The best after the Don? CW ranked 25 contenders, here is the countdown thread

[Burgey]

I mean, if you want to talk about travesties in these rankings, look where our lord and saviour TOTAB was ranked by you useless ****s.

 

[Zinzan]

Indians have always rated ST more than non-Indians. It's perfectly natural. I think we all tend to do it with our own, it's just that unconscious bias that we don't recognize ourselves half the time.

What this thread does once again do is to confirm there is no clear 'number 2'. After Don, it becomes a purely subjective exercise, where you could place a postage stamp over several batsmen who you could make a reasonable case for.

Now unless Steve Smith continues his freakish numbers against all opposition in all conditions for another 7-8 years, I suspect the answer to this question will continue to be as clear as mud.

 

[Daemon]

What a dumb arse way to value a player. There can be so few 17 year old or 38 year old test players that it means nothing. India were very **** when Tendulkar started, otherwise he'd have had to wait until he was 20 like everyone else and India were not so good when he retired. Tendulkar was an awesome player. He had great strokes and a great temperament for the game. He was so good that he is the 4th best ever....in over 100 years. That is some feat. So stop all this lamenting how he did not get number one spot. He is not outright better than all other players, like Bradman is, so sometimes others will be picked ahead of him and other times he will be picked ahead of them. Some of the people here sound like whinging bitches.

os said 38 years old though which was when India was number 1 and had just won the WC.

 

[mr_mister]

#3

Viv Richards (501 points) FC average of 49.40, FC H.S of 322. 114 FC centuries

The master blaster. One of those most confident and charismatic batsman of all time, if not the most ever, he always looked like he nothing to lose when he strolled the crease. Always expecting, rather than hoping to make runs, it's hard to not respect the **** out of Viv. And for most of his career he had the numbers to back up the swagger.

He looked awesome when he played shots. He was ahead of his time as a player, scoring big tons super quick and having an ODI batting average and strike rate more accustomed to the best players of today rather than the 1980s. This strike-rate is what buoys him up to number 3, as his average in FC is a smidge lower than most of those found on this list. In fact nearly everyone. But for the first half of his career it was very high.

He averaged 60 after his first 45 tests and was very, very much the front runner for next best after Bradman, when you take into account how fast he scored his runs. We think of his 70s/80s West Indians side as this dominant force, but when you take out the production line of fast bowlers you're not left with that much firepower overall. I don't want to catch heat for saying this but their batting wasn't that great IMO. Haynes and Greenidge were of course tremendous at the top, but names like Logie and Gomes aren't exactly in the Martyn/Mark Waugh class, if we're comparing the lesser stars who were always around. Viv was head and shoulders the best bat during this time and held up the batting side of this team with its awesome cricketing legacy. If I'm being harsh on the rest it's probably because the bowling attack had 4-5 absolute legendary players who will probably all make the inevitable top 25 best pace bowlers list I'll be doing after this. The other great teams compared to Viv and his boys(yes I know Clive was the captain) all had major stars with bat and ball, but here we mainly see the responsibility falling on one man and that I think helps boost his legacy like it did with Lara.

His averaged dropped 10 points over the last half of his career, but it's no wonder he kept playing, he kinda knew how important he was(same with Sachin I guess, I don't want to look hypocritical).

 

[cnerd123]

Viv's Test Career record: 121 Tests, 182 innings, 8540 Runs, Avg 50.23. 24 tons, 45 fifties, HS 291
Tendulkar after 183 innings: 112 Tests, 183 innings, 9459 Runs, Avg 58.39. 33 tons, 37 fifties, HS 241*

Imagine if Sachin had retired then. Would he still be below Viv on the list?

 

[Burgey]

Imagine if they played the same number of tests during Viv’s peak which they played during Tendulkar’s (or anyone from the latter era’s on).

 

[Zinzan]

Imagine if he even came close to dominating attacks in the fashion Sir Viv did.

 

[cnerd123]

Imagine if they played the same number of tests during Viv’s peak which they played during Tendulkar’s (or anyone from the latter era’s on).

You're missing my point. I'm not making a legitimate argument. The glaring flaw in my argument is I've taken Viv's whole career - decline and everything.

Which is exactly the issue with looking at Sachin's career record and going 'oh, but he had like 6 years at the back end where he was merely good, that brings down his overall rating'. That's dumb. It's dumb to apply that to any player. It's dumb to apply that to Viv. But people exclusively seem to apply that to Sachin without stopping for a second to realise what a nonsense argument it is.

It's this weird double standard people have, it's like it's too hard to comprehend just how incredible Sachin's feats are that people need to find ways to normalise it and make it seem less great than it really is. Like, legitmately if he retired earlier his ranking in most people's eyes would be higher, and its shocking that cricket fans of all people can think that way. The average joe sure, but people who are supposed to actually know the game? Quite shocking.

Anyways, point made. Time to move on.

Imagine if he even came close to dominating attacks in the fashion Sir Viv did.

You said you didn't ever want to talk to me?

 

[Burgey]

I don't think they do. If they were fair dinkum about talking down Tendulkar's achievements they'd have a crack at that sort of middle career period of comparative mediocrity which I seem to remember him having. If anyone gets shot down for their decline compared with others when rating players its Ponting. Numpties will look at his career average in a couple of decades time and go "meh", but he was a great player.

 

[cnerd123]

Longevity should add to a player's legacy, more than anything. Sachin's case is a bit unique because we all knew he would never get dropped, he would have to retire, and so him clinging on for the 200th test and 100th ton when well past his peak definitely left a sour taste. But for vast majority of his long career, Sachin was in the side purely on merit. Even during the struggles with tennis elbow in the middle, we didn't actually have any real good bench strength to replace him with.

It takes a lot to be a professional athlete - to be able to command a spot in one of the strongest teams in the world for as long as Sachin did is remarkable. If we give bonus points for having a phase in your career where you're utterly dominant, why don't we give bonus points for being able to perform to the highest level for an exceptionally long career? I don't agree with valuing one more than the other - again, it's just seems to be valuing a player with one purple patch who then retires over the guy who is constantly churning out runs for decades. That's just illogical.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't think there's a double standard at all. It seems some here just assume that had ST retired in say 2008 with an average of around 55 that he'd be rated higher retrospectively, when there's no evidence that would be the case.

Cricket fans on CW are generally able to assess context very well; the bowling attacks batsmen faced, where in the order they batted, how they played, how long the played etc. If they didn't get these nuances, we wouldn't have seen Viv rate above Sanga in this exercise to start with. The biggest part Viv is rated as highly as he is due to the way he played, and the fear he put into the opposition.

 

[Slifer]

You're missing my point. I'm not making a legitimate argument. The glaring flaw in my argument is I've taken Viv's whole career - decline and everything.

Which is exactly the issue with looking at Sachin's career record and going 'oh, but he had like 6 years at the back end where he was merely good, that brings down his overall rating'. That's dumb. It's dumb to apply that to any player. It's dumb to apply that to Viv. But people exclusively seem to apply that to Sachin without stopping for a second to realise what a nonsense argument it is.

It's this weird double standard people have, it's like it's too hard to comprehend just how incredible Sachin's feats are that people need to find ways to normalise it and make it seem less great than it really is. Like, legitmately if he retired earlier his ranking in most people's eyes would be higher, and its shocking that cricket fans of all people can think that way. The average joe sure, but people who are supposed to actually know the game? Quite shocking.

Anyways, point made. Time to move on.



You said you didn't ever want to talk to me?

You actually have a valid point.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You're missing my point. I'm not making a legitimate argument. The glaring flaw in my argument is I've taken Viv's whole career - decline and everything.

Which is exactly the issue with looking at Sachin's career record and going 'oh, but he had like 6 years at the back end where he was merely good, that brings down his overall rating'. That's dumb. It's dumb to apply that to any player. It's dumb to apply that to Viv. But people exclusively seem to apply that to Sachin without stopping for a second to realise what a nonsense argument it is.

People apply it to Viv's career too and t's just as dumb. Definitely not exclusive to Sachin.

I've made people on CW make the argument that Greg Chappell was better than Viv because he averaged more and was thus "more consistent". Conveniently ignoring that after 87 tests over 12 years (the entire length of Chappell's career), Viv was averaging pretty much exactly the same (ie) 53. It's such a stupid argument when you consider retiring and not playing tests to be better than playing past your prime. I will never understand the logic.

This particular thing seems to be prevalent far more among cricket fans than other sports, even very stats-heavy sports like basketball for example. Penalising a player for a decline in his average is fair, but doing it without any nuance whatsoever and not taking into account the length of a career is bonkers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think there's a double standard at all. It seems some here just assume that had ST retired in say 2008 with an average of around 55 that he'd be rated higher retrospectively, when there's no evidence that would be the case.

People literally say they'd rate him higher if he had retired with a higher average instead of playing on during his decline.

 

[Zinzan]

I didn't actually see anyone say they'd have rated him higher had he retired 3-4 years earlier, but either way I was talking generally when talking about CW'ers. There'll always be exceptions, but I doubt many would mark him or Ponting (for that matter) down for playing past their peak.

Besides, I would have thought Sachin fans would be happy enough seeing the consensus this time around was that he's ahead of those other great bats of his era, namely Lara, Ponting, Kallis & Sanga.

 

[Burgey]

People literally say they'd rate him higher if he had retired with a higher average instead of playing on during his decline.

It may be that his playing on is seen by some as selfish in the pursuit of 100 hundreds, as opposed to if that record wasn't on the table and he'd just played on.

FTR I don't mark him down for that, I'm just supposing. I always felt him an enormously selfish player in any event.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It may be that his playing on is seen by some as selfish in the pursuit of 100 hundreds, as opposed to if that record wasn't on the table and he'd just played on.

FTR I don't mark him down for that, I'm just supposing. I always felt him an enormously selfish player in any event.

Yeah I think that's fair. His last few months were a giant vanity project. Much more valid reason to dock him some points than "His average dropped a little" imo.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea there are plenty of fair and valid reasons to rank Sachin below other players, and I don't really mind if people do, it's just the 'playing beyond your prime hurts your legacy' argument that I take offence too. It's a bullshit argument.

 

[Daemon]

Man I really wish I got to see Viv play. Every sport has these awesome characters that are giants of the game and I feel like Viv was probably the greatest of them all in that regard.

His ODI record in particular looks completely mental. Just light years ahead of the batsmen around him.

 

[ankitj]

Man I really wish I got to see Viv play. Every sport has these awesome characters that are giants of the game and I feel like Viv was probably the greatest of them all in that regard.

His ODI record in particular looks completely mental. Just light years ahead of the batsmen around him.

I can't help feeling that AB is a decent substitute for Viv Richards in present times. AB is always on another plane even if Kohli/Smith might be averaging more.