Best batsman today ?

[manee]

Put statistics in code, rather than quote tags, wfdu_ben91

 

[gary0808]

Can't we just all agree that their all very good batsmen. Some people will prefer different styles such as Hayden the blaster, Ponting the short ball master, Tendulkar the technician. Statistics is not everything because they can be affected by so many things and most importantly the pitch and the bowling attack.

I will probably always prefer Ponting to Tendulkar because of his style and his awesome match saving century at Old Trafford in 05. No matter what anyone says they will not change my opinion on that despite Tendulkar probably having better statistics.

My top Ten

1 - Ricky Ponting
2 - Jaques Kallis
3 - Sachin Tendulkar
4 - Rahul Dravid
5 - Kevin Pietersen
6 - Mike Hussey
7 - Shivnarine Chanderpaul
8 - Kumar Sangakkara
9 - Adam Gilchrist
10 - Mahela Jayawardene/VVS Laxman

I didn't realise how many quality batsmen there are around.

 

[Adarsh]

And how many domestic teams does India have? Australia have 6.

What does that have to do with anything ?! There are still loads more people competing for one spot. Australia has a tiny population (also shows you how impressive it is that they're on top).

 

[sidddiq]

of course misbah ul haq the new king of the game

 

[aussie_ben91]

When you are in prime you score more runs than average but your batting style always remain same. I have not noticed Ponting changing anything in his game except using feet to spinners since the time i have been seeing him bat for Australia after 1996 world cup.

I suppose. But Ponting's been averaging in the mid 70's since Bradman past away which was almost 7 years ago. In a sense his gotten allot better and gone onto have more success then Tendulkar ever had. Do you think Hussey would've always averaged in the 80's in Test Cricket? Because their is a reason why he waited so long to debut as he only averaged 41 in our domestic FC competition.

What does that have to do with anything ?! There are still loads more people competing for one spot. Australia has a tiny population (also shows you how impressive it is that they're on top).

It has allot to do with everything. Less domestic teams, less opportunity & the more chance people are gonna give it up for another sport. Allot of grade cricketers (step before state cricket) could've reached higher heights then they have if they'd gotten the chance to play domestic cricket on a consistant basis if Australia had like 16 different domestic teams.

Can't we just all agree that their all very good batsmen. Some people will prefer different styles such as Hayden the blaster, Ponting the short ball master, Tendulkar the technician. Statistics is not everything because they can be affected by so many things and most importantly the pitch and the bowling attack.

I will probably always prefer Ponting to Tendulkar because of his style and his awesome match saving century at Old Trafford in 05. No matter what anyone says they will not change my opinion on that despite Tendulkar probably having better statistics.

My top Ten

1 - Ricky Ponting
2 - Jaques Kallis
3 - Sachin Tendulkar
4 - Rahul Dravid
5 - Kevin Pietersen
6 - Mike Hussey
7 - Shivnarine Chanderpaul
8 - Kumar Sangakkara
9 - Adam Gilchrist
10 - Mahela Jayawardene/VVS Laxman

I didn't realise how many quality batsmen there are around.

Sorry but how you can name Adam Gilchrist as one of the best batsman today is beyhond me. No one who bats at no. 7 in their entire career can be considered 'one of the best' and he wouldn't of played as much Test Cricket as he has if he wasn't a wicketkeeper.

Good, you just proved my point that you cant read.....
Just like you quoted, i said that i doubt Hayden will be able to maintain his career average, if he had played as many games as tendulkar...sure this has been an outstanding year for Hayden, and he's been one of the best One day batsman this year, if not the best....but he is 36 and do you really think that he will be able to match tendulkars tally of games play and still maintain that outstanding average? This year was great for him, next year he'll be 37, the year after, 38, and I still doubt that he will be averaging around 42.....if he does continue to average that much until he retires then i will be proved wrong, but that hasnt happened.....Now the reason i say that Tendulkar is easily a better batsman than Hayden is because he has played more games, has scored so many more hundreds and fifties, has more runs than anybody in ODI cricket by quite a margin (3000 runs i think it is) and still averages 44. This past year he got dismissed 6 times in the 90's, hes played very well this year and at 34, he's still got some cricket left in him. When Sachin's on his game he's one of the best. As is Hayden....but to maintain what sachin has over so many games, is a tough task, especially when you consider that he scored his first century after 17 matches.....plus The added pressure on being India's saviour....there have been unfair and ridiculous expectations put on him from an early age, (nothing hayden can even compare to) and for the most part, Tendulkar has risen to them.

let me tell you something......Firstly I respect you as a poster on this forum, you're well educated with the game, as am I, and I enjoy reading alot of your posts.......now then, I want to tell you about what pressure can do to a person......I've always played a high level of american football, i was good at all sports, but at football (without sounding like an arrogant jerk) I was quite good....I played for my provinces under 21, under 19, and under 17 teams, but i rarely performed in important matches...infact tryouts for the under 19 games i played horribly, the only reason i got selected was because of my dominant statistics in regular season play.....I averaged over 140 yards per game, and you probably dont understand what that is, but in comparisson, in our national quater final, semi final, and final game, i had 32, 51, and 55 because i was under pressure to perform....i am ashamed to say that i could never reach the next level of play to go professional because i could not be counted on in important games, after that year the scholarships i had been promised were taken away from me, because not to many good universities wanted someone who would not perform in important games.....this still haunts me, but my carrer came to an end when i tore my acl very badly....now football is history.

You might not want to believe it, but as an Athlete i can tell you from experience what pressure can do to someone, it finished me and finished alot of people i know....its tough, and my point was I admired Tendulkar and respected his game so much because the pressure on him was ten million times greated than what it was on me and most other sportspeople around the world. You are not indian and you cannot even begin to understand how people regard him in India....if he performs, he's second only to God in their eyes, if he doest perform, they want his head on a platter.....and the ammount he has done for indian cricket and cricket in general is extremely insperational and almost impossible to believe....thats why i hold him in such high regard.....

Pressure can also bring out the best in you, some different sportsman thrive on it and I'm sure that if Tendulkar's lifestyle bothered him at all and the way he plays & enjoys his cricket then that he would've given up the games years ago. You just can't penalize Ponting's success and say that he wouldn't of had the same success just because he lived in a peaceful country. How much pressured do you think Ponting was under by the Australian public to perform after being the first captain in almost 20 years to lose the Ashes? His 2 innings in the first 2 Test Matches last year were exceptional and set the real tone which won Australia the Ashes back and allowed his fellow teammates to settle and have success of their own.

India's batting line-up in 1989 along with their stats at the time and the final average:

Name - 1989 - Final
K Srikkanth - 1927 @ 31.59 - 2062 @ 29.88
NS Sidhu - 685 @ 34.25 - 3202 @ 42.13
S Manjrekar - 784 @ 60.30 - 2043 @ 37.14
D Vengsarkar - 6498 @ 44.50 - 6868 @ 42.13
R Shastri - 3036 @ 33.73 - 3830 @ 35.79
M Azharuddin - 2224 @ 46.33 - 6215 @ 45.03
Kapil Dev - 4246 @ 30.99 - 5248 @ 31.05

Tendulkar would primarily have been competing with Manjrekar, Vengsarkar and Azharuddin for his spot in the middle order and you can see it was pretty tough competition (given that an average in the mid 40's was pretty good back in the 80s).

This is not to mention that the Australian team has only really started dominating world cricket some time in the mid-90s. Tendulkar debuted in 1989.

If the Indian team was SOOOOO hard to get into then how come I always hear the excuse that Tendulkar had pressure to make runs and the entire country was on his shoulders because he was the only quality batsman in the lineup throughout the early parts of his career? :

 

[smssia0112]

It has allot to do with everything. Less domestic teams, less opportunity & the more chance people are gonna give it up for another sport. Allot of grade cricketers (step before state cricket) could've reached higher heights then they have if they'd gotten the chance to play domestic cricket on a consistant basis if Australia had like 16 different domestic teams.

The truth is, the fact that we have 6 teams is a massive advantage. It creates more competitiveness and raises the standard of our domestic competition greatly. Couple that with the fact that we are producing great sportsmen, and you have a world class team.

Sorry but how you can name Adam Gilchrist as one of the best batsman today is beyhond me. No one who bats at no. 7 in their entire career can be considered 'one of the best' and he wouldn't of played as much Test Cricket as he has if he wasn't a wicketkeeper.

You had me until there. Gilly is past his prime as a batsman, that is for sure, but your last sentence was way off the ball.

Firstly, he bats at 7 to relieve pressure of being a keeper, and it works, his test average is very high for a keeper. A secondary reason is the standard of our batting lineup.

As for your other point, Gilchrist got into the team because of his batting, not his keeping, that much should be obvious. He was plucked into the side because he was a keeper who could hold his own as a batsman. His first class average is massive for a wicketkeeper, and his test form until the past few years has been fantastic.

Adam Gilchrist basically redefined wicketkeeping, by making batting a lot more important. If it wasn't for a player like Gilly, guys like Kumar Sangakkara and Geraint Jones probably would never have been picked. Gilchrist was one of the first wicketkeepers to average around 50, and he wasn't the best gloveman in the country.

Is he one of the best now? No. But was he one of the best in his prime? Absolutely.

 

[aussie_ben91]

The truth is, the fact that we have 6 teams is a massive advantage. It creates more competitiveness and raises the standard of our domestic competition greatly. Couple that with the fact that we are producing great sportsmen, and you have a world class team.

You had me until there. Gilly is past his prime as a batsman, that is for sure, but your last sentence was way off the ball.

Firstly, he bats at 7 to relieve pressure of being a keeper, and it works, his test average is very high for a keeper. A secondary reason is the standard of our batting lineup.

As for your other point, Gilchrist got into the team because of his batting, not his keeping, that much should be obvious. He was plucked into the side because he was a keeper who could hold his own as a batsman. His first class average is massive for a wicketkeeper, and his test form until the past few years has been fantastic.

Adam Gilchrist basically redefined wicketkeeping, by making batting a lot more important. If it wasn't for a player like Gilly, guys like Kumar Sangakkara and Geraint Jones probably would never have been picked. Gilchrist was one of the first wicketkeepers to average around 50, and he wasn't the best gloveman in the country.

Is he one of the best now? No. But was he one of the best in his prime? Absolutely.

You completely misread what I said. I'm talking about his batting ability on it's own and if he didn't have the ability to wicketkeep >> AT ALL <<.

Gilchrist was selected as he was the best batsman that was considered a wicketkeeper in the country.

However if he wasn't a wicketkeeper fullstop and he was a pure batsman on his own he would've never played Test Cricket. Do you honestly think he would've been selected ahead of the likes of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, The Waugh Brothers, Damien Martyn and all of the accomplished domestic batsman like Katich, Hodge and a bunch of others if Gilchrist was just a batsman? A different player would've been selected to play at number 7 as they would be holding down the wicketkeeping position if that was the case.

Don't get me wrong, his a great wicketkeeper-batsman but his not a great batsman. Atleast not in Test Cricket. His great to watch when he gets going but his batting has thrived off of the other batsman in the team setting up a big total for him to throw the bat wildly with the tail and get a few quick runs but when they have struggled then he often doesn't get runs and throws his wicket away in the process. Today was a perfect example.

All I'm saying is Gilchrist would've never made the Australian team as a batsman on his own if he wasn't also a wicketkeeper.

 

[gary0808]

You completely misread what I said. I'm talking about his batting ability on it's own and if he didn't have the ability to wicketkeep >> AT ALL <<.

Gilchrist was selected as he was the best batsman that was considered a wicketkeeper in the country.

However if he wasn't a wicketkeeper fullstop and he was a pure batsman on his own he would've never played Test Cricket. Do you honestly think he would've been selected ahead of the likes of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, The Waugh Brothers, Damien Martyn and all of the accomplished domestic batsman like Katich, Hodge and a bunch of others if Gilchrist was just a batsman? A different player would've been selected to play at number 7 as they would be holding down the wicketkeeping position if that was the case.

Don't get me wrong, his a great wicketkeeper-batsman but his not a great batsman. Atleast not in Test Cricket. His great to watch when he gets going but his batting has thrived off of the other batsman in the team setting up a big total for him to throw the bat wildly with the tail and get a few quick runs but when they have struggled then he often doesn't get runs and throws his wicket away in the process. Today was a perfect example.

All I'm saying is Gilchrist would've never made the Australian team as a batsman on his own if he wasn't also a wicketkeeper.

I honestly believe if Gilchrist wasn't a wicketkeeper he would have played test cricket and probably at no4 or 5 for the whole of his career. He has the ability to take a game away from opposition in next to no time at all. Remember his 50 odd ball 100 against England last year. That was probably the best test innings I have ever watched. I also rate him much higher than Mark Waugh, Katich, Langer and Hodge.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Sorry but I completely disagree.

He definately wouldn't of played up the order, his to reckless and throws his wicket away and is useless when there is something innit for the bowlers.

Waugh, Katich, Langer and Hodge are accomplished and legitimate batsman who are allot better then Gilchrist.

His a great finisher in Test Cricket but if he had've been a top order batsman then he would've been shown for how good he really is.

 

[Ponting_14]

Ponting, and it's not even close to be honest.

 

[smssia0112]

You completely misread what I said. I'm talking about his batting ability on it's own and if he didn't have the ability to wicketkeep >> AT ALL <<.

Gilchrist was selected as he was the best batsman that was considered a wicketkeeper in the country.

However if he wasn't a wicketkeeper fullstop and he was a pure batsman on his own he would've never played Test Cricket. Do you honestly think he would've been selected ahead of the likes of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, The Waugh Brothers, Damien Martyn and all of the accomplished domestic batsman like Katich, Hodge and a bunch of others if Gilchrist was just a batsman? A different player would've been selected to play at number 7 as they would be holding down the wicketkeeping position if that was the case.

Don't get me wrong, his a great wicketkeeper-batsman but his not a great batsman. Atleast not in Test Cricket. His great to watch when he gets going but his batting has thrived off of the other batsman in the team setting up a big total for him to throw the bat wildly with the tail and get a few quick runs but when they have struggled then he often doesn't get runs and throws his wicket away in the process. Today was a perfect example.

All I'm saying is Gilchrist would've never made the Australian team as a batsman on his own if he wasn't also a wicketkeeper.

And I'm disagreeing with you. His average in tests right now is 49, and if he had just been a batsman he would've had the opportunity to bat higher. He only bats at number 7 because he is the keeper. His FC average is currently 45 and has been higher. That's enough to be considered for selection, it's higher than Michael Clarke's average and I firmly believe that he would have gotten his chance.

He isn't as reckless as Andrew Symonds, he does know how to play slowly at the right time.

 

[mattfb]

He isn't as reckless as Andrew Symonds, he does know how to play slowly at the right time.

I Disagree, you saw what happened today. Gilly was trying to be patient then tried to slog sweep a ball way outside off. He got to frustrated. Same with Symonds, but I feel Symonds can bat a more controlled innings.

 

[aussie_ben91]

And I'm disagreeing with you. His average in tests right now is 49, and if he had just been a batsman he would've had the opportunity to bat higher. He only bats at number 7 because he is the keeper. His FC average is currently 45 and has been higher. That's enough to be considered for selection, it's higher than Michael Clarke's average and I firmly believe that he would have gotten his chance.

He isn't as reckless as Andrew Symonds, he does know how to play slowly at the right time.

Nah, that average has come from him having no pressure on him and him being able to play his natural game without any concern. His specialty has been batting with the tail and I don't think he'd have much success batting up the order where the ball is newer and the bowlers are allot more fresh and confident and attacking fields are being set. IMO, his batting has fed off playing in a strong team.

I've only ever seen him play 1 really legitimate innings and that was against Bangladesh.

The reason Clarke has a poor FC record is because he was originally selected as a One-Day player and was tested as a Test player before he could set himself at FC level.

 

[Cricket_god]

Ricky Bunny PONTING IS THE WORST top order PLAYER of off spin i have seen on tv,so is he a comparable to greats?no because as players like neil harvey,ian chappel said the bowling attacks in the 1990-2000 were great,and lara ,inzi,rahul,sachin,have scored against better attacks where as he strugled then.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Ricky Bunny PONTING IS THE WORST top order PLAYER of off spin i have seen on tv,so is he a comparable to greats ,no because as players ike neil harvey,ian chappel sa the bowling attacks in the 1990-2000 were great,and lara ,inzi,rahul,sachin,have scored against better attacks when he strugled.

Thankyou for you worthless contribution.

Anyway i dont watch enough cricket apart from Australia games to comment. But Hussey is in fine form. His average must be around 85 now?