DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[Coronis]

How would you rate them?

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Headley
Hammond
Hutton
Lara
Richards

 

[akilana]

Didn't see it so it can't be true. Even at his best Viv was no match to Don's average day with the bat.

And Lol @ not rating Sehwag at all. The same all pitches in subcontinents are flat tracks excuse I believe.

 

[Coronis]

Here is an updated top 10:
1 B.C. Lara 153* Australia Bridgetown 1999 25.47
2 I.T. Botham 149* Australia Leeds 1981 25.21
3 G.A. Gooch 154* West Indies Leeds 1991 25.01
4 C. Bannerman 165* England Melbourne 1877 22.54
5 V.V.S. Laxman 281 Australia Kolkata 2001 22.18
6 D.G. Bradman 270 England Melbourne 1937 22.16
7 G.L. Jessop 104 Australia The Oval 1902 22.09
8 Azhar Mahmood 132 South Africa Durban 1998 22.07
9 V. Sehwag 201* Sri Lanka Galle 2008 21.52
10 D.L. Amiss 262* West Indies Kingston 1974 21.46



On that Chennai match, Afridi's innings was rated as 13.01.

Just great to see Bannerman's innings from the very first test up there.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with you on Lara. In terms of memorable knocks he might be second to none that I have seen over the years. But he was terribly inconsistent over the years. Failed to show up many times.

In terms of those I have seen over the years Viv Richards was probably the best. As an overall package 2nd to none IMO (from those I have seen). I didn't see Bradman or Sobers bat but I can't imagine them being too much better than Viv. The ground atmosphere was something to behold when Viv was coming out to bat. He had those intangible thing about him. And of course the way that he would toy around with quicks was a sight to behold too. An average of 50 isn't as high as some of the others have had after him but a similar persona is hard to find on the cricket field.

I wonder where Viv will finish in this list

Lara at his best changed games more than pretty much any batsman though never mind Sangakkara, but his level of consistency wasn't as high as other batsman. Lara's 213 and 153* and 100 are the greatest series performances I've seen in my time and that series always ranks as my favourite of all time, but then you look at say the 5-0 whitewash against SA or 5-0 in Australia and remember how Lara hardly turned up with the bat in those series. But the human mind has a way of remembering the great innings more than the failures which means we tend to bias towards players of very high level of excellence as opposed to consistency.

I do believe that there is a genuine comparison between Lara and Sangakkara; if forced to choose I would pick Lara for the fact that he played during the 90s when the scores were lower and the bowling attacks stronger. But then again Sangakkara was hampered by having to bat and number 3 and keep in 47 tests which is not an easy thing to do.

Out of interest based on your rating system which favours fast scoring and dominance, where do you place Sehwag in subcontintental conditions? I would guess in subcontinental conditions he'd be the next thing down from Bradman. Even overall average of around 50 with a strike rate over 80 must place him highly in your mind?

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Headley
Hammond
Hutton
Lara
Richards

You have IVA Richards lower than most, also if you don't mind, why Hammond over Hutton, Lara and Richards? Through his career he was masterful to spin and the medium stuff but more than a bit suspect to pace.

 

[kyear2]

Didn't see it so it can't be true. Even at his best Viv was no match to Don's average day with the bat.

And Lol @ not rating Sehwag at all. The same all pitches in subcontinents are flat tracks excuse I believe.

You have your opinions, I have mine, we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Coronis]

You have IVA Richards lower than most, also if you don't mind, why Hammond over Hutton, Lara and Richards? Through his career he was masterful to spin and the medium stuff but more than a bit suspect to pace.

I'm pretty sure that's a myth, someone made a great post about it in the ATG thread iirc.

 

[Lostman]

Happy to see Sanga get some credit for his great innings. He has 3 great innings against Pak in 3 different countries across 12 years, with one more series coming up in 3 months.
Btw DoG, could you also calculate Sanga's score for the 3rd test in England in 2011?

 

[Burgey]

The great thing about this Herculean effort from DOG is it's genuinely thought provoking, and to his great credit he's set the parameters by which the players are judged right from the get go.

Been a top effort.

 

[Days of Grace]

Cramming some Japanese today. No.8 might be tonight.

Going back to the debate about what constitutes a "great" innings, how about this effort from Asif Iqbal:


3rd Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 24-28, 1967 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


It was essentially meaningless. Like Kallis' 60-odd, his team had no chance of winning the match, but even so, is it an innings worthy of being called "great"?

 

[Maximas]

So happy to see Sanga there

 

[NUFAN]

Cramming some Japanese today. No.8 might be tonight.

Going back to the debate about what constitutes a "great" innings, how about this effort from Asif Iqbal:


3rd Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 24-28, 1967 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


It was essentially meaningless. Like Kallis' 60-odd, his team had no chance of winning the match, but even so, is it an innings worthy of being called "great"?

Hard to answer exactly because it depends on how many innings are great. Judging by what I've seen so far, yes I would say its great.

It was the highest score of the match coming in at 9 with the score at just 7-53. The Kallis knock was the sixth or seventh highest score in the match and it was just 60 odd runs. I know it can be dangerous saying only 60, because a 60 in one match can be worth more than a 120 in another, but like I said, there were half dozen scores higher in the match.

 

[Jarquis]

Which is the least great great innings?

 

[Days of Grace]

Obviously something rated 12.50.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think Marcuss meant, what is the great innings with the fewest runs?

Tangentially, what was the last great innings?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think Marcuss meant, what is the great innings with the fewest runs?

Tangentially, what was the last great innings?

I assumed Marcuss was looking to see the worst of the great innings thus called in order to compare it to that one from Asif Iqbal.

 

[fredfertang]

Cramming some Japanese today. No.8 might be tonight.

Going back to the debate about what constitutes a "great" innings, how about this effort from Asif Iqbal:


3rd Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 24-28, 1967 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


It was essentially meaningless. Like Kallis' 60-odd, his team had no chance of winning the match, but even so, is it an innings worthy of being called "great"?

'tis an interesting question - I don't think this innings was really - Pakistan were always going to lose and England were under no sort of pressure - Brian Close, in the way that Closey did, took him on and kept up his attacking fields which helped Asif score quickly using the many gaps that were left

Asif's greater innings was probably his 76 in the first Test of the series which, along with Hanif's undoubtedly great if rather tedious 187*, allowed Pakistan to draw a Test that, after their hammering in 1962, it was feared that they might not get close to managing

 

[Days of Grace]

How about if the innings isn't one of the top 3 scored in the match, it can't be considered "great"?

 

[Riggins]

Without looking into specifics at all, I would say that would make sense outside of maybe in a successful fourth innings chase. I can imagine someone scoring 80 odd in a successful chase of 8 for 120 or something would be great regardless if a few guys score 100's on days 1 or 2 or something?

Man this **** is hard to quantify.

 

[Furball]

How about if the innings isn't one of the top 3 scored in the match, it can't be considered "great"?

Disagree. Strauss' 60 at Sydney in the last Ashes was greater than Prior's ton IMO.

 

[uvelocity]

Cramming some Japanese today. No.8 might be tonight.

Going back to the debate about what constitutes a "great" innings, how about this effort from Asif Iqbal:


3rd Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 24-28, 1967 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


It was essentially meaningless. Like Kallis' 60-odd, his team had no chance of winning the match, but even so, is it an innings worthy of being called "great"?