Best Batsman

[Jono]

Originally Posted by oz_fan

Yeah but he did beat Ponting who is thrashing him 6 votes to none.

Ah yes good point.

I guess you haven't been at CW for a while, but Hayden isn't exactly rated too highly here compared to say your general cricket fan or the continous praise you hear from him in the media and by commentators etc. There was a thread that mentioned how he was named player of the decade over your Sachin, Lara and Waugh, as well as the guys who have matured since 2000 like Ponting, Dravid, Inzy and Kallis. It wasn't well received.

Whether the criticism he receives here is justified or harsh is up for debate I guess. He's a very good player, but I just don't see him anywhere close to Ponting from 1996-2006, and considering Hayden barely played the first half of the decade whereas Ponting played most of it, its quite tricky how Wisden came up with him as player of the decade. He without a doubt has a fabulous record and on paper if someone never watched any cricket but just saw his record over the past few years (continously getting 1000+ runs) would think he's possibly one of the best ever, but as with many other things, cricket is much more than just stats and records.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Dasa

..but he put them under accomplishments. They're clearly not accomplishments if he hasn't done them yet! Thus, it's an utterly stupid reason to rate Ponting higher than Dravid. If you want to make a case from other reasons, that's fine, but rating one higher because he might in the future accomplish something is ridiculous.

"might"...isn't this the same notion applied to another player we may know?

[oz_fan]

I voted for Lara but I really am surprised that Tendulkar hasn't got more votes considering he has scored the most centuries and been so consistent for most of his career.

[Robertinho]

I chose Dravid, simply because he'd be the "rock" of the lineup. Though, Ponting if he would be in his current form, Tendulkar if he was back at his best...

[oz_fan]

Originally Posted by Robertinho

I chose Dravid, simply because he'd be the "rock" of the lineup. Though, Ponting if he would be in his current form, Tendulkar if he was back at his best...

Yeah at the moment whenever Dravid, Ponting or Kallis come to the crease you expect a big innings from them and you know their reliable. Lara throughout his career has always been eratic, 200 one day and 0, 5, 4, 2 in the next few innings. Tendulkar never used to be like this, you could always expect a fifty from him but rececntly his become more and more like Lara.

[Cloete]

Originally Posted by Richard

Anyone who doesn't think Rahul Dravid has accomplished more than any other batsman of the 1990s and 2000s is a dunce of the highest order.

You really are a **** of the highest order, aren't you?

Just for the record, it's Lara for me...

[Pothas]

Considering the entire career i would say Tendulkar just ahead of Lara , 35 test cenuries i think just gets him my vote. Ponting and Dravid are obviously the best players of the last couple of years with Kallis just behind if those two can keep it up for a couple more years then they can be ranked as good if not better than Lara and Tendulkar.

[oz_fan]

Seeing as thogh Tendulkar and Lara have been around for a while longer than Ponting it is interesting that many people think that Ponting has achieved more than the leading run scorer and test century maker in a shorter career.
Is it possible that Ponting by the time he retires will ascend to Bradman level?

[Beleg]

During the 90's:

1. Tendulkar
2. Lara
3. Inzamam
4. Dravid
5. Ponting
6. Kallis

During the 2000's:

1. Dravid
2. Ponting
3. Inzamam
4. Kallis
5. Lara
6. Tendulkar

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Swervy

sorry..I must be a dunce of the highest order...because I dont think Dravid has accomplished more than say Tendulkar has!!!

Another dunce because I'd go for Lara.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by telsor

Another Dunce of the highest order here. ( is it wrong to feel pride at that? )

No, because it appears that almost everyone on here is a dunce, except Richard...

Read into that what you will.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by oz_fan

A while ago Wisden chose the best batter between 1996 and 2005.
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0...-23212,00.html
Suprisingly Hayden beat out Waugh, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, etc

Yes, they chose one who only played just over half the time period.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Beleg

During the 2000's:

1. Dravid
2. Ponting
3. Inzamam
4. Kallis
5. Lara
6. Tendulkar

Hayden would have to make the top six for the 2000's

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by adharcric

It's the quality of the attack that really matters. The Aussies can play off Kumble and shred Zaheer and AA to pieces, that's just one example.

Ahem:

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/20...16DEC2003.html

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Robertinho

I chose Dravid, simply because he'd be the "rock" of the lineup. Though, Ponting if he would be in his current form, Tendulkar if he was back at his best...

I reckon it's so that you don't get called a dunce really