The 10 Greatest Test Batsmen of all time

[Cricketman]

Doesn't matter, he doesn't rank close to the top 10.
Collapse under pressure? Lolworthy.

 

[jordox]

I'm with Cricketman here. Inzy was truly brilliant, but saying he is one of the 10 best of all time is going too far.

 

[Insomniac]

So a guy averaging 78.16 in 49 test matches in his country's wins isn't worthy to be in the top 10 WHEN compared to somebody who is in the top 10 *cough Sachin*

Yet, we have a guy who manages 65.17 (which is not bad at all) in his country's wins called the "God of Cricket in India"

Case closed? Sachin Tendulkar will always make it to the top ODI players list, probably always the first name on the list. But test cricket only, as this thread states? It's more than debatable.

Sachin likes to choke, not as reliable as an Inzamam, or a Crowe.

Has the game of cricket come to only statistics, where the highest batting average = better batsman? Raw statistics do not favor Inzamam, but you make him look worse than what he really is.

Inzamam at his best was able to easily manuever and play with the tail enders, something Sachin hasn't really done / had to do as often. The only issue I will have with Inzamam's career is his fitness; had he kept his fitness up, dare I say he could have easily passed 10,000 runs in test cricket easily.

Let's look at pressure again, shall we? India vs Pakistan is as good as it gets for India (although prehaps in recent time Indians will have something else to say about that - Australia).

Honestly, if you have a player in your team, who win he scores a 100, there is a 68% chance of the team winning, you have one of the best players to have played the game in your team.

Anyway, the last time I bashed Sachin all the Indians threw a huge fit and started a campaign to get me banned. Don't wanna see that insecurity come back up again, do we?

 

[mattfb]

Everyone seems far to relcutant to add modern era players into their top 10. There are always players no one has seen before, because their records are good. Does that say something about the standard of the bowling back then? They didn't have any technology, they just ran in and bowled so it's something to think about.

I would have Steve Waugh in my top 10, because sheer grit and determination can't be shown in stats.

 

[jordox]

Has the game of cricket come to only statistics, where the highest batting average = better batsman? Raw statistics do not favor Inzamam, but you make him look worse than what he really is.

I don't see how the fact that Inzy has a higher average when his team won means that he is better than Tendulkar.

Inzamam averaged 31.40 against Australia. He averaged 32.27 against South Africa.

That is why I don't put him in a top 10 of all time. You can't be one of the 10 best batsman of all time, yet produce sheer mediocrity against 2 of the 7 major test teams (one of them being Australia - the best team for a large chunk of Inzamam's career). That's the way I see it. If you disagree, that's fine and I'll guess we'll just leave it at that. Inzy is an all time great - but not one of the 10 best of all time. I'd gladly put him high up in a top 10 of his era.

 

[sifter132]

So a guy averaging 78.16 in 49 test matches in his country's wins isn't worthy to be in the top 10 WHEN compared to somebody who is in the top 10 *cough Sachin*

Yet, we have a guy who manages 65.17 (which is not bad at all) in his country's wins called the "God of Cricket in India"

It's an interesting stat, but unless your team wins a LOT, it's kinda useless. That means in all the other Tests where Pakistan doesn't win Inzy's average is pretty...average, and that happens to be MOST of his career. When Pakistan loses his average is 28.36 (with only 2 centuries in his 39 losing Tests). Having a high average in winning Tests could imply you are good at beating up on weak teams, not that you are some 'backs to the wall' batsman. In fact it can imply the opposite, that Inzy only does well when the team does well and he has less pressure to fight through. If he was really a game winning batsman you would think he'd have a good 4th innings average: yet it's 37 (much less than his average in the previous 3 innings) with only 1 century in 31 innings - and it came against the mighty Bangladesh attack.

This theory of crumbling against a lot pressure or in important times can also be borne out by his poor record against good attacks, as pointed out above. Australia and South Africa have generally had the best pace attacks over his career and whenever Inzy came in against Australia at least he always seemed prime to be LBW McGrath for a pretty low score. Didn't always happen, but he rarely looked convincing. In fact in his last 15 innings against Australia from 1998 on, he passed 25 only 3 times. Once he got in he was OK, but man he struggled to get going. That's just my impression as a watcher of Inzy.

Inzy was good and I always loved Inzy's style, but I always thought Yousuf or even Younis Khan ended up just as good as Inzy.

The other thing of interest I saw when looking at Inzy's record is the number of captains he's played under: 11 different Test captains over his career (including himself, excluding Graeme Smith in World XI)

 

[robin2855]

King Cricket's Revised Top 10 - My take

"Pietersen"

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

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

Here is my take.

At the very beginning I want to make sure no offense is intended to any one?s Favorite(s).

It is my perception. One has every right to agree and disagree. We are all here mates and buddies.

Here you go :

I am not giving any value to sequence so long as the chosen name is there.

First and foremost Gavaskar has to be there by all means purely on merit.

Techniquewise I would put him above Ponti , Lara, Sachin as well.

He is considered as one of the best complete cricketer of all time.

His monumental 774 runs in his first test series with four centuries and an incredible average of 154.80 against the redoubtable West Indies is legendary.

Concentration? Has their ever been any cricketer born after Gavaskar who can match his concentration. Amazing stuff. I can go on and on with his cricketing abilities.

Next Ponti Vs Gavaskar. Who gets the nod?

Gavaskar?s career Record

Matches: 125 (10122 Runs, 34 Centuries, 45 Fifties, and Highest Score: 236*, Average 51.12)

Ponti's career Record

Matches: 131 (10960 Runs, 37 Centuries, 46 Fifties, and Highest Score: 257, Average 56.20)

Posting?s statistical record may be better than Gavaskar but Gavakar is miles ahead of Ponti in almost all cricketing skills. I would love to have them tied. But that would tantamount to belittle Gavaskar?s calibre and class.

Ponti has loads of talent and a phenomenal test career record.

So as a mark of respect Ponti definitely deserve to be in the 15 if the present list is allowed to be extended. If readers want to opt for that I have no objection. Ponti is definitely one of my favorite cricketers. But when it comes to real comparison it is the survival of the best. I am afraid Gavaskar is far superior in all respects than Ponti. Even Ponti will admit that.

Sutcliffe and Hutton

If you compare Sutcliffe with Hutton, both have enviable record as analyzed below:

Sutcliffe

His Test batting average of 60.73 is the fourth highest of any player with a completed career. Don Bradman, Graeme Pollock and George Headley are the only ones with a better test average it may be worth mentioning that Sutcliffe?s average never dropped below 60 throughout his entire Test career. That is phenomenal.

Matches: 54 (4,555 Runs, 16 Centuries, 23 Fifties, and Highest Score: 194, Average 60.23)

Hutton

Hutton is considered as one of the greatest batsmen the game has produced.

As far as English cricket is considered he is one of the two most accomplished professional batsmen to have played for his country, the other being Sir Jack Hobbs.

Matches: 79 (6971 Runs, 19 Centuries, 33 Fifties, and Highest Score: 364, Average 56.67)

Since I have not seen them playing I do not know:

How good were the opposition?

How were the pitches? Was it mostly spinning? Bouncy? Flat - Batsman?s paradise?

These are some of the unknowns factors that canot be ignored and has to be considered. When there are unknown factors the assessment cannot be considered accurate.

Purely on statistical records basis I think it would be unfair to separate them.

I would put Herbert Sutcliffe and Sir Leonard Hutton tied.

All other mentioned names in the selection appears to be okay

I hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

[robin2855]

Excellent Analysis!

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.

Wow! That was an awesome analysis.

First and foremost I have to agree it was an awesome analysis irrespective of whether I agree or not.

I really appreciate the fact that you are able to invest a huge amount of your valuable time to research, probe and dig to come up with a comprehensive write up that is going to benefit all and sundry irrespective of whether it is agreeable or not. It is also shows your great love and passion for cricket.

Your new look chosen X1 with Hayden looks Formidable Plus – No doubt about that.

However I will never agree with you or anybody else for that matter on a X1without VIV that is an impossibility ie like swallowing a bitter pill(LOL!)

You cannot disregard the opinion of Legends like Imran, Chappell, Wasim, Barry Richards or the Expert panel polls.Can you?

I really want to remove your apprehensions on Viv.

As you will most likely agree Visual presentation such as DVD is an effective way to make a better evaluation than just solely banking on statistics .

Since you have so much passion for Cricket and a good analyst I would strongly suggest if you are able to get hold of two of the Best DVDS commercially available on VIV.

First One

ESPN’S Legends of Cricket – DISC ONE

He is placed at # 3 and rightly so after Sir Don Bradman and Sir Garfield Sobers. This disc also has Shane Warne at # 4. A must for an avid fan. You should not miss it (Produced by ESPN in 2003). The whole package has seven discs.

It has a total of 25 LEGENDS plus others who ESPN could not fit in as Legends but has something on them as well. I bought it form an Online Video Store a few years back. The good thing about it is each legend is covered for app(20 -30) mts to avoid any boredom and has expert opinions of other legends and Top Cricket analysts from Australia and England .

I consider this as my Best Cricket Collection from over 100 DVD’s I have.

Second one

It is an Exclusive on Viv captioned Cricketing Legends – Viv Richards – An Awesome BBC TV presentation that also have coverage from Channel 9, Australia

Commentators: Richie Benaud and Jim Laker – A gold mine for Cricket lovers

Getting back to your chosen X1.

In including Hayden in the Eleven you have some valid points that is worthy of consideration and cannot be ignored. Certainly I am more enriched on Hayden now.

However I disagree to have Weekes ahead of Wonder batsman Sutcliffe.

as explained below :

If you compare Sutcliffe with Weekes both have very impressive record as analyzed below:

Sutcliffe

His Test batting average of 60.73 is the fourth highest of any player with a completed career. Don Bradman, Graeme Pollock and George Headley are the only ones with a better test average.

It may be worth mentioning that Sutcliffe’s average never dropped below 60 throughout his entire Test career. That is phenomenal.

Matches: 54 (4,555 Runs, 16 Centuries, 23 Fifties, and Highest Score: 194, Average 60.23)

Weekes

One of The greatest West Indian Batsman of all time.

Matches: 48 (4,455, 15 Centuries, 19 Fifties, and Highest Score: 207, Average 58.61)

As you can see both of them are close though Sutcliffe has a better average of 60.23 compared to Weekes’s 58.61.

Based on the above facts It would only be fair to have them tied instead of having one of them not there at all.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

[formula1man]

I believe Hayden Must be in that list.

 

[King Cricket]

^ Has Ben hacked your account?

 

[robin2855]

What's the Catch?

^ Has Ben hacked your account?

What's the catch? I am stumped on this one(LOL!)

Can You throw some light (honestly)?

Cheers!

 

[jordox]

What's the catch? I am stumped on this one(LOL!)

Can You throw some light (honestly)?

Cheers!

Ben (aussie ben91) is a big fan of Matt Hayden.

 

[robin2855]

Thanks Jordox!

Ben (aussie ben91) is a big fan of Matt Hayden.

Thanks Jordox for helping me out. I was yorked on that.

A good Doosra from King Cricket.

Cheers!

 

[robin2855]

In Defense of Inzi.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.

Pakistan has produced some Great batsmen : Past and Present.

Hanif, Zaheer, Majid, Javed, Saeed Anwar (one of my All time favorite Pakistani Cricketer – What a class player he was! Incredible indeed!),Yousuf. and Inzi.

Of the ones mentioned. above Javed, Zaheer and Inzi were exceptionally good.

Amongst the above three Inzi has all the qualification to be considered amongst the top10 greatest batsmen of all time.

Now my Criteria of being considered as amongst the top 10 batsman of all time:

What kind of Defense the batsman had?

What kind of shots he was able to play? Did the batsman have limitations of playing certain shot(s)

Capacity to Graft, Pace and Building an innings (Essence of test Cricket).

Was the batsman limited to paying at just one spot. or played with same results in other positions to serve the needs of the team?

Case of Gritty, Fighting innings

Ability to save team from Jaws of defeat

Mastery of Opposition bowlers

Quality of Opposite ( Mediocre/Quiaty Pace /Spin attack)

Was he equally effective against all type of bowling Pace and Spin alike ?

Consistency in batting ( Gaps between Peak and Poor Performance should not be too great)

Performance : Home and Abroad ( Should be equitable)

Delivering at crunch time

Mode of dismissal : Number of too much dismissals a bowled or Leg Before means he has some serious problems in his defense technique .

Mere statistics may be one criteria . But cannot be the sole criteria for a Batsman to even consider as a Great not to speak of being considered amongst the best.

So next Question is Does Inzi satisfy my criteria?

Lets analyze that

To start with Let’s began with the comments from the famous legend Imran Khan who actually introduced him

Imran said “ Inzi is the best batsmen in the world against pace. He seems to have so much time on his hands before the ball reaches him".

Though off topic (we are considering test) Inzi’s Marvels in both Semi Final and final is still considered by many as one of the best world cup innings . More importantly he delivered when it mattered most. Pakistan won on both occasions.

His is considered a very destructive batsman in both forms of the game.

Even when the team is in complete shambles Inzi walks in very lazily and looks cool and starts a repair work in his own inimitable manner.Things start to change in a dramatic manner as Inzi takes charge: Grafting, Pacing and then unleashes Attack all round the wicket and finishes off either saving or winning the game singlehandedly. We have seen that zillion times.

Along with Ponti, Kallis, Martin Crowe, Aravinda deSilva he possesses the best Pulling and hook shot the world has seen.

If I may dare say Inzi can match Sachin in every cricketing shots . Probably better in some shots.But he cannot match Sachin in defence. I think he is a little flawed in defense which resulted in many Leg Before decisions in his test career and opposition bowlers took full advantage of that. Also Sachin is a Genius and Inzi is Not.That is a reality. Inzi is one of the greatest batsman world has seen or ever will see.

His ability to pick the length of a delivery very early and play very late is unmatched.

I have not seen any Asian Batsman match him on that(Readers may agree or disagree).

He has tremendous footwork having the ability in getting quickly into position and dispatch the ball whenever he wants.

His undoings has been his famous run outs and flawed defense.If he had the better of these he would have easily scored 30 + centuris and a few thousand runs more.

Enough said lets take a look at his career records:

Overall Test career Record :

Matches:120 (8830 Runs, 25 Centuries, 46 Fifties, and Highest Score: 325, Average 49.60)

He played his best innings batting at No 4 and 5,7,8 as records shows below:

Batting Position 4: (Innings:98 ,Not out 6 , 4867 Runs, 15 Hundreds, 21 Fifties, Highest Score: 329, Average 52.90)

Batting Position 5: (Innings: 49 ,Not out 7 , 2144 Runs, 7 Hundreds, 14 Fifties, Highest Score: 329, Average 52.90)

Batting Position 7: (Innings: 8 ,Not out 2 , 320 Runs, 1 Hundred, 0 Fifties, Highest Score: 329, Average 53.33)

Batting Position 8: (Innings: 4 ,Not out 2 , 264 Runs, Hundred, 3 Fifties, Highest Score: 92, Average: 132)

The above confirms Inzi’s ability to bat his regular spot or lower down the order according to the needs of team and still maintain consistent record as his average testify .That is incredible! – Only A great Player can do that .

Performance - Home and Way

Away

Matches: 71 ( Not out 12, 304, 14 Centuries,20 Fifties, and Highest Score: 200*, Average 46.98)

Home

Matches: 49 (3709 Runs,11 Centuries,20 Fifties and Highest Score 329, Average:53.75)

Inzi was equally good in both Home and overseas conditions – Only A great Player can do that

Performance against Quality opposition

He averaged 50+ against all oppositions( England, India, West Indies, Sri Lanka, New Zealand – I am not including minnows for obvious reasons) barring Australia, South Africa

Regarding quality of attacks other than Australia, South Africa. The Sri Lankan English/Indian/West Indian pace attack were not far off from the Australian and South Africans. We all know the quality of Pace of Harmison, Simon Jones ,Hogg Vaas, Fernando, Walsh, Ambrose, Zaheer Khan, Irfan Pathan and the mesmerizing spin of Murali, Kumble and Harbhajan. He has seen it all .He has thrashed and conquered them all soundly and in style Can anyone deny that?

His contribution to team in the form of grafting, pacing, building, saving from impossible situations or winning is unparallel as exemplified by his numerous partnership he has shared for 3rd,5th,th,6th,7th 99th, 10th wickets with his compatriots -Incredible.

Has any of the greatest batsmen we have so far chosen boast of that. THE ANSWER IS MOSTLY LIKELY BIG NO. INZY IS TRULY A GREAT BATSMAN

3rd Wicket

Inzi and Ameer Sohail 323 against West Indies 1997 - 98

5rd Wicket

Inzi and Salim Malikl 258 against New Zealand 1993 - 94

6th Wicket

Inzi and Ijaz Ahmed 79 against Zimbabwe 1994 - 95

7th Wicket

Inzi and Wasim Akram 85 against New Zealand 1993 - 94

9th Wicket

Inzi and Nadeem Khan 96 against New Zealand 1993 – 94

10th Wicket

Inzi and Nadeem Khan 74 against South Africa 2006 – 2007

Weakness: He obviously had a flaw in his defensive technique which resulted in his getting Out LBW 34times out of 200 innings (he was not out 22 times)

Conclusion

One does not need to go any farther to confirm his greatness.

He has satisfied my criteria of a great batsman and deservedly found a place in my selection of 10 great test batsmen of all time. I will stand by it.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

[Cricketman]

Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Everton Weeks
Garfield Sobers
Brian Lara
Ricky Ponting
Sunil Gavaskar
Jack Hobbs
Rahul Dravid

A bit uneducated, I don't know TOO much about the guys from the past. But it's a pretty good list I think.