Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[Tom Halsey]

As regards to my answer to this particular question, i would have to say Geoff Boycott.
He played cricket in an era when cricket was professional, faced top-notch bowlers in the opposition ( the aussie attack, the WI attack, the spin quartet and Imran Khan) and did pretty darn well for an opener ( my pick for the best post WWII opener after Gavaskar ).

That is a case of "most recent remembered best" IMO. You can't really make the arguments for better quality attacks either really IMO because you never saw the attacks of yesteryear. And in reality, the pitches are covered now, and in general are alot better so even if the players now faced better attacks, it all evens itself out IMO.

 

[C_C]

That is a case of "most recent remembered best" IMO. You can't really make the arguments for better quality attacks either really IMO because you never saw the attacks of yesteryear. And in reality, the pitches are covered now, and in general are alot better so even if the players now faced better attacks, it all evens itself out IMO.

no but i've read extensively about them and i am fairly aware of the statistics of prominent cricketers from most eras- that leads me to a reasonable impression in my opinion.
In my opinion, Boycott faced an attack that was overall superior to any faced by English batsmen before him- superior due to the number of creme de la creme bowlers and the variety of their craft.
Some english batsmen after him have faced attacks of similar potency and variety but none succeeded as well as he did.

PS: Covered/uncovered pitches are irrelevant really. And for your information, Boycott played for the first few years of his career on uncovered pitches as well.

 

[SJS]

I have to hold my hand up as the guilty party.

I think DRJ is the most traduced player in the history of test cricket. His popular (Australian) stereotype is of the supreme Pommie snob, both autocratic & arrogant. In reality I think he represented the British qualities of cool-headed determination, resolve & disdain for naysayers.

He lead England on only 15 occasions (a stop-gap in today's terms, Vaughan is already on 21 having missed one thru injury too), but he will always be remembered as one of the select few who have won back the urn in Oz. The Australians of 32/33 may not quite have had the all-round strength of the 04/05 vintage, but their batting was awesome (Richardson, Woodfull, McCabe) with, of course, The Don @ no 3. If ever a team needed a plan it was DRJ's.

Of course the plan he produced (originally a defensive gambit, transformed into a potent attack by the genius of Larwood) lives on in infamy; it being outlawed shortly after. The simple fact is that DRJ broke no rules, but "bodyline" was an albatross around his reputation to his grave & beyond.

None of this mentions his batting, as you may've noticed! History has been almost as unjust to his batting as to his reputation. He retired prematurely (hurried along by a typically perfidious MCC) at only 33 with an average of exactly 48. He probably didn't play enough tests to truly be in the pantheon, but was superb defensively & marshalled his talent for every run it was worth.

In reality Wally Hammond should've got my vote, but, being the magnificent player he was, will garner more support than DRJ. My instinct to support the underdog has, on this occasion, got the better of my critical faculties.

I agree with every word of what you say,.

The bodyline series obfuscates all his merits. One of the greatest captains the game has ever seen and a far better batsman than he is remembered to be.

A very unlikely place where I found an article on him is the book CRICKET HEROES edited by David Lemmon. Amongst the ususal Tate, Compton, Miller, Sobers, Lillee, Snow, Laker, Lindwall etc is a name that you wouldnt think of finding in a list of 'heroes'. It is that of Douglas Robert Jardine. The article is by Tony Pawson.

One of the best passages in the article sums up the special charachterstics that Jardine brought to England's captaincy. I quote...

In one thing only was I completely at one with him. Whatever your attitude to the game, if you play it at any level, you should play to win, with every fibre of your being devoted to doing well. There is no sympathy from me for the 'sporting loser' reputation in which some Englishmen seem to take pride. A loser is just a loser. And having taken part in an Olympic games I know what the competitors think about 'the taking part being more important than the winning'. Most of them class it as a bit of romantic nonsense or a feeble excuse for personal failure.

As Larwood wrote, "England will be fortunate indeed if it ever has to serve under a better man than Jardine"

 

[andyc]

WG Grace for me.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Covered/uncovered pitches are irrelevant really. And for your information, Boycott played for the first few years of his career on uncovered pitches as well.

Why are they irrelevant? They make a big difference to the conditions in which different batsmen have to bat.

And 'a few years' doesn't equate to the 20 or so years that other batsmen had to play on uncovered pitches, does it?

 

[Pratters]

Its impossible to judge the best English batsman of all time. People who have seen Tendulkar and Gavaskar have different views on who is the best.

So many variabilities, its ebst to chose the best batsman of each era.

If we chose the best of the 90s which is from when I have seen my cricket, I would say Graham Thorpe. Gooch wasnt his best in the 90s. Thorpe wasnt/isnt a great batsman but certainly a very good one. Some one mentioned Strauss. I have been very impressed by him as well and it isnt about the hype as was the case with Vaughan whom people judged awesome very early. Strauss indeed has potential to be the best.

Its impossible to say who is th best from the past but I always enjoy reading more about these players as do most ardent cricket fans.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Gooch made his highest score in the nineties - can't have been too bad in the early part of the decade.

Thorpe is IMO a great batsman - at times, he's been standing alone, once Stewie and Athers were gone. And IMO he's as good now as he ever was.

 

[badgerhair]

If we chose the best of the 90s which is from when I have seen my cricket, I would say Graham Thorpe. Gooch wasnt his best in the 90s.

In the 90s, Gooch got 333 and 123 in a match against India, played the best-ever Test innings by an English batsman, the 154* at Headingley against WI, and was ranked number one in the world on PWC for about 2-3 years following the decline of Viv Richards. In fact, just about all of Gooch's reputation as a batsman rests on his deeds in the 90s.

In other words, you are talking through an organ most of us don't use for that purpose.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Pratters]

In the 90s, Gooch got 333 and 123 in a match against India, played the best-ever Test innings by an English batsman, the 154* at Headingley against WI, and was ranked number one in the world on PWC for about 2-3 years following the decline of Viv Richards. In fact, just about all of Gooch's reputation as a batsman rests on his deeds in the 90s.

In other words, you are talking through an organ most of us don't use for that purpose.

Cheers,

Mike

Okay my mistake! The only Gooch I really saw live was during 93 English tour of India where most of the team struggled and then his career was over in around 94 if I am not mistaken.

I would have thought that Gooch had good performances before in the 80s which must have comprised most of his career. Obviously I am totally wrong.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Hobbs.


197 Centuries.


'Nuff said.

 

[marc71178]

Gooch made his highest score in the nineties - can't have been too bad in the early part of the decade.

1990 was a stupid year for batting

 

[James90]

Sir Geoffrey Boycott

Sir??? Since when?

 

[Richard]

I picked Hobbs, but I think that in 10 years, Andrew Strauss could be on that list. Looks like a great player.

Very, very unlikely.
Good player, yes - but he'll average in the mid-40s if you ask me.

 

[Richard]

Richard- you gotto stop with your ridiculous 'would've averaged 100/500 today' kinda comments. The kind of professionalism we have today simply makes a career bowling average lower than high teens and batting average higher than late 60s/early 70s IMPOSSIBLE for any mortal of any era to cross.
Understand the exponential curve of excellence before you think someone who averaged 40 in a 20-something batting era would average 90-100 in a 45-50 average batting era.
It doesnt work that way.

And you've gotta stop this ridiculous "anything before 1960-70-sort-of-period is unreliable" rubbish.
Cricket was played by almost directly comparable rules and was for-all-intents-and-purposes the same game - I don't care how many books you read from people who reckon that the game wasn't taken seriously - you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned - and I've read enough of the stuff, too.
People are far, far too quick to try and talk-up the stuff that they know best - as demonstrated by the "X because he's the only one I saw". If so, abstain!

 

[Richard]

Or Dennis Amiss, Eddie Paynter, Tom Graveney, John Edrich, Robin Smith, Michael Vaughan…..I had to draw the line somewhere!

&, of the "much more respected batsmen" you list, only Phil Mead has a higher test average than DRJ & that from only 17 tests.

You're too reliant on Test-averages here if you ask me - before 1930 Test-cricket was too limited in it's scope to be more reliable than First-Class-cricket.

 

[C_C]

And you've gotta stop this ridiculous "anything before 1960-70-sort-of-period is unreliable" rubbish.
Cricket was played by almost directly comparable rules and was for-all-intents-and-purposes the same game - I don't care how many books you read from people who reckon that the game wasn't taken seriously - you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned - and I've read enough of the stuff, too.
People are far, far too quick to try and talk-up the stuff that they know best - as demonstrated by the "X because he's the only one I saw". If so, abstain!

Didnt say that it was unreliable, just said that the field lacked professionalism and had a few professionals interspersed with a few amatuers, thus accentuating/exgaggerating their statistics.
That is a fact and that cannot be discounted.

Halsey- the reason i said uncovered pitches were irrelevant is because uncovered pitches came into play only on certain locations( headingley,old trafford,Lahore etc.) where early morning dew was a factor and even in those cases, pitches got a 'mop' before play started. It also came into play under certain conditions ( light rain resulting in sticky wickets).
As such, according to CLR James and Neville Cardus, approximately 10% of the matches played by a player is affected by the uncovered nature of the pitches. Considering the fact that MOST cricketers in the pre 70s era didnt play more than 60-70 matches, you are talkin about, at best, 6-7 matches. As such, that isnt a very significant change in average, at most 2-3 points or so.

 

[badgerhair]

Didnt say that it was unreliable, just said that the field lacked professionalism and had a few professionals interspersed with a few amatuers, thus accentuating/exgaggerating their statistics.
That is a fact and that cannot be discounted.

Halsey- the reason i said uncovered pitches were irrelevant is because uncovered pitches came into play only on certain locations( headingley,old trafford,Lahore etc.) where early morning dew was a factor and even in those cases, pitches got a 'mop' before play started. It also came into play under certain conditions ( light rain resulting in sticky wickets).
As such, according to CLR James and Neville Cardus, approximately 10% of the matches played by a player is affected by the uncovered nature of the pitches. Considering the fact that MOST cricketers in the pre 70s era didnt play more than 60-70 matches, you are talkin about, at best, 6-7 matches. As such, that isnt a very significant change in average, at most 2-3 points or so.

So, taking into account all these factors, have you come up with a figure which would help us correct a raw 1930s average, say, into one equivalent to today's figures?

Or are you just hand-waving because you are reluctant to admit that you haven't got any kind of reasonable case and are just hoping that people won't notice how little you actually know about the past?

Cheers,

Mike

 

[C_C]

So, taking into account all these factors, have you come up with a figure which would help us correct a raw 1930s average, say, into one equivalent to today's figures?

Or are you just hand-waving because you are reluctant to admit that you haven't got any kind of reasonable case and are just hoping that people won't notice how little you actually know about the past?

Cheers,

Mike

I wouldnt quote a concrete figure to correct a raw 1930s average,as that would be presumptous. All i can say is that if those players played in the post 60s era, they would all undergo a drop in their averages, due to the field being much more competitive on average.
As per my knowledge on the past, i would like you to refute it(if you can that is) before you proclaim that it is 'little'.

 

[Richard]

All i can say is that if those players played in the post 60s era, they would all undergo a drop in their averages, due to the field being much more competitive on average.

No, you can say you think they would.
Equally, anyone can say they think the inverse.

 

[Richard]

Didnt say that it was unreliable, just said that the field lacked professionalism and had a few professionals interspersed with a few amatuers, thus accentuating/exgaggerating their statistics.
That is a fact and that cannot be discounted.

No, it's down to perception.
As I've already told you, for just about all the 20th-century professionals would almost invariably make-up a better side than amateurs - more England players were professionals than not.
And even the ameteurs were still very good and their taking it without any seriousness is not fact by any stretch of the imagination.

Considering the fact that MOST cricketers in the pre 70s era didnt play more than 60-70 matches, you are talkin about, at best, 6-7 matches. As such, that isnt a very significant change in average, at most 2-3 points or so.

Despite the fact that 6-7 matches could provide something in the region of 1\6th of a career in those days. And I'd like to assure you you're wrong in thinking that the figure would be that low for an English player - because in England far more games involve rain-interruption at some stage than don't.
And also despite the fact that these stickies could make an enourmous difference to the average, turning a real chance to make some runs into a just about unplayable track.