Best After The Don

[kyear2]

Best bowlers were usually on his own team. Also a bit of a myth that every pitch of that era was a green seamer.

Never said every pitch was a seamer, but certainly they were more of them than exisit today (and the past five years) especially outside of South Africa and N.Z.

Glad to know that you belive we had all of the best bowlers playing for the W.I, and certainly the greatest of all time certainly did, but he also had to play againts Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Thompson, Chandrasakar, Bedi, Prasana, Snow, Underwood, Willis, Botham, Dev and Procter.
Then there was no bouncer rules and in the '70's everyone were over using them, and they were hardly any helmets before WSC, not that Viv even ever used an arm guard far less a helmet. He took them on and usually he won.

 

[akilana]

How many tests against procter?

 

[ankitj]

Watson on a troll spree here.

 

[kyear2]

How many tests against procter?

Was including WSC

 

[smash84]

This always cracks me up whenever I read this

Sledging Richards backfired on me, Akram reveals | GulfNews.com

incidentally Wasim rates Viv as the best batsman he bowled to. In his playing days he thought it was Martin Crowe

 

[smash84]

another interview where Wasim talks about Viv

"You have said that you considered Sir Viv to be the greatest batsman you have bowled to. What was it like to face him as a bowler?

Viv was a different breed. It wasn’t just his batting, it was his aura. Over six feet tall; itnay itnay (these huge) muscles; no sign of any protection; forget arm or chest guards, not even a helmet. So that whole aura was intimidating for a young skinny bowler that I was back then.

However, I still got his wickets a few times. That, I should admit, was also because his greatest days were behind him. I am glad I faced him then and not earlier.

How do you rate him among the modern greats?

While his record is not the same (in terms of numbers), he was the most devastating batsman I have bowled to. It is hard to rate him and compare him with some of the batsmen who came after him. Still, I watched and admired him a lot. When I was growing up, there was only name and that was Vivian Richards.

Playing against the best always gave me inspiration. I would tell myself to prove a point against the big names. If (Ian) Botham was playing, I’d tell myself I must bring him down."


I have intimidated others, never got intimidated myself: Wasim Akram | Cricket | DAWN.COM

 

[Ilovecric]

Sobers - better than Lara and Tendy. Only Viv could give him a real challenge in my view.

 

[Ilovecric]

Dennis Lillee on Gary Sobers - YouTube

Lillee on Sobers...


My XI - Ian Chappell: Garry Sobers, 254 v Australia, MCG - 'The best batsman I have ever seen' - YouTube

Ian Chappell saying he's the best.

 

[kyear2]

Sobers - better than Lara and Tendy. Only Viv could give him a real challenge in my view.

My only issue with Sobers is that he batted at 5 and 6 for so much of his career, even though he averaged so much more at 3 and 4 than any other position.
But again he spent almost more time at 5 than he spent at 3 & 4 combined and batted at #6 even more often.

 

[L Trumper]

My only issue with Sobers is that he batted at 5 and 6 for so much of his career, even though he averaged so much more at 3 and 4 than any other position.
But again he spent almost more time at 5 than he spent at 3 & 4 combined and batted at #6 even more often.

Meh! He batted at 5 & 6 mostly because that is the best for whole team. It is not like he cannot bat at 3 & 4. If that was what needed from him, he would've batted more at 3 or 4. I think Viv from 76-81 is brilliant but Sobers dominated even longer.

 

[Days of Grace]

Meh! He batted at 5 & 6 mostly because that is the best for whole team. It is not like he cannot bat at 3 & 4. If that was what needed from him, he would've batted more at 3 or 4. I think Viv from 76-81 is brilliant but Sobers dominated even longer.

Indeed.

Here is the most compelling statistic for Sobers:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In 50 matches, over a ten year period, he averaged 74.09.

Truly remarkable.

 

[Days of Grace]

Here are the top 12 batting peaks over 50 matches, along with the time periods (I have adjusted their averages based on strength of opposition and pitch conditions)

1. Bradman 104.13 (97.56) (1928-1948)
2. Sobers 72.57 (69.67) (1958-1968)
3. Ponting 73.91 (65.34) (2002-2006)
4. Waugh 63.13 (64.15) (1993-1998)
5. Kallis 69.61 (62.65) (2002-2007)
6. Dravid 68.11 (62.24) (2000-2005)
7. Hobbs 61.28 (62.22) (1908-1928)
8. Tendulkar 66.16 (62.22) (1997-2002)
9. Chanderpaul 67.13 (62.18) (2006-2012)
10. Hammond 65.80 (61.45) (1928-1936)
11. Sangakkara 68.49 (61.39) (2006-2012)
12. Richards 61.96 (60.94) (1976-1984)

As you can see, apart from Bradman and maybe Hobbs, no one has sustained such batting heights over such an extended period of time.

 

[Coronis]

Herbert Sutcliffe 61.66 (1924-1934)

Incidentally, his 4th lowest average in his career. Remarkable consistency.

 

[sobers no:1]

Kumble the best spinner of the past 25 years? Spare me. And hope that benchy doesn't see this.

better than kallis being 2nd greatest batsman of alltime

 

[Viscount Tom]

Please tell me that your signature is not your top 50.

 

[Prince EWS]

Please tell me that your signature is not your top 50.

Don't panic; it's not.






It's his top 61.

 

[kyear2]

Don't know about second best batsman of All Time, but deserves be in the discussion now with Sobers and Bradman for the Greatest Cricketer of All Time. For me he is a solid third, but definately in the discussion.
With regards to pure batting, I fid it difficult to call Barry Richards, Gavaskar or Kallis the second best. For Richards, four tests are simply and totally to little to judge a player and that attack that he plundered could hardly be seen as high quality. The other two just arn't seen as the best of their era, with Kallis for most seen as being behind, Tendy, BCL and Punter.
Speaking of Ponting, he was seen by some to have improved as the bowling got worse, but at some parts during his run spree, I was saying that he may just be remembered as the best player of his generation, so I guess it subjective. Hammond, was known to dislike short pitched bowling and for the most part of his career didn't have to, but for that reluctance of fast short pitched bowling for me he is more comparable to Everton Weekes than Bradman, and Hammond never faced any bolwers of the calibre of Lindwall and Miller in his test prime.
That leave me with a top 10 of Hobbs, Bradman, Headley, Hutton, Sobers, Pollock, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara.
From those it can be argued that Headley and Pollock also didn't play enough, and Hutton and Chappell, though undoubably great just didn't take over games and destroy attacks like all of the others were capable of.
That then leaves me with Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, and from here is's purely up to personal taste and it gets really to close to call.

 

[L Trumper]

Don't know about second best batsman of All Time, but deserves be in the discussion now with Sobers and Bradman for the Greatest Cricketer of All Time. For me he is a solid third, but definately in the discussion.
With regards to pure batting, I fid it difficult to call Barry Richards, Gavaskar or Kallis the second best. For Richards, four tests are simply and totally to little to judge a player and that attack that he plundered could hardly be seen as high quality. The other two just arn't seen as the best of their era, with Kallis for most seen as being behind, Tendy, BCL and Punter.
Speaking of Ponting, he was seen by some to have improved as the bowling got worse, but at some parts during his run spree, I was saying that he may just be remembered as the best player of his generation, so I guess it subjective. Hammond, was known to dislike short pitched bowling and for the most part of his career didn't have to, but for that reluctance of fast short pitched bowling for me he is more comparable to Everton Weekes than Bradman, and Hammond never faced any bolwers of the calibre of Lindwall and Miller in his test prime.
That leave me with a top 10 of Hobbs, Bradman, Headley, Hutton, Sobers, Pollock, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara.
From those it can be argued that Headley and Pollock also didn't play enough, and Hutton and Chappell, though undoubably great just didn't take over games and destroy attacks like all of the others were capable of.
That then leaves me with Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, and from here is's purely up to personal taste and it gets really to close to call.

Agree with everything apart from omitting Hutton at the end. He can be attacking if needed. His true value can be measured when you compare him with all other openers of England, he comfortably scored quicker than everyone of them. I'd personally go with Hobbs, Hutton, Sobers, Viv, Sachin as next 5 and Headley, Hammond, Pollock, Chappell, Lara being the closest contenders to them (chronological order).

If I have to rate them, it probably looks like
Don


Sobers
Viv
Sachin
Hobbs
Hutton

Hammond
Pollock
Headley
Lara
Chappell

That is probably my top 1 + 10 list

 

[watson]

Don't know about second best batsman of All Time, but deserves be in the discussion now with Sobers and Bradman for the Greatest Cricketer of All Time. For me he is a solid third, but definately in the discussion.
With regards to pure batting, I fid it difficult to call Barry Richards, Gavaskar or Kallis the second best. For Richards, four tests are simply and totally to little to judge a player and that attack that he plundered could hardly be seen as high quality. The other two just arn't seen as the best of their era, with Kallis for most seen as being behind, Tendy, BCL and Punter.
Speaking of Ponting, he was seen by some to have improved as the bowling got worse, but at some parts during his run spree, I was saying that he may just be remembered as the best player of his generation, so I guess it subjective. Hammond, was known to dislike short pitched bowling and for the most part of his career didn't have to, but for that reluctance of fast short pitched bowling for me he is more comparable to Everton Weekes than Bradman, and Hammond never faced any bolwers of the calibre of Lindwall and Miller in his test prime.
That leave me with a top 10 of Hobbs, Bradman, Headley, Hutton, Sobers, Pollock, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara.
From those it can be argued that Headley and Pollock also didn't play enough, and Hutton and Chappell, though undoubably great just didn't take over games and destroy attacks like all of the others were capable of.
That then leaves me with Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, and from here is's purely up to personal taste and it gets really to close to call.

A pretty nice summation justifying those top 6 batman. Can't say I disagree too much.

My order would be: Bradman > Lara > Sobers > Richards > Tendulkar > Hobbs

 

[doesitmatter]

Don't know about second best batsman of All Time, but deserves be in the discussion now with Sobers and Bradman for the Greatest Cricketer of All Time. For me he is a solid third, but definately in the discussion.
With regards to pure batting, I fid it difficult to call Barry Richards, Gavaskar or Kallis the second best. For Richards, four tests are simply and totally to little to judge a player and that attack that he plundered could hardly be seen as high quality. The other two just arn't seen as the best of their era, with Kallis for most seen as being behind, Tendy, BCL and Punter.
Speaking of Ponting, he was seen by some to have improved as the bowling got worse, but at some parts during his run spree, I was saying that he may just be remembered as the best player of his generation, so I guess it subjective. Hammond, was known to dislike short pitched bowling and for the most part of his career didn't have to, but for that reluctance of fast short pitched bowling for me he is more comparable to Everton Weekes than Bradman, and Hammond never faced any bolwers of the calibre of Lindwall and Miller in his test prime.
That leave me with a top 10 of Hobbs, Bradman, Headley, Hutton, Sobers, Pollock, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara.
From those it can be argued that Headley and Pollock also didn't play enough, and Hutton and Chappell, though undoubably great just didn't take over games and destroy attacks like all of the others were capable of.
That then leaves me with Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, and from here is's purely up to personal taste and it gets really to close to call.

nicely summarized...i am fan of Tendulkar btw..Complete batsman..