Battle of the Subcontinent

[Jono]

Merchant

 

[silentstriker]

I am suprised at the thrashing Merchant is getting. I would easily have him in an all time India XI whereas Mankad wouldn't make it.

 

[adharcric]

Merchant

 

[adharcric]

I am suprised at the thrashing Merchant is getting. I would easily have him in an all time India XI whereas Mankad wouldn't make it.

Actually, they would both make it IMO.
Gavaskar, Merchant, Dravid, Tendulkar, Hazare, Mankad, Dev, Kirmani, Kumble, seamer, Bedi/Chandra

 

[adharcric]

The thrashing that Merchant often gets is rather hypocritical IMO. This whole thing about "not getting opportunities to prove yourself" and "being rated very highly by your contemporaries" has been used for so many greats - Lillee, Trumper and Pollock to name a few. Why not Merchant?

 

[chaminda_00]

The thrashing that Merchant often gets is rather hypocritical IMO. This whole thing about "not getting opportunities to prove yourself" and "being rated very highly by your contemporaries" has been used for so many greats - Lillee, Trumper and Pollock to name a few. Why not Merchant?

I think you'll find that Merchant not rated very high outside India, just like Trumper is not outside Australia. Also people probably would have seen a lot footage of the likes of Lillee and Pollock, its not like their that old. You seem to bunch any player pre 80s in the same catergory.

 

[silentstriker]

I think you'll find that Merchant not rated very high outside India, just like Trumper is not outside Australia. Also people probably would have seen a lot footage of the likes of Lillee and Pollock, its not like their that old. You seem to bunch any player pre 80s in the same catergory.

Except by you know, Bradman.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, they would both make it IMO.
Gavaskar, Merchant, Dravid, Tendulkar, Hazare, Mankad, Dev, Kirmani, Kumble, seamer, Bedi/Chandra

LOL, are we the only team that has to use the word 'seamer' as a placeholder for a fast bowler in our all time team?

 

[chaminda_00]

Except by you know, Bradman.

TBF Bradman rated a lot of players, i remember reading that the hardest bowler he had to face was some Aboringnal quick from Queensland, doesn't nessary means he was some great, he never even played for Australia.

 

[Dasa]

TBF Bradman rated a lot of players, i remember reading that the hardest bowler he had to face was some Aboringnal quick from Queensland, doesn't nessary means he was some great, he never even played for Australia.

You're talking about Eddie Gilbert - Bradman said he was the fastest he'd faced, not the greatest. Anyway, there are probably other non-cricketing reasons Gilbert never came close to national selection.

 

[adharcric]

LOL, are we the only team that has to use the word 'seamer' as a placeholder for a fast bowler in our all time team?

Pretty much. I use the term 'seamer' pretty often though, just because not all fast bowlers are effective because of their pace.
Not just talking about IKP here ... McGrath, Pollock, Vaas, Dev, Barnes, etc.

 

[adharcric]

TBF Bradman rated a lot of players, i remember reading that the hardest bowler he had to face was some Aboringnal quick from Queensland, doesn't nessary means he was some great, he never even played for Australia.

Can you give some more examples of players Bradman rated who weren't great players? As for Merchant, he was rated by Alec Bedser as well, just to give you an English example.
Besides, it's not like we're using the opinion of Bradman as the sole justification for Merchant's greatness - it merely confirms his brilliant record.

 

[chaminda_00]

Can you give some more examples of players Bradman rated who weren't great players? As for Merchant, he was rated by Alec Bedser as well, just to give you an English example.
Besides, it's not like we're using the opinion of Bradman as the sole justification for Merchant's greatness - it merely confirms his brilliant record.

All i was pointing out was that Bradman like most players rated his peers very high like most players do. Just beacuse Murali says Lara and Tendulkar are the best two players his very bowled to, doesn't nessary mean that they are also the 2nd and 3rd best batsmen ever after Bradman. Im not surprised that Bedser also rated him and TBH these rating are all be can really judge him on.

As i said early his 10 test weren't that great when you compare them to say Stewie Dempster. Like most Indian, i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Kiwis would put him in their all time XI. But i do find it hard to rate a player from 10 Test matches.

 

[R_D]

Vijay Merchant

 

[bagapath]

i am going for mankad

The thrashing that Merchant often gets is rather hypocritical IMO. This whole thing about "not getting opportunities to prove yourself" and "being rated very highly by your contemporaries" has been used for so many greats - Lillee, Trumper and Pollock to name a few. Why not Merchant?

lillee doesnt belong in this list. he played 70 tests and got 355 wickets, a world record. along with hadlee he is the only fast bowler to average more than five wickets per test in post war test cricket in the 100 wickets + club. he is one of the greatest any which way you look at it. i rate marshall and hadlee higher. but lillee has a strong case to be called the greatest of his era anyway. he is not some cricketer deprived of enough opportunities to rely on "rated very highly by your contemporaries" to be in contention.

even trumper's average of 39 is great for the conditions he played in. un covered and some times un prepared wickets, different lbw law, back foot no-ball rule, etc. it was a different game in those days. under those conditions, he averages among the very top of that era while the bowlers were taking wickets by the handful. he is a great of that era no doubt.

merchant is a different case though. there is nothing wrong with his stats or any thing written about his style of play. but he didnt play enough tests to be clearly ranked among the greats. thats all. so i go for mankad.

pollock at least scored 2000 runs and played for six years. he is in a better postion than merchant. i dont rate him above a compton or a chappell because he still played only 20 odd tests against seelective opponents.

 

[adharcric]

All i was pointing out was that Bradman like most players rated his peers very high like most players do. Just beacuse Murali says Lara and Tendulkar are the best two players his very bowled to, doesn't nessary mean that they are also the 2nd and 3rd best batsmen ever after Bradman. Im not surprised that Bedser also rated him and TBH these rating are all be can really judge him on.

As i said early his 10 test weren't that great when you compare them to say Stewie Dempster. Like most Indian, i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Kiwis would put him in their all time XI. But i do find it hard to rate a player from 10 Test matches.

There's a reason Murali rates Lara and Tendulkar and not anyone else ... they are the two best batsmen of this era. That doesn't make them the greatest ever but it does make them great batsmen and potentially all-time greats. No one said Merchant is the 2nd best ever, so what's your point?

Merchant played 10 tests and did fairly well in them ... don't tell me 48 is a poor average now. That doesn't make him a great test batsman but it does show that he was at least test-class. He proved that he could play outside of India (first-class matches in England, for instance). The fact that he didn't play enough tests (not his fault) does go against him but it's not enough to say that he's not a great batsmen and IMO an all-time great. Again, your contention that guys rate everyone from their era makes no sense whatsoever. Only the best are rated as the best.

 

[chaminda_00]

There's a reason Murali rates Lara and Tendulkar and not anyone else ... they are the two best batsmen of this era. That doesn't make them the greatest ever but it does make them great batsmen and potentially all-time greats. No one said Merchant is the 2nd best ever, so what's your point?

Merchant played 10 tests and did fairly well in them ... don't tell me 48 is a poor average now. He proved that he could play outside of India (first-class matches in England, for instance). The fact that he didn't play enough tests (not his fault) does go against him but it's not enough to say that he's not a great batsmen and IMO an all-time great. Again, your contention that guys rate everyone from their era makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all you wouldn't rate someone that you played against greater then someone you watched. The fact that Bradman for example rated Tallon a better keeper/batsmen then Gilchrist, Healy and Marsh doesn't show he rates players from his era at a higher level then other eras, add that to how high he rated Bedser. No doubt these two players were awsome players, but IMO not as good as he rated. Its just human nature to rate someone that played with or against higher.

When it comes to Merchant there is no doubt he is a class batsmen, but i find it hard to classify him as all time great on the back of 10 Tests. As i would for Barry Richards, Procter etc. Its not his fault that he only played 10 Tests, but still doesn't mean that one can't question whether he would have failed after those 10 tests. There a good chance he could have continued on averaged 50 odd, but there is also as much chance that he could have failed and averaged 40 odd.

Ok he averaged 70 odd in FC cricket, but only 2/3 were in India against probably pretty average attacks.

 

[adharcric]

First of all you wouldn't rate someone that you played against greater then someone you watched. The fact that Bradman for example rated Tallon a better keeper/batsmen then Gilchrist, Healy and Marsh doesn't show he rates players from his era at a higher level then other eras, add that to how high he rated Bedser. No doubt these two players were awsome players, but IMO not as good as he rated. Its just human nature to rate someone that played with or against higher.

This is full of contradictions. Are you saying that Bradman rated his peers higher than the rest or that he didn't?
Either way, he rated Merchant as among the best of his era, which is good enough for him to earn consideration as an all-time great when coupled with his first-class records.

When it comes to Merchant there is no doubt he is a class batsmen, but i find it hard to classify him as all time great on the back of 10 Tests. As i would for Barry Richards, Procter etc. Its not his fault that he only played 10 Tests, but still doesn't mean that one can't question whether he would have failed after those 10 tests. There a good chance he could have continued on averaged 50 odd, but there is also as much chance that he could have failed and averaged 40 odd.

We can agree to disagree because this is definitely a close call and I can see why you wouldn't rate Merchant as an all-time great, but IMO he is one.

Ok he averaged 70 odd in FC cricket, but only 2/3 were in India against probably pretty average attacks.

How does that change the fact that he did very well in England against those English attacks?
As far as the average Indian attacks go, the likes of Hazare weren't able to dominate them in the same fashion, were they?

 

[chaminda_00]

One question are you rating Merchant as just an All Time Great when it just comes to Indian Batsmen, or overall.

 

[adharcric]

Well it depends on what you classify as an all-time great.
I would say he's among the top 5 batsmen produced by India.
Overall, he's easily among the top 50 batsmen ever and on the outskirts of the top 25 probably, IMO.