4 & 5

[stephen]

For numbers 4 and 5, I am going with Viv Richards (best batsman of 70s/80s) and Tendulkar (best batsman of 90s/2000s).

I loved watching Lara but he has wasnt as close to batting perfection as Tendulkar was, and I would wager the majority of peers went more in Tendulkar favor than Laras as a result.

As for Steve Smith, his test career is 77 tests so far and he is 32 years old. He has already shown signs of decline. He still has too much cricket ahead of him to make any judgement ahead of other ATGs.

Smith could retire tomorrow and would be the second best since Bradman.

 

[sunilz]

Smith could retire tomorrow and would be the second best since Bradman.

Absolutely No

 

[subshakerz]

Smith could retire tomorrow and would be the second best since Bradman.

Maybe. I am still inclined to put Tendulkar ahead of him for longevity reasons.

 

[subshakerz]

Well Sachin aside, this was terribly inconclusive.

Kinda though Kallis would have received more votes than he did.

I am surprised Viv wasnt as popular as Sachin. You would think being the undisputed best of his era would lock him in.

 

[subshakerz]

This is my reasoning too but I'm leaning towards Lara

Lara beats everyone when it comes to his high points and style and playing spin but in terms of consistency, overall record and all-round game, Tendulkar is tops.

I loved watching Lara bat but he had many more weaknesses to his game than Tendulkar, who was as close to flawless as I have seen in a batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

he had many more weaknesses to his game than Tendulkar

And yet did just as well. I think its silly to say Sachin did not achieve great peaks and that Lara had many weaknesses. Best signs of laziest, never watched them bat, arguments.

AFAIC, Lara was as good as Sachin technically and Sachin was as much of a match winner as Lara. Ultimately, it boils down to preference but in my view, Lara was always slightly better as a test batsman. You include ODIs, then Sachin is a clear winner. Lara the ODI batsman is a classic case of what could have been.

 

[trundler]

Meant Lara ahead of Viv at 5

 

[subshakerz]

And yet did just as well. I think its silly to say Sachin did not achieve great peaks and that Lara had many weaknesses. Best signs of laziest, never watched them bat, arguments.

AFAIC, Lara was as good as Sachin technically and Sachin was as much of a match winner as Lara. Ultimately, it boils down to preference but in my view, Lara was always slightly better as a test batsman. You include ODIs, then Sachin is a clear winner. Lara the ODI batsman is a classic case of what could have been.

Lara didn't do as well as Sachin though. Not in terms of consistency, not in terms of all-round record in different countries or different opposition.

I watched both Lara and Sachin from the mid-90 onwards. While Lara was unequaled in playing spin, he had his issues against high-quality pace. This was clear to me after watching him struggle against Donald and the 2Ws around 97/98 (he never scored a century against them), and even later in his career against Bond. McGrath also ruthlessly owned Lara in the mid-90s in a way that I have never seen a bowler dominate Tendulkar, though Lara later achieved more par. He was more vulnerable than Tendulkar in the early stages of his innings and rode his luck, clearly uncomfortable against short-pitched stuff at times, lost control of his hooks often and prone to more casual wafts outside off. However, once set, there wasn't a batsman more in the zone than Lara. Tendulkar had his period when he struggled, but it was more due to his tennis elbow than technical difficulties, which he was constantly honing and refining. The only possible flaw I could think in his game was occasionally being too rooted in his crease, but this was relatively minor.

Now, Lara more than compensated for these shortcomings with awesome achievements like the 99 Australia series, taking the world record twice and scoring the most double tons after Bradman, which made him special and along with Tendulkar, the best of the era. But to me Tendulkar's entire career is an almost unassailable achievement.

 

[Gob]

Didn't expect this many votes for TPC. Badly want to see another big series from him. It has been ages

 

[Red]

Smith could retire tomorrow and would be the second best since Bradman.

Still rank Sachin a bit above TPC as a batsman and it’s got nothing to do with longevity

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Still rank Sachin a bit above TPC as a batsman and it’s got nothing to do with longevity

Is it because of Sachin's 'bang-for-your-buck' impact?

 

[stephen]

Absolutely No

What more do you think he needs to do to claim that spot? He's had an 11 year career, scored 7500 runs (20th overall), has the second highest average in the game, has 27 tons (20th overall) and has had an 80 innings peak greater than any batsman not named Bradman. He has an overseas average of 60 and has played the two most incredible overseas series in my lifetime (India 2017, England 2019). He's excelled in pace, spin, high bounce, low bounce, fast wickets, slow wickets and seaming wickets. As complete of a batsman as you'll ever find.

 

[sunilz]

What more do you think he needs to do to claim that spot? He's had an 11 year career, scored 7500 runs (20th overall), has the second highest average in the game, has 27 tons (20th overall) and has had an 80 innings peak greater than any batsman not named Bradman. He has an overseas average of 60 and has played the two most incredible overseas series in my lifetime (India 2017, England 2019). He's excelled in pace, spin, high bounce, low bounce, fast wickets, slow wickets and seaming wickets. As complete of a batsman as you'll ever find.

Average of 40 in SL, UAE, SA and 30 in BANGLADESH. No test centuries in 4th innings.

He needs to clear these question marks and then he will be confirmed as 2nd best. At present he is still a contender

 

[Teja.]

Lara didn't do as well as Sachin though. Not in terms of consistency, not in terms of all-round record in different countries or different opposition.

I watched both Lara and Sachin from the mid-90 onwards. While Lara was unequaled in playing spin, he had his issues against high-quality pace. This was clear to me after watching him struggle against Donald and the 2Ws around 97/98 (he never scored a century against them), and even later in his career against Bond. McGrath also ruthlessly owned Lara in the mid-90s in a way that I have never seen a bowler dominate Tendulkar, though Lara later achieved more par. He was more vulnerable than Tendulkar in the early stages of his innings and rode his luck, clearly uncomfortable against short-pitched stuff at times, lost control of his hooks often and prone to more casual wafts outside off. However, once set, there wasn't a batsman more in the zone than Lara. Tendulkar had his period when he struggled, but it was more due to his tennis elbow than technical difficulties, which he was constantly honing and refining. The only possible flaw I could think in his game was occasionally being too rooted in his crease, but this was relatively minor.

Now, Lara more than compensated for these shortcomings with awesome achievements like the 99 Australia series, taking the world record twice and scoring the most double tons after Bradman, which made him special and along with Tendulkar, the best of the era. But to me Tendulkar's entire career is an almost unassailable achievement.

I broadly agree that Tendulkar is a bit better than Lara mainly due to longevity reasons but it feels a bit harsh to criticise Lara's failings against McGrath considering how very, very few batsman have had great success against Australia in games McGrath is playing yet Lara played a huge chunk of his test career (24 tests) in games against McGrath and scored 2000+ runs at 46 with 6 hundreds including multiple ATG hundreds which is an excellent record considering just how few batsmen have good records against McGrath.

Considering the aggregate of runs, you could argue he is the batsman who has had the most success against McGrath in tests.

WTF is up with Ijaz Ahmad though. 61 tests averaging 37 seems like a non-descripit career yet he scored 4 centuries in 7 games v McGrath post-1995 (when McGrath got good) with an average of 61 including 2 in Australia and 3/4 of those seem to be genuine quality knocks. The only batsman who has made more test centuries against McGrath is Lara (6) and he took 24 games for it. None of Ahmad's centuries came during McGrath's poor start in 1993-94 either.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Yeah, hard as it is to admit, Smith is the most freakish batsman I've seen. Nowhere near as talented as Lara or Tendulkar in his range of strokes, nor does he possess that quality which makes you go "yeah that guy was born to do this", but he's devised his own method to get around those shortcomings. Only a matter of time before he corrects his stats in SL and the UAE; SA might be interesting because they have quality pace and fast pitches and that's the only area where he's even remotely suspect.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

And yet did just as well. I think its silly to say Sachin did not achieve great peaks and that Lara had many weaknesses. Best signs of laziest, never watched them bat, arguments.

AFAIC, Lara was as good as Sachin technically and Sachin was as much of a match winner as Lara. Ultimately, it boils down to preference but in my view, Lara was always slightly better as a test batsman. You include ODIs, then Sachin is a clear winner. Lara the ODI batsman is a classic case of what could have been.

ODIs
Top order Lara = Sachin

 

[sunilz]

ODIs
Top order Lara = Sachin

In 90s, you have a point. But not in 00.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah averaging 40 in a couple of countries is just awful. Disqualifies any batsman from greatness.

 

[sunilz]

Yeah averaging 40 in a couple of countries is just awful. Disqualifies any batsman from greatness.

But it definitely stops him from being considered undisputed no. 2 .

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

In 90s, you have a point. But not in 00.

46 avg 82 SR, almost Sachineseque.