is this the best batting line-up you have ever seen?

[bagapath]

The ageing Indian team is likely to field, at some point of time during the England tour, a batting line up boasting of sehwag, dravid, tendulkar and laxman with gambhir, raina and dhoni rounding off the top 7.

the question is: is sehwag, dravid, tendulkar and laxman the best four batsmen combo you have seen?

when i started watching cricket, greenidge, haynes, richards and lloyd were the best in the business. gomes, richardson and dujon formed a solid supporting act.

at some point of time in the late 90s/early 00s, pakistan might have fielded anwar, inzamam, yousuff and younis in one team. that would have been one hell of a batting line up if it ever took the field together. i havent checked though.

but i am sure hayden, ponting, waugh and gilchrist and later, hayden, ponting, gilchrist and hussey batted together in several tests. in either case m.waugh, martyn, clarke and langer were available to complete the teams.

are any of these lineups better than the present indian foursome? or is the viru, rahul, sachin, vvs batting combination the best of our times?

 

[biased indian]

Voted for Viru, God ,wall and lax

because they are the reason we are number one in the test rt now any other combination you take they had a better or at least a similar class bowling line up for support...

 

[Prince EWS]

Well when I opened this thread I was going to give it a resounding "NO", but that was when I thought it was about the entire top 6 or 7. Just using the best four makes it interesting. I never saw the West Indies team in the poll so it comes down to a comparison between these four and Ponting+Waugh+Hayden+Gilchrist and I'd take these four. Definitely not the best batting lineup I've seen but the best set of four batsmen I've seen play for one team, yes.

 

[Howe_zat]

Interesting that Gilly is there as no.4. I always think of Gilly making a difference because he turned a great batting lineup into an awesome one by being down at #7 and still a world-class bat. But was he really better - just as a batsman - than Langer or Martyn?

 

[Prince EWS]

Interesting that Gilly is there as no.4. I always think of Gilly making a difference because he turned a great batting lineup into an awesome one by being down at #7 and could still be a world-class bat. But was he really better - just as a batsman - than Langer or Martyn?

I think he was, yeah. Not by a lot at all, but I think he was.

 

[archie mac]

Went for the Widies. Although I did not see them I would choose the English team of
1928-29

 

[smash84]

agree with PEWS here. I also opened to give this a resounding no but when I see them as a set of 4 batsmen I think that yes this is probably the best 4 that I have seen as a combo

 

[vcs]

Australia's post S. Waugh lineup of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Hussey, Gilchrist for me. Though Waugh IMO was individually been superior to all of the above, they were in irresistible form for most of 2005-2007. So much that Martyn and Gilchrist who were on the slide were barely required to contribute much at all.

 

[Himannv]

I think the Aussies had the best 4 and a very capable support act of Langer, Martyn and even Mark Waugh and Hussey while they were playing.

I think a big difference in the way I see it is that Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman were very rarely in top form at the same time. I think in recent times they have been at their best with three of them being consistently good. This makes it hard to rate them higher than the Aussies who were consistent almost always for at least half a decade.

 

[Spark]

Australia's post S. Waugh lineup of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Hussey, Gilchrist for me. Though Waugh IMO was individually been superior to all of the above, they were in irresistible form for most of 2005-2007. So much that Martyn and Gilchrist who were on the slide were barely required to contribute much at all.

(y)

Still maintain that the lineup that walked out for the first two 06/7 Ashes Tests is the best I've seen, given form and quality.

 

[GotSpin]

australia's post s. Waugh lineup of hayden, langer, ponting, martyn, clarke, hussey, gilchrist for me. Though waugh imo was individually been superior to all of the above, they were in irresistible form for most of 2005-2007. So much that martyn and gilchrist who were on the slide were barely required to contribute much at all.

good post from you

 

[weldone]

Although I did not see them I would choose the English team of
1928-29

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Jardine to chooes 4....sounds HUGE!

 

[GotSpin]

Went for the Widies. Although I did not see them I would choose the English team of
1928-29

Bradman, Arthur Morris, Lindsay Hassett, Neil Harvey and Sid Barnes ?

 

[bagapath]

did hutton, hammond, compton and leyland ever play together?

 

[Howe_zat]

did hutton, hammond, compton and leyland ever play together?

They all played in the record victory at the Oval 1938. Generally though, Leyland was of an older generation to Hutton and Compton.

 

[bagapath]

obviously i love the indian quartet and i do have a soft spot for the windies giants who i hero worshipped as a kid.

but in this poll, i will give it to hayden, ponting, s.waugh and gilchrist by a narrow margin over the others because i think this combo has everything right about it: the numbers, left-right variation, mix of aggression and caution as well as a slightly better spread batting strength running down to no.7. this combo made the aussie team complete. besides, i will vote for any team with gilchrist in it. he is the greatest cricketer we have seen since viv richards' retirement.

 

[weldone]

did hutton, hammond, compton and leyland ever play together?

Might have played together in one or two matches in 1937-38. But Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Jardine is better, no? Hobbs=Hutton, Sutcliffe>Compton, Hammond=Hammond, Jardine>Leyland.

However, Barnes, Morris, Bradman and Harvey would take this...and like most of times, mainly for the Bradman factor...

 

[Howe_zat]

Would dispute that, weldone.

Hobbs=Hutton if you say so, but I personally rate Hutton higher. Sutcliffe>Compton is equally debatable, and Sutcliffe being an opener is all you've really got to go on in that regard. Jardine>Leyland is very shaky. As a cricketer, maybe, but as a batsman alone?

 

[bagapath]

They all played in the record victory at the Oval 1938. Generally though, Leyland was of an older generation to Hutton and Compton.

thanks mate. it is very rare to have four all time great batters play together in a team. this surely was once such occasion.

back to the present; kallis, AB, smith and amla is not looking too bad either. but it is more in the class of strauss, cook, pietersen and bell than in the hayden, punter, tugga, gilly league.

 

[bagapath]

Might have played together in one or two matches in 1937-38. But Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Jardine is better, no? Hobbs=Hutton, Sutcliffe>Compton, Hammond=Hammond, Jardine>Leyland.

However, Barnes, Morris, Bradman and Harvey would take this...and like most of times, mainly for the Bradman factor...

not too sure about that mate.

i think leyland as a batter alone will push for a slot in an all time eng XI. jardine wont be anywhere near him. similarly compton was probably as good a batsman as sutcliffe if not better than him. at the crease, sutcliffe was not a tortoise. he was a dead tortoise. hobbs and hutton in my books were absolute equals. so i would actually go for the later day combo of the two.

and a resounding yes to your take on that aussie bunch.