Cricketweb decides the second best batsman ever. 32 player bracket, nomination thread

[harsh.ag]

Kanhai and Worrell and May should definitely be there.

 

[weldone]

Ya Worrell must be there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Worrell's already in isn't he?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

i now want imrul kayes

 

[OverratedSanity]

I predict Sachin crashing out in Round 1

 

[mr_mister]

Kanhai and Worrell safely in. May missed out, perhaps due to Sehwag lol. But to be fair he was well behind 5-6 or other names he only got 2 noms. People just didn't speak up about May til it was too late. Will put the bracket up soon in a new thread, where all 5 rounds will take place. Im starting a new thread just for presentation purposes

 

[a massive zebra]

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

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.

 

[kyear2]

Agreed.

Gavaskar definitely deserving more than Hammond.

 

[Chrish]

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

 

[mr_mister]

@ a massive zebra: I gave Pollock and Sunil 9th and 10th seeds before I saw your post lol. So it turned out okay in the end. Sunil will vs Hammond in round 2 to decide who's worthy.


@ Chris: a user on this site, i think his name is viriya, has a website than can be found from his user page here. he has the test strike rates of batsmen dated back to the '20s

 

[a massive zebra]

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

According 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.

 

[Chrish]

According 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.

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

 

[a massive zebra]

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

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).

According to Davis, these batsmen have the highest ever Test strike rates (min 1,000 runs):

Shahid Afridi 87.0
Virender Sehwag 82.2
Adam Gilchrist 82.0
Kapil Dev 80.3
Maurice Tate 75.5
Dave Warner 74.4
Jimmy Sinclair 71
Viv Richards 68.9
Victor Trumper 68
Stuart Broad 66.8

Note: Gilbert Jessop had a strike rate of 112, but scored only 569 runs in Tests.

Here are the slowest scoring batsmen (min 1,000 runs):

Eknath Solkar 30.8
Chris Tavare 30.60
Bruce Edgar 30.4
Alim-ud-din 30
Mike Brearley 29.79
Jim Burke 29.2
Nari Contractor 28.4
Bob Taylor 27.13
Trevor Bailey 26.5
Alec Bannerman 22.3

Note: The slowest scoring recent batsman is Jason Gillespie (31.96).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Haha Jessop's strike rate is insane.

 

[Coronis]

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.

His overall record also suffers from playing on after the war when he was overweight, drunk and suffering from arthritis.

 

[mr_mister]

Haha Jessop's strike rate is insane.

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

 

[a massive zebra]

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

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.

 

[OverratedSanity]

His overall record also suffers from playing on after the war when he was overweight, drunk and suffering from arthritis.

Calling the 2011 World Cup a war is stretching it