ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
JadejaIndia
Tendulkar
Dravid
Kohli
VVS
Pujara
Azar
Merchant
Vengsakar
Ganguly
Rahane
Rubbish binny and whodafakeesdhawan unlucky to miss out
JadejaIndia
Tendulkar
Dravid
Kohli
VVS
Pujara
Azar
Merchant
Vengsakar
Ganguly
Rahane
Rubbish binny and whodafakeesdhawan unlucky to miss out
Hazare, Amarnath, Viswanath all comfortably ahead of Rahane and GangulyIndia
Tendulkar
Dravid
Kohli
VVS
Pujara
Azar
Merchant
Vengsakar
Ganguly
Rahane
Rubbish binny and whodafakeesdhawan unlucky to miss out
Given where he was born (and grew up), arguably he should be on the other list.Hmm
SA
Kallis
Proctor
Pollock
Faulkner
McMillan
England
Botham
Flintoff
Stokes
Grieg
Grace
A few of those guys played their cricket before/around the time India was just a new nation. Most of the others are good players, yea, but hardly in the top tier class apart from a couple.From the top of my head:
Hammond
Compton
May
Dexter
Cowdrey
Thorpe
Barrington
Root
Gower
KP
Robin Smith
Hendren
Etc.
Just a longer body of work imo. India likely to continue closing the gap however.
Well yeah I thought it went without saying that England and Australia have a bit of a leg-up considering they've played cricket for so much longerA few of those guys played their cricket before/around the time India was just a new nation. Most of the others are good players, yea, but hardly in the top tier class apart from a couple.
My point is when you have to start listing a few players from 75 years ago and the rest of the list is a much of a muchness, maybe England aren't particularly prolific at producing great middle order bats and certainly not above India who have produced genuinely great middle order bats with regularity in the last ~40-odd years?
"Propensity" as used in the OP suggests something being done frequently so there is a measure of time in this rankings and how often a great comes along in each country in a particular roleWell yeah I thought it went without saying that England and Australia have a bit of a leg-up considering they've played cricket for so much longer
An argument that needs closer examination. This statetement applies equally to Grace's peers and opponents. If he was facing bowlers suffering from poor nutrition and fitness, surely he should have registered a higher batting average than his 32.29 would indicate. There is no doubt that WG is a giant figure in cricket history but, at the risk of sounding blasphemous, I believe he is over-rated in some quarters.Well, WG Grace test debut was 32 years old in 1880. That’s like being 50 on debut now with the progression of nutrition and recovery. That’s looking like the only reason he didn’t bowl more and better in tests,
so he can put him there logically if he wants
Giffen, Noble, Trumble, Saunders, Hordern, Mailey, Johnson, Benaud, Mallett, Yardley, MacGill, Lyon. That's chronologically and off the top of my head so I may have missed some.Take the top 3 away (Warne, O'Reilly, Grimmett) and who is left? I prefer the depth of India and even England.
With all due respect, never said my rankings were set in stone. Fwiw, I also ranked England above the WI which is highly debatable as well now that I think about it....A few of those guys played their cricket before/around the time India was just a new nation. Most of the others are good players, yea, but hardly in the top tier class apart from a couple.
My point is when you have to start listing a few players from 75 years ago and the rest of the list is a much of a muchness, maybe England aren't particularly prolific at producing great middle order bats and certainly not above India who have produced genuinely great middle order bats with regularity in the last ~40-odd years?
32.29 is high with the bat for that era, it's the equivalent of about 50 right now.An argument that needs closer examination. This statetement applies equally to Grace's peers and opponents. If he was facing bowlers suffering from poor nutrition and fitness, surely he should have registered a higher batting average than his 32.29 would indicate. There is no doubt that WG is a giant figure in cricket history but, at the risk of sounding blasphemous, I believe he is over-rated in some quarters.
Not really.Hadlee probably better than McGrath
Yeah, I reckon you've underrated your boys there - West Indies are at least second for middle-order bats in my opinion, and potentially first. Bradman is the outlier of course (and Australia have a longer Test history and body of work) but take Bradman away and I reckon man for man the top 10-12 West Indians is at least the equal, and probably superior even to Australia.With all due respect, never said my rankings were set in stone. Fwiw, I also ranked England above the WI which is highly debatable as well now that I think about it....
Fair comment, but I honestly don't rate more than a handful of those named.Giffen, Noble, Trumble, Saunders, Hordern, Mailey, Johnson, Benaud, Mallett, Yardley, MacGill, Lyon. That's chronologically and off the top of my head so I may have missed some.
Of course if you take the top three away from anyone it makes a difference - particularly when the top three are among the best five or six of all time. But what's left is still a bloody good collection of spinners, including several genuinely great ones.
There's not much in it for me, but I think it has a lot to do with O'Reilly being much better against the very best - his record against England is considerably better than Grimmett's, and those were the games which mattered. Whereas against the "lesser" teams Grimmett was astonishingly successful while O'Reilly - admittedly from several fewer opportunities - was merely very, very good.Was not aware of the fact that Grimmett has 21 five fers and almost 80 additional wickets to O'Rielly (quite a lot at the time) and a better SR yet O'Rielly was universally regarded as the better bowler. Anyone know why?
I probably have but I'm just so disillusioned by the fact that we literally have no one remotely close to test standard atm and much less any coming through. Every other team in contention: Oz, India, Pakistan, England has at least one or two coming through with more on the way...Yeah, I reckon you've underrated your boys there - West Indies are at least second for middle-order bats in my opinion, and potentially first. Bradman is the outlier of course (and Australia have a longer Test history and body of work) but take Bradman away and I reckon man for man the top 10-12 West Indians is at least the equal, and probably superior even to Australia.
Bruce Taylor worth a mention too.NZ are ahead of India:
Hadlee
Cairns
Reid
Oram
Vettori
De Grandhomme
That's...a difficult one to get behind.Don't think this is simple
Dev
Ashwin
Jadeja
Mankad
Shastri
SA are definitely not a long way ahead. I suspect India are just ahead of SA to be honest. India's combined wickets per game looks like it might be overwhelming without working it out.
(Those 5 aren't necessarily the best for this for SA and England)
Take into account playing on uncovered wickets, Grace's record was extraordinary, he completely dominated his era and must rank with Bradman and Sobers for relative dominance.32.29 is high with the bat for that era, it's the equivalent of about 50 right now.
Also for extra stress on debuting too late in tests (cricinfo)
In the decade 1871 to 1880 he averaged 49, a period during which nobody else averaged more than 26 or scored even a third of his runs. He also took 1174 wickets in the 10 years, which was the second-best in the country after Alfred Shaw.
We have Jadeja though, they don’t.That's...a difficult one to get behind.