How to define 'best batsman'?

[Swervy]

As we all know, one of the more popular threads going is the 'who is the best/better batsmen?' type of thing.

It would appear that everyone has a different view on what they see as being better or best. There are some who think that it is purely down to who scores more runs, there are some who think its how the runs are scored etc etc.

Now for me, I try and imagine what I would feel like if I were playing against the players who might be in question. I know when I play in the summer there are players who I play against tht I know are better than others but might not average as much. They are the players that when you have just taken a wicket and you see them walking in , you think 'damn, I best get this fella out quick', or 'I wish I hadnt jut dismissed the previous batsman'

If you took say the example of maybe Viv Richards vs Kallis.(just an example plucked out of the air)

Now we all know Kallis is a bit of a rock out there, scores very consistantly etc. But I always imagine that captains wouldnt be overly concerned about his presence, just chip away at the other batsmen, and you will ge there eventually.

But surely as an opponent of Richards, you always had in the back of your mind that the game could be taken away from you in a flash. A scary thought for the opposition. I always imagine that a fielder would be quite jittery with Richards in at bat, because if anyone could exploit a weakness it was Viv, and if you dropped im, he would make you pay. He had the fear factor...that and some amazing shots.

So for me, I would always pick King Viv over Kallis.

I dont want this to decend into a Viv vs Kallis debate by the way (they were just examples) ....just what you feel you are after from a batsman when summing up whether they are better than someone else.

 

[archie mac]

As we all know, one of the ore popular threads going is the 'who is the best/better batsmen?' type of thing.

It would appear that everyone has a different view on what they see as being better or best. There are some who think that it is purely down to who scores more runs, there are some who think its how the runs are scored etc etc.

Now for me, I try and imagine what I would feel like if I were playing against the players who might be in question. I know when I play in the summer there are players who I play against tht I know are better than others but might not average as much. They are the players that when you have just taken a wicket and you see them walking in , you think 'damn, I best get this fella out quick', or 'I wish I hadnt jut dismissed the previous batsman'

If you took say the example of maybe Viv Richards vs Kallis.(just an example plucked out of the air)

Now we all know Kallis is a bit of a rock out there, scores very consistantly etc. But I always imagine that captains wouldnt be overly concerned about his presence, just chip away at the other batsmen, and you will ge there eventually.

But surely as an opponent of Richards, you always had in the back of your mind that the game could be taken away from you in a flash. A scary thought for the opposition. I always imagine that a fielder would be quite jittery with Richards in at bat, because if anyone could exploit a weakness it was Viv, and if you dropped im, he would make you pay. He had the fear factor...that and some amazing shots.

So for me, I would always pick King Viv over Kallis.

I dont want this to decend into a Viv vs Kallis debate by the way (they were just examples) ....just what you feel you are after from a batsman when summing up whether they are better than someone else.

I would think a balance of both, able to win the match, or change the match around very quickly, but also able to average quite highly.

You would think Viv would be right up there on both counts

 

[Richard]

I know when I play in the summer there are players who I play against tht I know are better than others but might not average as much.

No, you think there are.

In any case, in a limited-overs (or timed one-day) game the situation is a bit different to a five-day Test \ four-day First-Class game. Someone with a SR of 80 and an average of 35 is indeed better than someone with a SR of 62 and an average of 40.

In Tests, though, it's exceptionally rare - if not non-existant - to get such extremes.

The best way to judge a Test batsman's ability to influence games is by how often and how many runs he scores. Few score so slowly as pace of scoring becomes an issue. Even Geoffrey Boycott and Kenny Barrington helped win many Tests.

 

[Swervy]

No, you think there are.

In any case, in a limited-overs (or timed one-day) game the situation is a bit different to a five-day Test \ four-day First-Class game. Someone with a SR of 80 and an average of 35 is indeed better than someone with a SR of 62 and an average of 40.

In Tests, though, it's exceptionally rare - if not non-existant - to get such extremes.

The best way to judge a Test batsman's ability to influence games is by how often and how many runs he scores. Few score so slowly as pace of scoring becomes an issue. Even Geoffrey Boycott and Kenny Barrington helped win many Tests.

open minded as ever!!

 

[Jono]

As we all know, one of the ore popular threads going is the 'who is the best/better batsmen?' type of thing.

It would appear that everyone has a different view on what they see as being better or best. There are some who think that it is purely down to who scores more runs, there are some who think its how the runs are scored etc etc.

Now for me, I try and imagine what I would feel like if I were playing against the players who might be in question. I know when I play in the summer there are players who I play against tht I know are better than others but might not average as much. They are the players that when you have just taken a wicket and you see them walking in , you think 'damn, I best get this fella out quick', or 'I wish I hadnt jut dismissed the previous batsman'

If you took say the example of maybe Viv Richards vs Kallis.(just an example plucked out of the air)

Now we all know Kallis is a bit of a rock out there, scores very consistantly etc. But I always imagine that captains wouldnt be overly concerned about his presence, just chip away at the other batsmen, and you will ge there eventually.

But surely as an opponent of Richards, you always had in the back of your mind that the game could be taken away from you in a flash. A scary thought for the opposition. I always imagine that a fielder would be quite jittery with Richards in at bat, because if anyone could exploit a weakness it was Viv, and if you dropped im, he would make you pay. He had the fear factor...that and some amazing shots.

So for me, I would always pick King Viv over Kallis.

I dont want this to decend into a Viv vs Kallis debate by the way (they were just examples) ....just what you feel you are after from a batsman when summing up whether they are better than someone else.

For the most part I agree with you, but I do think there needs to be more of a balance than you suggest. I'm not going to use Viv as an example because I think he's a cut above the rest, but if we go by the stereotype of "dominator" vs "rock", alternatively you will have those who think "well, this guy will give me a chance to get him out, whereas the rock won't"

I refer to Asif's line of thinking in his interview when he talked about Kallis, who he obviously rates highly. Kallis refused to be sucked in, or lose patience with him.

So there definitely needs to be a balance. And that's what your Sachin and Lara had, and Ponting now too. Hence why they're so awesome.

Viv was just brilliant in that he was that good, he could play that way and still be brilliant. But in most circumstances, I'll take a Dravid over a Pietersen, or a Kallis over a Jayasuriya.

 

[pasag]

Nice thread, I don't have alot of time to expound here but I think alot of it goes to the question of style and substance and what you want out of cricket. Whether you see batting as an art form or pure output and whoever has the highest output is the greatest batsman. Whether the guy that does the most for his team is the greatest or the guy that is the most fascinating to watch. People who discard one and not the other tend to not get things and are for mine a touch narrow-minded. That's oversimplifying it though as it is so many factors combined and you should never, ever limit it to one thing or another.

 

[Richard]

For the most part I agree with you, but I do think there needs to be more of a balance than you suggest. I'm not going to use Viv as an example because I think he's a cut above the rest, but if we go by the stereotype of "dominator" vs "rock", alternatively you will have those who think "well, this guy will give me a chance to get him out, whereas the rock won't"

I refer to Asif's line of thinking in his interview when he talked about Kallis, who he obviously rates highly. Kallis refused to be sucked in, or lose patience with him.

So there definitely needs to be a balance. And that's what your Sachin and Lara had, and Ponting now too. Hence why they're so awesome.

Viv was just brilliant in that he was that good, he could play that way and still be brilliant. But in most circumstances, I'll take a Dravid over a Pietersen, or a Kallis over a Jayasuriya.

The thing is, though, there were people who didn't play that way and did even better than Viv. Viv was not productive beyond all others.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Entirely subjective and relative definition, I'll grant you, but I've always believed that the best batsman is the one who employs his skills to win the most games. For all we know, averages could be inflated by bore-draws on featherbeds, high SRs could be addressed the same way that Gilchrist, Hayden etc. have been vilified; quantity of centuries could be mitigated by dozens of caps v. minnows, and the list goes on. In terms of winning and saving matches, grace under pressure is obviously the defining characteristic.

Not that an average of 59 means bupkiss, mind you.

 

[Jono]

Entirely subjective and relative definition, I'll grant you, but I've always believed that the best batsman is the one who employs his skills to win the most games. For all we know, averages could be inflated by bore-draws on featherbeds, high SRs could be addressed the same way that Gilchrist, Hayden etc. have been vilified; quantity of centuries could be mitigated by dozens of caps v. minnows, and the list goes on. In terms of winning and saving matches, grace under pressure is obviously the defining characteristic.

Not that an average of 59 means bupkiss, mind you.

True, but surely sometimes the task is just too often beyond the one single batsman. Andy Flower is a great example, Sachin of the 90s and Lara of recent times fall under that category too.

There are examples of single handedly winning a game for your team, but sometimes you've done all you can, and the rest of your teammates just let you down.

Just a random example, and I know its a ODI and we're normally talking tests here, but this match had IMO one of the best ODI knocks of recent years. Yuvraj's innings was immense, but India still lost the game. Even yesterday he probably played the best knock of the match vs. Australia, yet India lost.

There's obviously countless examples in test and ODIs, and if it becomes a pattern for a player, surely its more the team surrounding them being no good or failing them rather than that player not being a match winner?

 

[Swervy]

The thing is, though, there were people who didn't play that way and did even better than Viv. Viv was not productive beyond all others.

so for you, it is simply down to production. Thats cool, but try not to downgrade other peoples opinions if they see it as being something other than that

 

[Richard]

so for you, it is simply down to production. Thats cool, but try not to downgrade other peoples opinions if they see it as being something other than that

You'd do very well to apply that principle, too, rather than saying "you don't really properly understand cricket" if people don't see things the way you do.

BTW, everything isn't down to production; your ability to influence games is down to production. That's not all batting is there for.

 

[Richard]

Entirely subjective and relative definition, I'll grant you, but I've always believed that the best batsman is the one who employs his skills to win the most games. For all we know, averages could be inflated by bore-draws on featherbeds, high SRs could be addressed the same way that Gilchrist, Hayden etc. have been vilified; quantity of centuries could be mitigated by dozens of caps v. minnows, and the list goes on. In terms of winning and saving matches, grace under pressure is obviously the defining characteristic.

Not that an average of 59 means bupkiss, mind you.

True, but surely sometimes the task is just too often beyond the one single batsman. Andy Flower is a great example, Sachin of the 90s and Lara of recent times fall under that category too.

There are examples of single handedly winning a game for your team, but sometimes you've done all you can, and the rest of your teammates just let you down.

Just a random example, and I know its a ODI and we're normally talking tests here, but this match had IMO one of the best ODI knocks of recent years. Yuvraj's innings was immense, but India still lost the game. Even yesterday he probably played the best knock of the match vs. Australia, yet India lost.

There's obviously countless examples in test and ODIs, and if it becomes a pattern for a player, surely its more the team surrounding them being no good or failing them rather than that player not being a match winner?

Agree with Jono 100%. Placing everything on winning the match is grossly unfair, TBH, Tim. We all know that no-one can come close to winning a match off his own bat, or even with the ball in his hand (even Laker and Massie and Murali and all those types needed runs).

If you turn what would otherwise have been a Headingley-2007-esque loss into a hugely honourable defeat - the way Shivnarine Chanderpaul blatantly did the following game - that, to me, is every bit as worthy as contributing to winning a game.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

True, but surely sometimes the task is just too often beyond the one single batsman. Andy Flower is a great example, Sachin of the 90s and Lara of recent times fall under that category too.

There are examples of single handedly winning a game for your team, but sometimes you've done all you can, and the rest of your teammates just let you down.

Just a random example, and I know its a ODI and we're normally talking tests here, but this match had IMO one of the best ODI knocks of recent years. Yuvraj's innings was immense, but India still lost the game. Even yesterday he probably played the best knock of the match vs. Australia, yet India lost.

There's obviously countless examples in test and ODIs, and if it becomes a pattern for a player, surely its more the team surrounding them being no good or failing them rather than that player not being a match winner?

Agreed, and you just kicked my argument in the soft spot. It's unfair that a losing team should preclude someone from being a great batsman. Perhaps I should rephrase: a batsman that consistently obtains the best possible scenario (in Flower's case, a draw) in light of his team's ability can be considered great. After all, it's still the best possible reaction to pressure.

The 'greatest' or 'top 10 great' batsmen weren't dragged down by their teams by any great measure, though - even Lara's achievements post-2000 (with a much more mortal side) aren't quite as highly regarded as his 277 or his 153*.

 

[Swervy]

You'd do very well to apply that principle, too, rather than saying "you don't really properly understand cricket" if people don't see things the way you do.

BTW, everything isn't down to production; your ability to influence games is down to production. That's not all batting is there for.

Well,my opinion is that you don't really have a grasp of the true nature of the game of cricket. It is my opinion, it has been formed over the last couple of years, and I don't think I am alone in thinking that.

Anyway, I can't think of a time when I have said that, other than to you.

Ability to influence games isnt simply down to production though is it?
On a personal level, a few years ago I was opening the batting. My opening partner made 0 in a partnership of 25.
The number three batsman came in and shared in a partnership of 70 with me. His share was 0. He got out and shortly after I got out (for 87), we then collapsed to 111 for 9. Our last wicket then put on 100

Now we just won that game, and in my eyes the fella who scored that 0 in my partnership with him was just as influencial to the result of that game as I was and as the numbers 10 and 11 were. If he had not have stuck around, and if I had no confidenece in him sticking around whilst I am hitting the ball about, I daresay we might have lost that game.

So production isnt actually about runs...the way I see it, its not influence, its contribution that matters

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Agree with Jono 100%. Placing everything on winning the match is grossly unfair, TBH, Tim. We all know that no-one can come close to winning a match off his own bat, or even with the ball in his hand (even Laker and Massie and Murali and all those types needed runs).

If you turn what would otherwise have been a Headingley-2007-esque loss into a hugely honourable defeat - the way Shivnarine Chanderpaul blatantly did the following game - that, to me, is every bit as worthy as contributing to winning a game.

That's the hardest thing about defending this argument - it's easy to think I'm discounting losing efforts. I'm not. What characterises winning innings, or 'hugely honourable' ones, is the ability under pressure; the pressure to obtain the best - realistic - scenario. Shiv's effort (do you mean Old Trafford?) came under the cloud of a record chase, which isn't really viable. He did, though, acquit himself under pressure, and that (for all its subjectivity) is a great innings by my book.

So it does have exceptions. It's just a way of eliminating easy innings and 'making hay' sessions from a batsman's resume, which can defraud the statistically-minded.

 

[Swervy]

good to see some people thinking out there!!!!!

 

[Swervy]

The thing is, though, there were people who didn't play that way and did even better than Viv. Viv was not productive beyond all others.

I just want to quote you from a while back:

'What makes a good player a good player is how he is rated by the majority'


Do you still beleive this?

 

[Ikki]

The ability to score consistently, highly, under pressure situations and in ways that will rescue or win the game.

Two batsmen can make centuries even against the same teams, but if one makes it in a much more telling inning, where the opposition is playing better, then I'd rate that batsman higher.

That's why you often get that 70 which is much more important in the context of it's own game than a 100 in another. And for this reason career ratios will never properly gauge the influence in these kind of games. You will need to watch them. And if you are watching, you also need to appreciate the mental aspect of the game to understand why a certain 70 will be more difficult to achieve than a 100.

 

[Ikki]

Double.

 

[silentstriker]

I look at:

1. Actual Scores (average, total number, HS, etc)
2. Consistency of scores
3. Runs scored in comparison to their contemporaries
4. Where runs scored
5. Runs scored against
6. Runs scored in situations (in wins, in draws, in losses, by innings)

I separate the batsman I would love to watch with batsmen that I would rate to be better at playing the game.