Who is better in these five batsmen?

[Turbinator]

I voted Richards, in his day a score of over 220 was considered a good effort, now they would reach that in the 35th over

Also in Richards day they started each innings with a new ball from both ends, which meant that the ball was never older than 25 overs.

The fielding restrictions were not in place for some of Richards career either.

Yea well too bad for him.

 

[archie mac]

Yea well too bad for him.

Good come back

 

[Turbinator]

For me, a batsmen's total amount of runs do the talking, I really don't care how or in which circumstances he produced those runs.

By the way pietersonrocks has dissapeared since the statements were made about him by Neil.

 

[silentstriker]

For me, a batsmen's total amount of runs do the talking, I really don't care how or in which circumstances he produced those runs.

I think thats an exceedingly shallow way of looking at it. For example, Lara's 153* was much better and much more important than his 400*. The number of runs, by itself, is meaningless.

 

[Turbinator]

I think thats an exceedingly shallow way of looking at it. For example, Lara's 153* was much better and much more important than his 400*. The number of runs, by itself, is meaningless.

You have a great point SS, however, this is not how I look at it.

 

[tooextracool]

Pietersen can play shots that none of those guys could even Sir Viv or Sachin. He could be great, he has all the talent that Sachin and Viv did, but he doesn't have the same hunger for runs that they do.

or the same temperament.Well not yet at least.

 

[Pratters]

For me, a batsmen's total amount of runs do the talking, I really don't care how or in which circumstances he produced those runs.

So would you consider the following better batsmen than Bradman?

BC Lara             128  227   6 11505  400*  52.05  32  47  161  - WI/ICC-XI
AR Border           156  265  44 11174  205   50.56  27  63  156  - AUS
SR Waugh            168  260  46 10927  200   51.06  32  50  112  - AUS
SR Tendulkar        132  211  22 10469  248*  55.39  35  41   82  - IND
SM Gavaskar         125  214  16 10122  236*  51.12  34  45  108  - IND
R Dravid            104  176  22  9049  270   58.75  23  46  146  - IND/ICC-XI
GA Gooch            118  215   6  8900  333   42.58  20  46  103  - ENG
Javed Miandad       124  189  21  8832  280*  52.57  23  43   93  1 PAK
RT Ponting          105  175  24  8792  257   58.22  31  34  120  - AUS
IVA Richards        121  182  12  8540  291   50.23  24  45  122  - WI
Inzamam-ul-Haq      113  187  20  8498  329   50.88  25  44   79  - PAK/ICC-XI
AJ Stewart          133  235  21  8463  190   39.54  15  45  263 14 ENG
DI Gower            117  204  18  8231  215   44.25  18  39   74  - ENG
G Boycott           108  193  23  8114  246*  47.72  22  42   33  - ENG
JH Kallis           102  172  28  8033  189*  55.78  24  40   98  - RSA/ICC-XI
GS Sobers            93  160  21  8032  365*  57.78  26  30  109  - WI
ME Waugh            128  209  17  8029  153*  41.81  20  47  181  - AUS
MA Atherton         115  212   7  7728  185*  37.69  16  46   83  - ENG
MC Cowdrey          114  188  15  7624  182   44.06  22  38  120  - ENG
CG Greenidge        108  185  16  7558  226   44.72  19  34   96  - WI
MA Taylor           104  186  13  7525  334*  43.49  19  40  157  - AUS
CH Lloyd            110  175  14  7515  242*  46.67  19  39   90  - WI
DL Haynes           116  202  25  7487  184   42.29  18  39   65  - WI
DC Boon             107  190  20  7422  200   43.65  21  32   99  - AUS
JL Langer           100  173  10  7393  250   45.35  22  29   68  - AUS
ML Hayden            84  150  12  7326  380   53.08  26  26  111  - AUS
G Kirsten           101  176  15  7289  275   45.27  21  34   83  - RSA
WR Hammond           85  140  16  7249  336*  58.45  22  24  110  - ENG
GS Chappell          87  151  19  7110  247*  53.86  24  31  122  - AUS

 

[archie mac]

For me, a batsmen's total amount of runs do the talking, I really don't care how or in which circumstances he produced those runs.

By the way pietersonrocks has dissapeared since the statements were made about him by Neil.

I am surprised by that, this would mean you do not rate the system used to arrive at the top batsman and bowlers in the world? As they rate a ton scored against Aust as worth more then one scored against the Bangas.

Give me the hundred (100* team total 198) scored by Kim Hughes on a shocking MCG pitch against Messers Holding, Garner, Roberts and Croft

Over the Dizzy 200 against the Bangas anytime!

As for Neil's statements I must have missed them, what thread?

 

[Slats4ever]

threads are always ordinary when people ask a question who they think the best so and so are and have a poll!!! IT's because the subject is so subjective and when they have a poll thinking that their alternatives are always the only ones it proves what a wally they are.

 

[Turbinator]

I am surprised by that, this would mean you do not rate the system used to arrive at the top batsman and bowlers in the world? As they rate a ton scored against Aust as worth more then one scored against the Bangas.

Give me the hundred (100* team total 198) scored by Kim Hughes on a shocking MCG pitch against Messers Holding, Garner, Roberts and Croft

Over the Dizzy 200 against the Bangas anytime!

As for Neil's statements I must have missed them, what thread?

You see, I completely agree with what you have to say, however, this does not work if you look at it in the long term. Yes Kim Hughes knock was far greater than Dizzy's, but I am not talking about individual runs here. As I said before I am talking about the total amount of runs and not about individual innings, and eventually no it doesn't make much of a difference as to how exactly a batsmen got those runs. For example, those who have produced good knocks against minnows will eventually have to face the good teams too. And if they produce runs against them too then it will count for their TOTAL amount of runs scored. What I am trying to say here is that it's not like Jayasuria or Inzi have confronted the minnows more times than Bevan or Richards.

Anyways, Neil's statements were in this thread on page 2.

 

[archie mac]

You see, I completely agree with what you have to say, however, this does not work if you look at it in the long term. Yes Kim Hughes knock was far greater than Dizzy's, but I am not talking about individual runs here. As I said before I am talking about the total amount of runs and not about individual innings, and eventually no it doesn't make much of a difference as to how exactly a batsmen got those runs. For example, those who have produced good knocks against minnows will eventually have to face the good teams too. And if they produce runs against them too then it will count for their TOTAL amount of runs scored. What I am trying to say here is that it's not like Jayasuria or Inzi have confronted the minnows more times than Bevan or Richards.

Anyways, Neil's statements were in this thread on page 2.

Okay with you now, I still think runs scored is not enough, you must take into a count SR, Ave and playing conditions. Otherwise the answer to every question will be Lara/ Tendulkar for greatest batsman and Warne/Murali for greatest bowler as they have the most runs/wickets.

Neil was right he broke the rules and should come clean or face a band

 

[Turbinator]

Okay with you now, I still think runs scored is not enough, you must take into a count SR, Ave and playing conditions. Otherwise the answer to every question will be Lara/ Tendulkar for greatest batsman and Warne/Murali for greatest bowler as they have the most runs/wickets.

Neil was right he broke the rules and should come clean or face a band

Okay, well yes I do believe Tendulkar is the best batsmen in the world and Warne/Murali are the best spin bowlers in the world (you can't mix spin bowling with pace bowling, they are 2 different things), anyways you have the right to believe whatever you wish.

By the way aren't the CW awards for the week suppose to be out by now.

 

[Pratters]

anyways you have the right to believe whatever you wish.

So even when you are shown facts, you will back a ludicrous statement? All right though very weird.

 

[adharcric]

1) Tendulkar 2) Bevan 3) Richards

 

[archie mac]

By the way aren't the CW awards for the week suppose to be out by now.

I have been waiting for Marc to send me some award winners, but I will do them tonight regardless

 

[GIMH]

I think thats an exceedingly shallow way of looking at it. For example, Lara's 153* was much better and much more important than his 400*. The number of runs, by itself, is meaningless.

That has to be the most ironic thing I've ever heard

If Ponting is a great captain because of his win-loss percentage, then Lara's 400* is the greatest Test innings ever, no???

 

[Matt79]

You have a great point SS, however, this is not how I look at it.

Dang - now THAT'S how you debate!

 

[silentstriker]

That has to be the most ironic thing I've ever heard

If Ponting is a great captain because of his win-loss percentage, then Lara's 400* is the greatest Test innings ever, no???

Nope. The win percentage when someone scores 400* in an innings is 0%.


And anothe reason is that batting has a myriad of stats and things you can look at. Captaincy has none.

 

[archie mac]

Nope. The win percentage when someone scores 400* in an innings is 0%.


And anothe reason is that batting has a myriad of stats and things you can look at. Captaincy has none.

What about winning the toss?

 

[Matt79]

But how would you factor in times when it was a good toss to lose?