DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[stephen]

Moderate upgrade perhaps?

A fair and balanced statement .

Hayden and Gavaskar's records are quite similar really and one has to slice and dice their stats to separate them. It's fair to say that Gavaskar's away stats make him a better batsman but by the same token Hayden's home stats probably show that he was a big part of Australia's invincibility at home.

The main differentiator for me is that Gavaskar played in a tougher era. But the difference isn't as huge as some think.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah. It's not like his often cited '90s failures were from a large sample size, 7 tests. And he still got one ton against peak Ambrose/Walsh from that era were he couldn't cut it

 

[honestbharani]

I would rate Gavaskar in a different level to every other opener I have seen but agree Smith Vs Hayden is very debateable. I would personally go for Smith but it indeed is a debateable topic.

 

[vcs]

Allah > Jesus obvsly

Moderate upgrade.

 

[jimmy101]

Allah > Jesus obvsly

Wouldn't mind seeing a comparison between their home & away records actually.

 

[ankitj]

Wouldn't mind seeing a comparison between their home & away records actually.

Really solid both of them away from home.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah. It's not like his often cited '90s failures were from a large sample size, 7 tests. And he still got one ton against peak Ambrose/Walsh from that era were he couldn't cut it

Corrections Hayden scored his ton in the only test that Ambrose did not play in the 96-97 series. But carry on nevertheless....

 

[StephenZA]

Gavaskar was great and almost certainly better than Hayden but it's not like he had a faultless record.

But anyway, he's definitely better than Barry Richards, if only because he played and Richards didn't. Even if one counts the super tests, Richards played less than ten tests total.

I don't know if Gavaskar was a better player than Richards, but playing more or less tests does not make for a better player in this case. All it says is that Gavaskar got an opportunity to play and Richards did not; for reasons outside of Richards control all he could play was FC cricket and showed the great player he was.

Richards gets his spot in the all time SA XI in front of Kirsten, because he was a better player despite Kirsten playing a 100 tests... and nobody really disputes this.

 

[Logan]

Greame Smith was slightly better than Matthew Hayden.

Hayden is in the same tier as Sehwag and Warner. Great at home. Medicore in away conditions. The only difference between Warner and Hayden is Warner and Sehwag didn’t have the luxury of an ATG team backing them.

Not comparing any of the four to Gavaskar. He was elite class.

 

[Logan]

I don't know if Gavaskar was a better player than Richards, but playing more or less tests does not m
ake for a better player in this case. All it says is that Gavaskar got an opportunity to play and Richards did not; for reasons outside of Richards control all he could play was FC cricket and showed the great player he was.
.

What a logic!
Kambli was a victim of politics. He would have been a greater Test batsman than Sachin if he was given a chance.


Greatness isn’t about potential. It is about what one has accomplished.

 

[StephenZA]

What a logic!
Kambli was a victim of politics. He would have been a greater Test batsman than Sachin if he was given a chance.


Greatness isn’t about potential. It is about what one has accomplished.

I never said who was greater, what I said was that you can't use that as a reason as who was a better player...

 

[Coronis]

I don't know if Gavaskar was a better player than Richards, but playing more or less tests does not make for a better player in this case. All it says is that Gavaskar got an opportunity to play and Richards did not; for reasons outside of Richards control all he could play was FC cricket and showed the great player he was.

Richards gets his spot in the all time SA XI in front of Kirsten, because he was a better player despite Kirsten playing a 100 tests... and nobody really disputes this.

Too bad this thread is about Test batsmen not FC batsmen.

 

[ataraxia]

Too bad this thread is about Test batsmen not FC batsmen.

We have gone off track here. Next up Jayawardene.

 

[Logan]

I never said who was greater, what I said was that you can't use that as a reason as who was a better player...

Gavaskar played 125 Tests and ended up as a legend.

Barry Richards played 4 Tests. No one knows if he could have ended up better than Bradman or become another Kambli.

 

[Malcolm]

Alexander the Great would have been the best leg spinner of all time if only the ancient Greeks were into cricket.

We can only ever rate people buy their accomplishments and not by their potential.

Who is the better bowler in your opinion? Shane Bond or Makaya Ntini.
For me, Bond is the better bowler despite Ntini being more accomplished.

 

[Logan]

Two reason that is a bad comparison. One, you have compared a highly rated bowler with one who hasn’t. Two, in addition to 18 Tests, Bond played 82 ODIs.


You are comparing a highly rated First Class bowler with the best Test opener post-WW 2.

The similar comparison should be:

Who was better in Tests? Shane Bond or Glen McGrath? Shane Bond or Malcolm Marshall? Shane Bond or Dale Steyn? Shane Bond or Richard Hadlee?

 

[vcs]

Alexander the Great would have been the best leg spinner of all time if only the ancient Greeks were into cricket.

We can only ever rate people buy their accomplishments and not by their potential.

Nah, he'd have struggled in the subcontinent IMO.

 

[Victor Ian]

Can anyone shed some light on Flowers huge peak stat? Is that adjusted peak? And does it coincide with when Zimbabwe seemed to play alot against the minnow class bangladesh?

 

[mr_mister]

Corrections Hayden scored his ton in the only test that Ambrose did not play in the 96-97 series. But carry on nevertheless....

Carry on? My point was finished lol. And whoops my mistake

 

[Malcolm]

Two reason that is a bad comparison. One, you have compared a highly rated bowler with one who hasn’t. Two, in addition to 18 Tests, Bond played 82 ODIs.


You are comparing a highly rated First Class bowler with the best Test opener post-WW 2.

The similar comparison should be:

Who was better in Tests? Shane Bond or Glen McGrath? Shane Bond or Malcolm Marshall? Shane Bond or Dale Steyn? Shane Bond or Richard Hadlee?

.

You missed my point. I was implying that more accomplished need not necessarily mean better.