My three cents:The Windies already have easily the largest representation in this thing so maybe Inzy deserves it more. Anyway, I'll abstain and leave it to the next lucky nominator.
I'm gonna have a top 8 seeds and then randomize the rest, just so we don't get Sobers vs Viv in round 1 or something
I'm thinking this ATM, sorry to Grace, Trumper etc
1. Sobers
2. Viv
3. Hobbs
4. Sachin
5. Lara
6. Hutton
7. Headley
8. Hammond
This sets up some interesting potential quarter final matches, should some of these names make it to the final 8
According to Charles Davis in his book The Best of The Best, the strike rates of those batsmen were:Isn't hammonds SR supposed to be in 30s or something? That brings me to another question: what are the estimated SRs of the following bats? If someone can shed some light, I would appreciate it:
Bradman, Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar and Sobers
Not a particular source.. I just remember reading it in some old thread about both Hammond and Sutcliffe having SRs in 30s. Turns out it wasn't true after all. On a side note, mammoth score in a day wasn't that uncommon in those days considering much higher numbers of overs bowled. So it's not a definitive indication of aggressive SRAccording to Charles Davis in his book The Best of The Best, the strike rates of those batsmen were:
Bradman 62.7
Hobbs 57.2
Hutton 42
Gavaskar 48
Sobers 55
Hammond 51
I'm not sure where you heard Hammond's strike rate was in the 30s? He made 200 runs in a day four times.
According to the same source, Herbert Sutcliffe's strike rate (40.8) was not much higher than you originally thought. 200 runs in a day might not then have been an indication of a very high strike rate, but it was certainly an indication of a strike rate over 50 (for that innings at least).Not a particular source.. I just remember reading it in some old thread about both Hammond and Sutcliffe having SRs in 30s. Turns out it wasn't true after all. On a side note, mammoth score in a day wasn't that uncommon in those days considering much higher numbers of overs bowled. So it's not a definitive indication of aggressive SR
Thank you for those figures
His overall record also suffers from playing on after the war when he was overweight, drunk and suffering from arthritis.My three cents:
1. Purely as batsmen, Pollock and Gavaskar deserve a seeded position more than Hammond. Hammond's overall record benefits from his annihilation of the then weak New Zealand attack and Pollock and Gavaskar played against a higher standard of bowling.
2. Hobbs should be above Viv IMO. It seems the critics agree.
3. Personally I would also swap Tendulkar and Headley, although I'm sure that will not be the consensus.
I was just reading about him... wtf @ 286 in less than 3 hours(FC) and 104 out of 139 in 75 minutes(test). Must be one of the highest rated centuries everHaha Jessop's strike rate is insane.
Also 157 in an hour against West Indies in 1900 (nice bowling figures from Hinds BTW ),101 in 40 minutes in 1897 against the then mighty Yorkshire attack and 191 out of 234 in 90 minutes in 1907 against the Players of the South. As arguably the best fielder in the world of his time and a very useful fast bowler, he could have been a T20 superstar if born 110 years later.I was just reading about him... wtf @ 286 in less than 3 hours(FC) and 104 out of 139 in 75 minutes(test). Must be one of the highest rated centuries ever
Calling the 2011 World Cup a war is stretching itHis overall record also suffers from playing on after the war when he was overweight, drunk and suffering from arthritis.