• 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.

Best After The Don

Best After the Don


  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Sobers, Hobbs, Viv and Tendulkar, in no particular order, and each for different reasons.
 
Last edited:

Riggins

International Captain
cool article. kind of makes me hate mark nicholas slightly less*

i like that a lot of those west indian batsman did it either still drunk from the night before, and/or pretty hungover.

*for now.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I used to think Sobers but increasingly I feel it is Tendulkar. I've underrated his longevity. For this poll I've voted for G Pollock.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Lara = best batsman I Have seen. I have gone back and forth on rating players before the time of my watching cricket but I have gone back now to considering myself less informed to judge them. :)
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sobers, Hobbs, Viv and Tendulkar, in no particular order, and each for different reasons.
Hobbs, Sobers, Barry and Tendulkar in no particular order for mine. Viv, Pollock, Hammond, Lara and Headley a very, very close second (third if you have Don as first) tier.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
"Then the other day Brendon McCullum said that Alastair Cook was the best since Bradman."

Aren't actual players meant to have good opinions?
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
"Then the other day Brendon McCullum said that Alastair Cook was the best since Bradman."

Aren't actual players meant to have good opinions?
I think the actual problem is NZ players shouldn't have opinions at all.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Hobbs, Sobers, Barry and Tendulkar in no particular order for mine. Viv, Pollock, Hammond, Lara and Headley a very, very close second (third if you have Don as first) tier.
I'd definitely include Barry Richards and Graham Pollock had they played more tests.

I think Barry Richards is most probably the second greatest batsman of all time. But 4 tests isn't enough.
 

watson

Banned
I voted for Herbert doesntneedamiddlenamecoshesso****ingawesome Sutcliffe.
I think that a Bradmanesque batsman should be the type of batsman that can win a game, rather than merely save it.

Sutcliffe by all accounts 'nudged' his runs, albeit a lot of them. On-the-other-hand Bradman himself, Hobbs. Sobers, Pollock, Richards, Lara throttled the attack, and scored to all points of the ground.

In other words, truly great batsman are aggressive, attacking, and have a wide range of shots by definition (IMO).
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
I think that a Bradmanesque batsman should be the type of batsman that can win a game, rather than merely save it.

Sutcliffe by all accounts 'nudged' his runs, albeit a lot of them. On-the-other-hand Bradman himself, Hobbs. Sobers, Pollock, Richards, Lara throttled the attack, and scored to all points of the ground.

In other words, truly great batsman are aggressive, attacking, and have a wide range of shots by definition (IMO).
If I'm being honest with myself, it'd have to be Sobers or Viv. Definitely very close with a few others. I just voted Sutcliffe (other) to be different :p

Viv was one of the most aggressive batsmen we've ever seen, but he did decline quite a bit towards the end of his career. It has to be Sobers for me.
 

watson

Banned
I'd definitely include Barry Richards and Graham Pollock had they played more tests.

I think Barry Richards is most probably the second greatest batsman of all time. But 4 tests isn't enough.
We can very easily argue that Barry Richards is the second best batsman of all time. However, it would be impossible to state that he is the second greatest batsman of all time.

In others words, we can observe a batsman in action and conclude that his technique, skill, and ability is superb, and therefore one of the best in his trade. However, until he performs over a wide range of Test match conditions we can never say that he is great.

Sorry for being pedantic over the definition of best and greatest, but its always bugged me.
 
Last edited:

Top