Top ten greatest bowlers and batsmen of all time

[a massive zebra]

the last 7 years of Viv's career were at an average of 43

Which is David Boon/Mark Waugh/Desmond Haynes standard batting. In other words, good solid Test match quality batting, not "non factor" batting as Coronis put it.

 

[Slifer]

Which is David Boon/Mark Waugh/Desmond Haynes standard batting. In other words, good solid Test match quality batting, not "non factor" batting as Coronis put it.

Not just that, the guy isn't really missing anything in his cv. Averages 40+ vs all comers, 48 across all test innings. Had memorable series: England 76, Australia 79-80, Pakistan 80, etc. Like Srt and others, probably played wayyyy past his prime but that shouldn't detract from his greatness nor his standing as one of the candidates for 2nd best after the Don.

No comment on his exploits in odis.

 

[smash84]

Not just that, the guy isn't really missing anything in his cv. Averages 40+ vs all comers, 48 across all test innings. Had memorable series: England 76, Australia 79-80, Pakistan 80, etc. Like Srt and others, probably played wayyyy past his prime but that shouldn't detract from his greatness nor his standing as one of the candidates for 2nd best after the Don.

No comment on his exploits in odis.

Not to mention the intangibles that he brought by attacking the best bowlers of the opposition and lifting his team

 

[harsh.ag]

Best is always much more subjective than greatest, as it should be. In the greatest race, I have little doubt that Tendulkar eclipsed Sir Viv. And Sir Garry to for that matter. Hobbs and WG are the big ones imo who can lay claim to a higher degree of greatness.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Averaging 43 in the second half of the 80s when past your prime doesn't disqualify anyone.

Statistically batting the 80s was about 10% less prolific across the board as it was in the 00s and I personally believe this represents (broadly) levels of difficulty.

I'm just about to remember an era when a boundary was a really well timed shot, not a lower or batsman's misshit slash or hook.

I try to avoid arguments on which eras were tougher than others because they lead to some verbal GBH of the earhole. But absolutely batting in the 80s was tougher as a rule than it has been in the past 15 years. Batsmen are largely a protected species now and advertising revenue demands sixes and run a ball centuries.

In conclusion, Viv's "slump" would be unachievable by 99% of batsmen in history.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

.... Sorry for random typos and incorrect corrections. On my crappy android

 

[harsh.ag]

"Misshit slash" should be used more frequently tbh

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yeah a happy accident that one.

 

[Coronis]

Which is David Boon/Mark Waugh/Desmond Haynes standard batting. In other words, good solid Test match quality batting, not "non factor" batting as Coronis put it.

No, not a non factor, you're right. Not something you'd expect from the "2nd best after the Don" either though, no?

Averaging 43 in the second half of the 80s when past your prime doesn't disqualify anyone.

Statistically batting the 80s was about 10% less prolific across the board as it was in the 00s and I personally believe this represents (broadly) levels of difficulty.

I'm just about to remember an era when a boundary was a really well timed shot, not a lower or batsman's misshit slash or hook.

I try to avoid arguments on which eras were tougher than others because they lead to some verbal GBH of the earhole. But absolutely batting in the 80s was tougher as a rule than it has been in the past 15 years. Batsmen are largely a protected species now and advertising revenue demands sixes and run a ball centuries.

In conclusion, Viv's "slump" would be unachievable by 99% of batsmen in history.

You must rate players like Gavaskar and Miandad even higher then?

 

[Burgey]

Lol Miandad.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Why must I?

 

[Coronis]

Why must I?

Based on your assessment of batting in the 80's.

 

[oblongballs]

Averaging 43 in the second half of the 80s when past your prime doesn't disqualify anyone.

Statistically batting the 80s was about 10% less prolific across the board as it was in the 00s and I personally believe this represents (broadly) levels of difficulty.

I'm just about to remember an era when a boundary was a really well timed shot, not a lower or batsman's misshit slash or hook.

I try to avoid arguments on which eras were tougher than others because they lead to some verbal GBH of the earhole. But absolutely batting in the 80s was tougher as a rule than it has been in the past 15 years. Batsmen are largely a protected species now and advertising revenue demands sixes and run a ball centuries.

In conclusion, Viv's "slump" would be unachievable by 99% of batsmen in history.

Exactly. I remember watching matches back then when the advertising boards were the boundary, not some rope 6 meters in.