vs Sachin. He wasn't even close.

In fact, after the Lord's ATG XI countdown, his peer rating to me seems not that far from with Greenidge.

Yk by peer ratings Smith and Kohli may well be neck and neck!?? Anderson took Kohli over Smith in his XI in a direct comparison between the 2.
On one hand, you have the record. On the other some dudes opinion based on personal preference. Can you name one dull batter who was rated really highly?? Compton was rated on par with Hutton, ahead by many, of their peers.

 

[sayon basak]

Yk by peer ratings Smith and Kohli may well be neck and neck!??

Not really. Pretty sure Kohli would be ahead.

Human beings are dumb. Peers are humans after all.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv batted at 5 and 4 more than 3 (especially post peak) and even then he batted behind a very good pair of openers.

Ok but Gavaskar had a reasonably good batting lineup too. And Viv at 3 is when he had those big series.

Viv is ahead as he had more ATG series against Great bowlers, but that's not an end all be all for me to consider the gap any significantly big.

At least you admit he is ahead and for me this is the important consideration

 

[subshakerz]

On the other some dudes opinion based on personal preference.

As in players who faced both rate Viv far ahead and there isn't consensus Gavaskar is the best opener of the era