• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Your top 10 TEST batsmen of all-time

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Erm... the point that Richards and Gilchrist were equal in deed and different only in aura.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Erm... the point that Richards and Gilchrist were equal in deed and different only in aura.
The question "how exactly was it Richards in his 1970s heyday was more effective with bat in hand than Gilchrist was between his debut in 1999\2000 and 2003?"...That reads as though you're stating that Richards was more effective than Gilchrist but you don't know what made him superior.

Erm... the point that Richards and Gilchrist were equal in deed and different only in aura.
So what?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The question "how exactly was it Richards in his 1970s heyday was more effective with bat in hand than Gilchrist was between his debut in 1999\2000 and 2003?"...That reads as though you're stating that Richards was more effective than Gilchrist but you don't know what made him superior.
Whatever you read it as, what I actually doing was asking how someone might think Richards was superior to Gilchrist when in reality he wasn't.
So certain people will realise them to be equals, certain people will refuse to accept that.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Whatever you read it as, what I actually doing was asking how someone might think Richards was superior to Gilchrist when in reality he wasn't.

So certain people will realise them to be equals, certain people will refuse to accept that.

People who watch cricket know Richards was a superior batsman, those with their nose stuck in book think they're equal.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
1 My grandfather - Seriously guys he may not be a statistic but he was the best I've ever seen. Fantastic reflexes! And this at 72!
2 My best friend's cousin - Had the loveliest cover drive! Better than tendulkar's! Shame no one's seen him except 35 people maybe. International cricket doesn't know what it's missing.
.
.
.
10 Don Bradman - I hear he was good.
I think we'll have to start taking lists like these seriously. No statistics or anything. 8-)
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Bradman
Richards V
Hobbs
Gilchrist
Sobers
Chappell
Lara
Hammond
Tendulkar
Gavaskar


Ponting, Hussey, Dravid are pushing some of those names up there.

Seeing Gilchrist that high up most will have trouble with it but I rate his batting very very highly. If Richards brought domination (high run-scoring and doing it fastly) then Gilchrist improved it. The cleanest striker of the ball ever in the opinion of some. Has fallen in recent years, but still sports an amazing average considering his SR. Has played big innings, made big runs and done it consistently and quickly.
Theres no denying that Gilchrist's aggressive style of batting has been very useful to Australia. However, without guys like Hayden, Ponting, Hussey et al. I think it would have been significantly less useful.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes, I have. Got an issue with the few posts that HDS has made in this thread though, that are of no real use other than to try and put down those who value statistics.
Well, I do question whether statistics are the be-all-and-end-all. As Richard - rightly or wrongly - shows any statistic has a big question mark over it. Did the player complete enough innings, do not outs skew the data, did the player compete on all different types of surface etc. In my opinion, the skill of a player can be judged if you've seen them play. Obviously a combination of both is the ideal, and I think you'll find that the players I selected have statistical records that are from the top draw. I just find it hard to judge players that I haven't seen. I find it staggering that you cannot appreciate that.

I would imagine that you'll come to understand my view more (and this is not a criticism of you) once you have watched a bit more 'live' cricket.
 

Fiery

Banned
Well, I do question whether statistics are the be-all-and-end-all. As Richard - rightly or wrongly - shows any statistic has a big question mark over it. Did the player complete enough innings, do not outs skew the data, did the player compete on all different types of surface etc. In my opinion, the skill of a player can be judged if you've seen them play. Obviously a combination of both is the ideal, and I think you'll find that the players I selected have statistical records that are from the top draw. I just find it hard to judge players that I haven't seen. I find it staggering that you cannot appreciate that.

I would imagine that you'll come to understand my view more (and this is not a criticism of you) once you have watched a bit more 'live' cricket.
You might not get a response to that for a wee while Heath
 

Fiery

Banned
Why on earth has been Perm been banned?:unsure:
You will have to ask the moderators I ask but they don't usually discuss that sort of thing on the forum. My guess is that he has pushed the barriers of what is acceptable and what isn't in some of his posts to me in particular. Some of them got a bit personal. Didn't want or expect him to be banned though.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Ah - but he'll still be able to read it, eh? Shame. Too many Kiwis getting banned/leaving for my liking.
It was a lot worse a little while ago. What with the return of Voltman, 16tos, and Fiery as well as the emergence of guys like Athlai and Flem, we're almost in a period of Kiwi nirvana right now, tbh.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
It was a lot worse a little while ago. What with the return of Voltman, 16tos, and Fiery as well as the emergence of guys like Athlai and Flem, we're almost in a period of Kiwi nirvana right now, tbh.
I like Nirvana that doesn't mean I want to shoot myself, shoot myseeeeelf.

Why did Perm get banned? :ph34r:
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
And Kallicharan was better than both.
seriously, I would like to ask guys who have seen Kallicharan bat... How good was he?


The first time I came across his name was when I was a kid. There was this chewing gum here which if u collected a certain number of its covers, you get a small book about cricket (not an actual book, more like a supplement) and the first chapter in that was about some innings Kallicharan played for some MCC XI kind of game... The author had written in very glowing terms about his batting....
 

FRAZ

International Captain
seriously, I would like to ask guys who have seen Kallicharan bat... How good was he?


....
He had a good eye and for my liking he was kinda ponting-ish typa batsman . He could play strokes off either foot with an equal elegance . Was short-heighted (as I see in the videos) ..
Thats all I can recall about him and I guess some people may have seen that English tour video (Mid 70's) which was a very famous one .
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
DoG clearly meant lists that anyone would be likely to take seriously, though.
Screw you!! :@

I don't care if my list isn't considered correct or by the books. But why should I pick a player like Hutton/Barrington/Hobbs etc when I've read basically nothing about them, never seen them bat and have only just seen there names written down on a records sheet...

I made the exception wtih Bradman cause he was WAY better and Sobers I've actually seen some footage of him and think/thought he was awesome.
 
Last edited:

Top