Ranking the Batsmen

[PhoenixFire]

In most polls on any subject the current favourites will always be rated higher than they might deserve. That's why in music polls idiotic boy bands like Westlife and pointless, talentless dross like Girls Aloud will often be ranked above The Beatles. But these bands contribution to music is less than zero. But in 40 years time The Beatles will still be ranked just below the favourites at that time and the favourites of today will be no where to be seen. Similarly in 40 years time Bradman, Sobers and Hobbs will still at the top on many polls but with the exception of Lara and Tendulkar some of the current favourites won't warrent a mention.

Anyone who knows anything about music wouldn't ever vote Girls Aliud ahead of The Beatles.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Anyone who knows anything about music wouldn't ever vote Girls Aliud ahead of The Beatles.

Of course they wouldn't, but the point is that in a poll amongst today's youth there is a chance that they would finish above The Beatles because they're the current favourites.
You could just as easily say that no one who knows anything about cricket would vote Ponting ahead of Richards but some people are in the Number 3 poll, but it's only because he's the current top batsman in the world on stats (along side Yousuf).

 

[PhoenixFire]

I can understand the perfectly, with really accepting it. It's just natural I guess, but pretty annoying.

 

[Matt79]

It is implicit that vast majority of the players will be from the modern era, because of the word 'greatest'.



That in not in dispute.

No its not. If you were asked to pick the 25 greatest authors or composers of all time, would you insist they only be drawn from the last thirty years?

 

[Matt79]

I think I'm in the same boat as SS ( ) as far as the WG debate goes. As a cricket personality, I think WG would be and rightly should be ranked as one of the very best. But as a pure batsman he, unfortunately, never got a chance to really prove himself on the test scene. I've read bits and pieces of his biography, and I think he was the greatest cricketer to come out of England by a country mile, but this thread is meant for pure batsmen, and even though he averaged between 60 and 70 at one point in his FC career, his lack of test experience has to go against him. If we were to weigh a players FC stats so high, surely Bart King would top every ranking that has to do with bowling.

Generally I think Test-level performances are a must, but I make a couple of exceptions for Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock and to a lesser extent Mike Proctor, because they were denied the opportunity to play many tests but showed they were exceptional cricketers in the highest level available to them. Grace is similar in that Test cricket hadn't come into being during his peak, and he proved himself over decades at the highest level available. Plus test cricket almost certainly would NOT have come into existence without Grace's impact on the sport...

 

[nightprowler10]

Generally I think Test-level performances are a must, but I make a couple of exceptions for Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock and to a lesser extent Mike Proctor, because they were denied the opportunity to play many tests but showed they were exceptional cricketers in the highest level available to them. Grace is similar in that Test cricket hadn't come into being during his peak, and he proved himself over decades at the highest level available. Plus test cricket almost certainly would NOT have come into existence without Grace's impact on the sport...

All good points. I guess it wouldn't be quite fair to judge him on his test stats at all since he was upwards of 50 by the time test matches came along, but at the same time I think it would be unfair to other batsmen who did get to show off their talents in the test arena to rank WG ahead of them as a pure batsman. It would be comparable to King being ranked ahead of Barnes.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Boycott

 

[adharcric]

UPDATE: Barrington 5, Boycott 4, Hayden 2, Gilchrist 1, Grace 1, Compton 1, Kallis 1

 

[adharcric]

Barrington follows Trumper.

The List
1. Don Bradman (AUS)
2. Garry Sobers (WI)
3. Jack Hobbs (ENG)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (IND)
5. Viv Richards (WI)
6. Brian Lara (WI)
7. Sunil Gavaskar (IND)
8. Wally Hammond (ENG)
9. Greg Chappell (AUS)
10. George Headley (WI)
11. Graeme Pollock (RSA)
12. Everton Weekes (WI)
13. Len Hutton (ENG)
14. Steve Waugh (AUS)
15. Clyde Walcott (WI)
16. Ricky Ponting (AUS)
17. Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG)
18. Allan Border (AUS)
19. Rahul Dravid (IND)
20. Javed Miandad (PAK)
21. Victor Trumper (AUS)
22. Ken Barrington (ENG)

The vote for the #23 batsman of all-time begins now.

The Contenders

 

[aussie tragic]

Neil Harvey

 

[silentstriker]

Gilchrist

 

[shankar]

Boycott

 

[PhoenixFire]

Gilchrist

Boycott

 

[silentstriker]

Gilchrist

Boycott

Wouldn't be unhappy with Boycs either really. But Gilly is a top 25.

 

[PhoenixFire]

With all due respect, I can't fathom how Gilchrist is one of the top 25 batsmen of all time, 50 maybe.........

 

[silentstriker]

With all due respect, I can't fathom how Gilchrist is one of the top 25 batsmen of all time, 50 maybe.........

Easily better than a couple of the batsmen already in. Trumper definitely, maybe Barrington too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Boycott

 

[silentstriker]

Boycott

Interesting to see people suddenly going for Gilchrist undoubtedly influenced by the current Test, but he came in at number 7 with a lead of 400 already on the board and thrashed a century against a tired attack with little pressure on him.

Suddenly? I am the only one so far that has voted for him and I voted for him last round too, and I think even the round before that.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I can't really see who, although I can't really comment on Trumper, as I don't really know much about him.

Why does nobody rate McCabe?? Bradman says that he was just as good as himself, if not better, but just never realised it, and never fufilled it.

 

[silentstriker]

I can't really see who, although I can't really comment on Trumper, as I don't really know much about him.

Why does nobody rate McCabe?? Bradman says that he was just as good as himself, if not better, but just never realised it, and never fufilled it.

Maybe thats why.