The best batsmen from this list - choose 3

[Contra]

Smith never clicked against India, and I've seen a fair few India-SA test matches involving Smith so I find it hard to rate him even though he is quality.

Sehwag was just so odd in the sense that you could never legitimately label him, he's too casual and oblivious to care about a lot of things, like he will randomly apply himself on occasions and when he does he's incredibly good (remember the super test against Aus where he smashed a run a ball 70? Smith failed in that test ironically lol), and then there are occasions where he's like screw it let me slash at a wide one cuz I'm bored even though this is a super flat pitch and I should can score 300+ like the Sangas and Younis's do and easily up my average.

 

[ankitj]

CaptainGrumpy must be a very busy man, with no time for himself. What with the burden of correcting everyone on internet, all the time!

 

[OverratedSanity]

it's graeme by a mile. was a beast everywhere against everyone.

Sure, he was more adaptible. But Graeme can't smash 200 in a day can he? That can't be completely brushed aside as a non-factor when comparing the two. Sehwag is a SC-bully, no doubt, but unlike Mahela, Yousuf etc, he gets his SC runs in ridiculously devastating fashion. That has to count as a big plus, and I don't see people giving that it's due importance.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Sure, he was more adaptible. But Graeme can't smash 200 in a day can he? That can't be completely brushed aside as a non-factor when comparing the two. Sehwag is a SC-bully, no doubt, but unlike Mahela, Yousuf etc, he gets his SC runs in ridiculously devastating fashion. That has to count as a big plus, and I don't see people giving that it's due importance.

Sounds like the Gilchrist-needs-a-likeness-of-his-head-chiseled-on-Mount-Rushmore argument to a certain extent.

It may be because a run is a run. Slow runs can let your partners score runs and accumulate more extras. Slow runs can sometimes save a test match so as to salvage a draw. For openers, slow runs can take the shine off the ball and the soften it for the middle order.

 

[Jono]

Smith, Younis, Clarke probably. All jets though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sounds like the Gilchrist-needs-a-likeness-of-his-head-chiseled on Mount Rushmore argument to a certain extent.

It may be because a run is a run. Slow runs can let your partners score runs and accumulate more extras. Slow runs can sometimes save a test match so as to salvage a draw. For openers, slow runs can take the shine off the ball and the soften it for the middle order.

Of curse that's my point. Smith trumps Sehwag when it comes to any innings say < 60 or so, because even though he's not converted he'd be in there for longer. However, I'd say the really big scores, like a run a ball 200 is better than a 200 (350) made in the same conditions won't you agree? Either way my point was that Sehwag's destructive ability (which is totally unique) is as much an asset as Smith's adaptability across conditions.

 

[Coronis]

Chanders, Younis, Clarke.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

However, I'd say the really big scores, like a run a ball 200 is better than a 200 (350) made in the same conditions won't you agree? .

No. Not always.

I watched Kane Williamson and Brendon McCullum last year in the UAE. Brendon played a very effective run a ball 200 off 188 balls. Kane Williamson completely out batted him for less runs off more balls. But runs are runs. And Kane was a lot quicker than the 350 balls SR you suggest. Kane ensured that further partnerships were formed making a good start with McCullum, a big total. Which Pakistan had failed to do so in their first innings after being 3-285. That is the beauty of batting longer.

3rd Test: New Zealand v Pakistan at Sharjah, Nov 26-30, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Maybe if in India if you're regularly running out of time to bowl sides out twice in 5 days, those Sehwag knocks have a greater value, but he will score >60 a helluva lot more often. So it averages out against Sehwag on that basis.

Do I enjoy watching the ball fly into and over the boundary? Of course. But 3 two's are still worth 1 six.

 

[Contra]

^ That test and that KW innings are not legitimate example of a difference between a fast scorer and an average scorer, KW himself scored at close to 80 SR so it's not a valid comparison between someone with a 50-55 SR and someone striking at close 90-100+. As you said yourself, the difference between a draw and a potential test victory can be the scoring rate on the subcontinent, the number of times Sehwag's SR was the difference between a win and a draw was pretty high.

There is also the fact that a player who can score quickly becomes that much more valuable if the rest of your team is collapsing like crazy, Sehwag scored 201 out of 329 while India were AO inside 82 overs, any other player. Sometimes the rest of your team simply isn't good enough to build partnerships with you, in which case you prefer the guy who can loot runs rather than hang around, so it works both ways.

Shikhar Dhawan did the same thing during his debut innings against Australia, smashed a run a ball 180 odd and India just about managed to win inside 4 days with the first day being washed out for rain. Scoring fast has incredible advantages, ESPECIALLY in the subcontinent.

For openers, slow runs can take the shine off the ball and the soften it for the middle order.

Or you can just smash the ball in the first few overs to the point where it's shine's all but gone

 

[Fuller Pilch]

KP and Jayawardene?

Good try - KP (3rd) and Smith (2nd)

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Younus Khan very heavily rated and I thought more might've voted for Mahela. I'm surprised KP is so high - played some stunning innings admittedly.

 

[Flem274*]

Lol at thinking Smith was a failure against Australia. Conclusive proof you don't watch cricket Blocky.

Sure, he was more adaptible. But Graeme can't smash 200 in a day can he? That can't be completely brushed aside as a non-factor when comparing the two. Sehwag is a SC-bully, no doubt, but unlike Mahela, Yousuf etc, he gets his SC runs in ridiculously devastating fashion. That has to count as a big plus, and I don't see people giving that it's due importance.

I don't even think Sehwag was a true SC bully. He scored runs in Australia and even has a ton in SA iirc, just couldn't adapt to England at all and had a Vettori problem.

But Smith was just the man. The things he did made statements and he did it everywhere. By a mile was hyperbole for incendiary purposes but I think Smith was better.

 

[Contra]

Lol at thinking Smith was a failure against Australia. Conclusive proof you don't watch cricket Blocky.

I don't even think Sehwag was a true SC bully. He scored runs in Australia and even has a ton in SA iirc, just couldn't adapt to England at all and had a Vettori problem.

But Smith was just the man. The things he did made statements and he did it everywhere. By a mile was hyperbole for incendiary purposes but I think Smith was better.

Sehwag has a ton in England as well, in fact he averaged almost 40 on his first tour there when he was new, the next time he toured he was kind of pressured into playing because India were getting owned and they just thought Sehwag could produce some magic even though his shoulder barely had any power in it. The sample size for England/NZ tests for Sehwag is simply too small to make any grand statements about him, which is why the emphasis should be on having actually watched his innings and understanding him as a batsmen rather than simply saying "oh look averages 25 against in XYZ country".

I think people remember Smith more because he had a team which actually closed out matches for him when he clicked, so his performances stick in your mind. He doesn't even have one century against India IIRC, and even his performances against Australia are mainly from that 2008 tour, so even though he clicked against Australia his overall record is still not that great. Smith's played some exceptional innings, don't get me wrong, but on average he hasn't been that much better than any of the players in this poll.

 

[cnerd123]

Went for YK, KP and Clarke.

Tough tho. On another day I might have picked Chanders and Smith in there.

 

[Jono]

it's graeme by a mile. was a beast everywhere against everyone.

Zaheer Khan just spat out his masala chai

 

[OverratedSanity]

Surprised at the total lack of votes for Mahela. The only difference in his and Younis' records is that he's had comparatively more chances to fail overseas.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Zaheer Khan just spat out his masala chai

 

[Flem274*]

Zaheer Khan just spat out his masala chai

obviously what you should take from my post is zaheer is neither a place nor a person

 

[ImpatientLime]

smith
younis
clarke
mahela
chanders

<daylight>

turns up one innings a series man

 

[Zinzan]

I'm kind of curious to see a YK vs Yousuf battle now. I always felt Pakistani supporters in particular rated Yousuf higher, but that might have been a couple of years ago tbf.