Forum Wide Tier List Project Interest Check

[Brian Lara]

Absolutely and it's disappointing they don't get more kudos.

As for Ponting, I think he's probably an A-. He was incredible in MOST conditions. His value overall with his fielding is AFAIC more than most others at the top level of batsmen.

Headley is the second best of that era for me. He was adaptable and with no one else in his team worth talking about he showed his quality. His FC record, in England is no small matter either. A

Grace second best ever A

Agree on ponting. I don't think he's quite worthy for A in my eyes simply because of how exclusive I think the tier should be.

I think trumper is given his due, especially around this forum. I just feel a lot of people who love to study the history of the game (myself included) love to put past players on a pedestal. I personally feel that we have just had a monstrous era for batsmen and I don't think many batsmen down history should be placed above the likes of a ponting or a kallis unless they were truly freak batsmen. Guys like trumper and ranji were phenomenal in their time, but as for A, not sure.

Grace I would agree is A.

 

[NUFAN]

Grace and Bazza Richards are definitely not A Test batsman. When your third highest Test score is in double figures, you dont deserve a spot over a guy who scored 35 100s in a 10 year stretch. If you are including first class matches it just makes the whole process very difficult.

For mine:
B.Richards N/A.
Grace B+

 

[Red]

What a load of bollocks.

Re. Ramprakash, Hich, Bevan etc

It's not a load of bollocks at all. If you average 50 plus in FC cricket but only 25-30 in tests, there is either a problem psychologically, but more likely imo it's the fact that your technique can't cope with facing 4 world class bowlers in one bowling attack, as opposed to the none or one you might get in county or state cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

I know I sound like a broken fitbit, but again Ranji is getting rated higher because of his standing in the game and his first class performances.

Ranji only scored a couple of hundreds too. Look at this way: in 90 Tests if he maintained his career output he would have just under 6000 test runs with 12 100s at an average of basically 45. B grade.

 

[Red]

I know I sound like a broken fitbit, but again Ranji is getting rated higher because of his standing in the game and his first class performances.

Ranji only scored a couple of hundreds too. Look at this way: in 90 Tests if he maintained his career output he would have just under 6000 test runs with 12 100s at an average of basically 45. B grade.

In Ranji's time, 45 was a pretty decent average FWIW

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Burgey]

Too much Gavaskar love here.

 

[jimmy101]

Grace and Bazza Richards are definitely not A Test batsman. When your third highest Test score is in double figures, you dont deserve a spot over a guy who scored 35 100s in a 10 year stretch. If you are including first class matches it just makes the whole process very difficult.

If Grace scored 35 tons in 10 years back in his day that'd be almost superhuman considering there was only one Test match opponent & they played them maybe once every two years.

 

[NUFAN]

In Ranji's time, 45 was a pretty decent average FWIW

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Yes I agree so lets give him a pretty decent grade.

 

[marc71178]

Re. Ramprakash, Hich, Bevan etc

It's not a load of bollocks at all. If you average 50 plus in FC cricket but only 25-30 in tests, there is either a problem psychologically, but more likely imo it's the fact that your technique can't cope with facing 4 world class bowlers in one bowling attack, as opposed to the none or one you might get in county or state cricket.

Rating a bowler who was handy with the bat as higher then proper batsmen is a load of bollocks. One could bat without pressure as he knew his place was secure based on being one of the best bowlers of all time. He also didn't bat up the order where genuine batsmen bat. The others batted in the top order and didn't have the luxury of knowing they were guaranteed to play (plus coming in with a lot of runs on the board)

 

[Brian Lara]

Too much Gavaskar love here.

Gavaskar is one of the greatest opening batsmen of all time. He cemented his legacy and averaged over 50 in an era of devastating quick bowlers.

 

[Brian Lara]

I think we should take into account both test and first class performance when creating this list to be honest. I say this simply because it would be harsh to exclude batsmen like Barry Richards for example because we know what a sensational batsman he was, and similarly Grace's body of work at first class level shouldn't be ignored either.

Any more opinions on the batsmen listed on the previous page?

Is everyone OK at least to see G. Chappell and Sangakkara at A?

 

[Brian Lara]

I think the best way to carry on from here is for me just to list batsmen and then leave it open for voting for the forum. Similar to mr_mister's batsman redux thread. I'm going to do the players in groups of 10 and start with more modern players and then work back towards more vintage players once the tier list takes shape as I feel people like Grace etc are controversial characters best saved for later.

So I'll start with some Australian modern greats to get the ball rolling.
Leave your vote below by each of these players where:
A tier - the greatest batsmen in the history of the game
B tier - era greats
C tier - good international batsmen/great FC batsmen

Michael Hussey
Michael Clarke
Adam Gilchrist
Ricky Ponting
Matthew Hayden
Justin Langer
Michael Slater
Mark Waugh
Mark Taylor
Steve Waugh


My Rankings for these players:
Hussey - B-
Clarke - B
Gilchrist - B
Ponting - A-
Hayden - B+
Langer - B-
Slater - B-
M. Waugh - B-
Taylor - B-
S. Waugh - A-

 

[NUFAN]

Hussey B
Clarke B
Gilchrist B
Ponting A
Hayden A-
Langer B+
Slater B-
MWaugh A-
Taylor B-
SWaugh A-
Lehmann A-

So I have factored in first class cricket..