The 10 Greatest Test Batsmen of all time

[robin2855]

Clarification - Noninclusion of an Australian

I will prove you. But not now, I'm feeling sleepy- I'll do it in the evening. Ta ta.

King Cricket added 0 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...



Where will I FIT them?

King Cricket added 0 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...



I didn't know Sir Don was a Dutch.

Noninclusion of an Australian was meant about consideration of including other Australian Greats: Chappell, Border, Waugh, Ponti as Sir Don Bradman is automatically there and as No 1 universally accepted and off course you have answered that.

Hope this clears the misunderstanding about what was implied when I said Non Inclusion of an Australian.

Cheers !

 

[shravi]

Well Robin, the stat column at Cricinfo did some comprehensive number crunching recently and came up with this top 10:

1. Sir Donald Bradman
2. Brian Lara
3. Sachin Tendulkar
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Sir Jack Hobbs
6. Sir Garfield Sobers
7. Sir Leonard Hutton
8. Sunil Gavaskar
9. George Headley
10. Rahul Dravid

Seems good to me. Only because it has Dravid .

 

[King Cricket]

Noninclusion of an Australian was meant about consideration of including other Australian Greats: Chappell, Border, Waugh, Ponti as Sir Don Bradman is automatically there and as No 1 universally accepted and off course you have answered that.

That's where my question is- where will I fit them?

King Cricket added 15 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...

Ponting's better statistically and in my eyes, is also the better batsman.f

You win. *sigh* I couldn't find any proof even after searching cricinfo for 40 minutes. Guess I was not aware about Punter's stats. They are awesome, really. I admit- I was wrong.

My revised top 10.

1. Donald Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs
3. George Headley
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Garfield Sobers
6. Ricky Ponting
7. Herbert Sutcliffe
8. Brian Lara
9. Sir Viv Richards
10. Leonard Hutton
11. Sunil Gavaskar

 

[Annoyingdevil]

1. Garfield Sobers
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Donald Bradman
4. Shane Warne
5. Jack Hobbs
6. Brian Lara
7. Mohammad Yousuf
8. Ricky Ponting
9. Sir Viv Richards
10. Mohammad Yousuf
11. Inzamam-ul-Haq

I think that should be it

 

[robin2855]

Welcome Annoyingdevil!

1. Garfield Sobers
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Donald Bradman
4. Shane Warne
5. Jack Hobbs
6. Brian Lara
7. Mohammad Yousuf
8. Ricky Ponting
9. Sir Viv Richards
10. Mohammad Yousuf
11. Inzamam-ul-Haq

I think that should be it

Barring Your selection of Shane Warne(He is a bowler - isn't he?) and duplication of Mohammad Yousuf(you have included him twice - once at #7 and again at #10) You have made a formidable Selection - Good job!.

So replace them with 2 other master batsmen you think would be appropriate and you will have even a more formidable selection.

Yuo can do it!

Cheers!

 

[robin2855]

Welcome sifter132! Breaking News - No VIV in 10 Greatest Batsmen selection

Well Robin, the stat column at Cricinfo did some comprehensive number crunching recently and came up with this top 10:

1. Sir Donald Bradman
2. Brian Lara
3. Sachin Tendulkar
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Sir Jack Hobbs
6. Sir Garfield Sobers
7. Sir Leonard Hutton
8. Sunil Gavaskar
9. George Headley
10. Rahul Dravid
Source: Cricinfo - Blogs - It Figures - The great Test batsmen - a look across 132 years

That to me looks pretty close.




Hmmm, you include Pietersen (Inzy and Martin Crowe too???), yet accuse others top 10 of being laughable. Hey if you leave Bradman out, THAT is laughable. Probably Lara and Tendulkar too, but just because YOU think Gavaskar, Chappell, Dravid and Tugga are locks for the top 10 doesn't mean we all have to agree.

It is indeed a good selection from statinfo at Cricinfo. But one also observes a glaring omission. And the Omission is Unforgiving?? No Viv amongst the 10 greatest batsmen i.e. breaking news for me. I almost had a heart attack (LOL!) when I saw Viv?s name missing. It must have been one of those rare oversight.

If I may dare say Viv along with Bradman, Sobers Lara, Sachin, Headley, Hobbs, and Gavaskar are automatic choices .

Almost every Reader who have chosen to express their 10 greatest selection had Viv as an automatic choice.

So let?s see what the superstars has said about Viv (it was a part of my quiz Bonus question and since it has been answered I have no problems in recapturing those here again)

Here you go :

Wasim Akram said ?The greatest batsman he ever bowled to?

Imran Khan said ?Richards was the best ever batsman against genuine fast bowling?

Ian Chappell said ? The second-greatest batsman he ever saw after Sir Garfield Sobers"

Barry Richards said ? Best batsman he ever witnessed?

Martin Crowe said ? Greatest, the most destructive, and the most intimidating batsman he ever saw"

Colin Croft said "Mohammad Ali of Cricket"

Mark Nicholas said ? I have battled with this question. Who was the greatest batsman I have seen from Gavaskar, Barry Richards, Tendulkar, Vivian Richards. I have to say it is Richards because he performed when it mattered most?

Dicky Bird said "If I had chosen an All time World X1 I would put him at No3"

Assessment of Richards by Experts an ESPN

In 2000 a 100 member panel of experts chose Viv alongside , Sir Garfield Sobers, Sir Jack Hobbs and Shane Warne as one of the five Cricketers of he Century in 2000.

The ICC rankings for the best test batsmen in the history of the game has Viv ranked at 5 after Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Len Hutton, Sir Jack Hobbs, and Peter May.

ESPN carried out a poll in 2004 participated by 15 of the leading names in cricketing history and they voted Viv the third greatest ever player after Bradman and Sobers, and the second greatest ever batsman after Bradman.

What?s your take on this glaring omission of Viv from the stat column at Cricinfo that you referred to?

Regarding Peterson read my response to King Peterson yesterday under the caption : In defence of Peterson. Objection Handling (LOL!)

It will be as clear as a day and I stand by my choice of Kevin at # 9 .

I will have Objection Handing of Martin Crowe posted most likely today and that of Inzy tomorrow. I strongly suggest you read those as and when it is posted.

Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion. I never said my choices are the best one. But as a reader one has a right to express one's own opinion as well as one's opinion on other?s thoughts which is what a Forum is all about ie exchange of opinion/thoughts.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

[sifter132]

I will certainly read those objections when you post them, but I think Martin Crowe would be lucky to crack a Top 50 let alone a Top 10 list. Inzy was better, but I don't think he should make a top 20 list, or a top 10 list.

I actually support Pietersen's case more than most people who say it's too early blah blah. He's been a hell of a batsman, but I THINK he's not quite a Top 10 batsman yet, maybe top 20-25 though.

Now to your defence of Viv Richards, yes he was destructive and much feared but so is Andrew Symonds. The problem with Viv, as the Cricinfo column points out was his inconsistency - too often went missing. He's the batting equivalent of Wasim Akram . Wasim was an awesome bowler who looked like the best in the world and probably should have been the best in the world, but didn't always perform that way. His overall record looks excellent, but he seemingly alternated between insanely good deliveries/spells and spells where he just looked pretty uninterested and unthreatening. I got a similar impression from Viv. And like Wasim, Viv was better in ODI cricket as a result. That's part of the reason why Viv gets all those glowing quotes you've written, I'm sure you can find similar Akram quotes. Looks awesome, but didn't always play that way. A better, harder hitting Mark Waugh if you like. Anyway, just my Viv impression, disagree as you will.

After looking at that Cricinfo list and a few others, I've made my own - see what you think:
1. Sir Donald Bradman
2. Ricky Ponting
3. Sir Jack Hobbs
4. Sir Leonard Hutton
5. Sir Garfield Sobers
6. Brian Lara
7. Matthew Hayden
8. Sachin Tendulkar
9. Sunil Gavaskar
10. Sir Everton Weekes

I've put Ponting and Hayden higher than most. Could be my Australian bias, but there have been times in the last few years when these two have been in imperious form. The most dominating batting I've ever seen (in Test cricket) has come from these two and possibly Brian Lara. It just reflects my belief that a batsman should be judged just almost as much on the peak periods in his career, than just his career average or how many runs he made in total.

Hayden usually gets discarded because people harp on how he struggled against Ambrose and Walsh back in '96. Well sorry everyone, but most players have a downtime in their career. Steve Waugh took 4 years to make a century, Bradman's average was halfed during Bodyline. But in the early 2000s Hayden dominated series' and made lots of hundreds. Just look at his stats under Steve Waugh from 2000 when he made his comeback until the end of 2003/04 when Steve retired: 41 Tests, 4105 runs, 67.29 average, 66.25 Strike rate, 16 hundreds in only 69 innings. I'm not sure if any player other than Don has a peak period that good (well Ponting comes close - more in next paragraph). He's certainly been more than solid under Ponting's reign as well with an average of just over 46 during that time and 13 more hundreds in those 49 Tests.

Ponting also had a great renaissance when he came back into the team under Steve Waugh: 51 Tests, 4293 runs, 64.07 average, 60.43 Strike rate, 17 hundreds in his 80 innings under Steve Waugh. But the difference between Ponting and Hayden is that Ponting continued playing well despite taking over as captain. As captain, Ponting has: 56 Tests, 5139 runs, 56.47 average, 60.52 Strike rate, 17 hundreds in 102 innings.

Now take a look at Viv's season by season averages: Viv had 3 good periods as the stats see it, and none of those were very long. That implies he was just riding form or beating up on an opposition's attack that he happened to like. Viv seemed to like the England attack for example. 1975/76-1976 was form period A lasting 14 Tests, period B: 1979/80-1980/81 of 16 Tests and 1984/85 & 1985/86 lasting 14 Tests. Other than those 3 periods, he averaged less than 50 easily. In fact using statguru at Cricinfo to calculate it: he averaged 39.23 in those other 77 Tests not covered by his 3 form periods. That to me is a good batsman, but not a top 10 batsman. If you can only average over 50 in 1-2 year periods at most, I don't think you deserve a place in the top 10. You'll say, well Hayden and Ponting have made my top 10 based on their peak period too. Yes, but theirs was longer over 4 years (more for Ponting) and against more varied oppositions than Viv.

The other issue here is the inflation of batting averages. Yes the batsmen in Hayden and Ponting era average a few runs more than Viv's era, but I did some studies into that too using Cricinfo's Statsguru. Here are the results:
1974/75-1991 (Viv's era) - Average average of a top 6 batsman was 36.80 (excluding games with Sri Lanka for quality reasons and West Indies to keep the results independent)
1993/94-2009 (Hayden/Ponting era) - Average average of a top 6 batsman was 38.82 (excluding games with Zimbabwe, Bangladesh for quality reasons and Australia to keep the results independent)
1999-2009 (Hayden/Ponting peak era) - Average average of a top 6 batsman was 40.02 (excluding games with Zimbabwe, Bangladesh for quality reasons and Australia to keep the results independent)

As you can see Viv really doesn't suffer a big disadvantage for his time period going by those numbers. The other thing with Viv is that he was an awesome ODI batsman, but that doesn't make his Test cricket any better and tends to get people remembering him as being better than he was due to his excellent ODI performances.

Anyway, as you can see I have too much free time at the moment, but I find it all very interesting.

 

[robin2855]

In defense of Martin Crowe. Objection Handling( LOL!)

Bradman
Hobbs
Headley
Tendulkar
IVA Richards
Sobers
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Gavaskar
Lara/Ponting

My Top 10. Not 100% sure of the order but it's pretty accurate I think. The fact that Pietersen, Crowe and Inzamam are included in the 1st post Top 10 is pretty laughable.

In defense of Martin Crowe. Objection Handling( LOL!)

It was a common feeling that the world?s best batsman had to come from Super heavyweights of Cricket : Australia , South Africa or West Indies or middleweight England at that time.

But Martin Crowe broke that myth by proving to the world that a batting genius can also emerge from a lesser ranked country like New Zealand.

Together with the legendary Sir Richard Hadlee he was instrumental in developing New Zealand into a formidable Cricket team . No wonder New Zealand tasted great success in his time . Notable being an incredible series win over Australia in 1985 in their own den and Martin Crowe and Hadlee played key roles in those victories. No wonder Martin Crowe?s; batting record against Australia looks very impressive and that achieved against quality opposition makes it all the more credible and noteworthy.

As a batsman he is undoubtedly the best New Zealand produced so far and unquestionably one of the best in the world in his playing days.

According to Inzi Martin Crowe is one of the three best batsmen he has seen along with Viv Richards and Ricky Ponting.

He was in essence a Complete batsman and could play all the shots in the cricket book and with absolute mastery . His Majestic pulls and hooks against the top quality opposition were a treat to watch . It appeared that he had all the time in the world to play his shots which is the hallmark of a great batsman. Though it would be out of context as we are discussing test cricket - His performance in the 1992 world Cup is legendary.

His 17 centuries and 18 fifties in a test career of 77 tests testifies his dominance of opposition bowlers.

He was associated with Andrew Jones in a Word record 3rd wicket partnership of 467 against Sri lanka (1990-91) which was later broken.It was during this innings that he scored a career best 299 which is still the highest innings by a New Zealander in Test history.

Overall Test career Record :

Matches: 77 (5444 Runs, 17 Centuries, 18 Fifties, and Highest Score: 299, Average 45.37)

One wonders what he would have achieved had he played 100 or more Test matches.

No wonder he was positioned at 5th in a DVD named World of Cricket - Profiles of Cricket Legends that also includes other Cricket Legends : Sir Don, Sachin, Botham, Imran Khan and Graeme Pollock . I purchased it from an Online Video Store and thoroughly enjoyed his portion as well as that of others.

His home and away performance confirms he was equally effective in all type of wickets which is a hallmark of a great cricketer.

Away

Matches: 45 (3043, 9 Centuries, 11 Fifties, and Highest Score: 188, Average 45.37)

Home

Matches: 32 (2401 Runs, 8 Centuries, 7 Fifties and Highest Score 299, Average:50.02)

He has a very impressive record against top opposition of his time : Australia,
England and Pakistan.

Australia

Matches: 17 (1255 Runs, 3 Centuries, 6 Fifties, and Highest Score: 188, Average 48.27)

England

Matches: 22 (360 Runs,5 Centuries, and Highest Score 143, Average:40.60)

Pakistan

Matches 11(973 Runs, 2 Centuries, 6 Fifties, and Highest Score: 174, Average 57.24)

Conclusion

His overall test career and impressive record against quality opposition of his era and his ability to play all kind of cricketing shots with absolute mastery and in the manner he scored his runs leads me to believe that he deserves a spot as an all time great batsman. It is my personal assessment. Others need not agree which is okay with me .

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

[King Cricket]

Barring Your selection of Shane Warne(He is a bowler - isn't he?) and duplication of Mohammad Yousuf(you have included him twice - once at #7 and again at #10) You have made a formidable Selection - Good job!.

Sir Don at 3, Sir Jack at 5, Md Yousuf at 7, (He shouldn't be in the top 10), and no Sutcliffe- I disagree.

 

[robin2855]

Rationale of selection

Sir Don at 3, Sir Jack at 5, Md Yousuf at 7, (He shouldn't be in the top 10), and no Sutcliffe- I disagree.

I don't think he arranged it in sequence.

I do agree with you Yousuf cannot be in the top 10. It is just his perception.

He has every right to express his thoughts and may have a rationale which
we may not be aware of. let's respect that.

Also Inzi and Yousuf are not the same though I admit Yousuf improved tremendously in the last 4-5 years. Inzi is also ahead of Javed another class batsman. I would not include Javed either. Barring Yousuf It does look formidable to me as far as I am concerned.

BTW formidable does not mean it is the best. He has two choices left as Warne cannot obviously be there and he has to have a replacement for the spot he has to fill for duplicating Yousuf. Who knows it may be Sutcliffe(LOL!). Let's see what he come up with. I have my fingers crossed.

BTW Yours, King Peterson, Dare and Sifter's Original one from Cricinfo (barring the fact their is no Viv - Unbelievable!) are all quality selections -Formidable Plus(LOL!). However I will stand by mine irrespective of readers taking a swipe at me for having Peterson,Martin Crowe and Inzi.

My choice is not purely based on statistics and which cannot be the sole criteria for being considered as one of the greatest batsman. Mine is based on records, range of shots the batsman was able to play, domination of bowlers, quality of opposition, Performance : Home, Away, Positions he batted, circumstances he batted, Fighting knocks/Saviour( Ex Dravid).It is my way of perception and I will stand by it.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

[King Cricket]

Peterson

"Pietersen"

King Cricket added 1 Minutes and 18 Seconds later...

And Robin, what do you have to say about my revised top 10?

 

[sifter132]

My choice is not purely based on statistics and which cannot be the sole criteria for being considered as one of the greatest batsman. Mine is based on records, range of shots the batsman was able to play, domination of bowlers, quality of opposition, Performance : Home, Away, Positions he batted, circumstances he batted, Fighting knocks/Saviour( Ex Dravid).It is my way of perception and I will stand by it.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

Yeah fair enough. You've got a criteria and have stuck to it. Everyone ends up with a different list and that's why it makes for such great discussion.

 

[Insomniac]

Robin, I agree with you on the point that Inzamam and Crowe should be included on their fighting knocks / winning knocks.

It is imperative to note that scoring runs isn't everything, and that winning matches for your country is more important than just "making runs" with no team objective in sight.

 

[Cricketman]

Hitting runs to win is all good and dandy, but Inzy is nowhere near the 10 best batsman ever no matter what way you put it, sorry.

 

[Insomniac]

Hitting runs to win is all good and dandy, but Inzy is nowhere near the 10 best batsman ever no matter what way you put it, sorry.

Sorry, I didn't know that you focused on run-machines who collapse under the tiniest bit of pressure rather than those who thrive on pressure.