• 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.

Rate these players out of 10 in tests solely?

Victor Ian

International Coach
Alastair Cook - 4
Hashim Amla - 4
AB de Villiers - 4
Michael Clarke - 4
Kevin Pietersen - 4

Just so it's clear what I define as 10....that is Bradman.
 

Burner

International Regular
Bradman played in a different era to these guys. Unless you've seen him play today, there's no need to drag him into this.
 

kingkallis

International Coach
If Bradman is 10...

Alastair Cook - 4
Hashim Amla - 6
AB de Villiers - 5
Michael Clarke - 5
Kevin Pietersen - 5
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I must ask, how does Amla get a whole point over the others when his figures are about the same as ABdV's?
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I don't quite get the Bradman thing. If 10 is the upper ceiling that's a limitation of the methodology. The best player doesn't have to be the benchmark for the upper limit. It doesn't mean no one else can also be 10 or that there can't be 9's because no one else has an average beyond the 50's. As far as I'm concerned Richards, Sobers, Lara and Tendulkar are all 10's.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You could do it like the Mohs scale. The difference in hardness between Diamond (10) and Corundum (9) is much greater than that between all the other minerals.

So the best players after Bradman get nine, and you simply need to remember how big the gap is.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
You could do it like the Mohs scale. The difference in hardness between Diamond (10) and Corundum (9) is much greater than that between all the other minerals.

So the best players after Bradman get nine, and you simply need to remember how big the gap is.
Not all diamonds are the same hardness - and not all 10's have to be Bradmanesque.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
I don't quite get the Bradman thing. If 10 is the upper ceiling that's a limitation of the methodology. The best player doesn't have to be the benchmark for the upper limit. It doesn't mean no one else can also be 10 or that there can't be 9's because no one else has an average beyond the 50's. As far as I'm concerned Richards, Sobers, Lara and Tendulkar are all 10's.
This.

I wasn't actually being serious. I got home and became a smart arse. Sorry RK123. The usual way around this is to simply declare Bradman is 15.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Alastair Cook - 4
Hashim Amla - 4
AB de Villiers - 4
Michael Clarke - 4
Kevin Pietersen - 4

Just so it's clear what I define as 10....that is Bradman.
This reminds me of when Cribb tried to measure a player's career mathematically. We got a list of most players failing to make a score of 1, a decent specialist bat scored 1-2, and anyone who was real standout got 2 or above. The top ten batsmen of all time scored 3-5 except Bradman, who scored 10.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
This is how I do rankings, whether it be cricket or rooftop replacement.

Have very high standards. Thus, start off by assuming that nobody gets a 10.

Unless they are well-nigh perfect, a freak of nature, an obscenely good batsman who could defy analysis and lay claim to not being replicated.

Well then, Bradman was such a person. So, only he gets a 10.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah just give Bradman a 10 and then the max for everyone else is 9


Sobers, Imran, Warne, Grace, Gilchrist all should get 9


8 can be Mark Waugh tier

7 Can be Atherton etc

4-6 the meh players like Mohammad Sami and stuff


nobody who makes it to tests should really get 3 or under
 
Last edited:

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
As far as I'm concerned the truly great players are 10's. Not sure that Mark Waugh is a benchmark for anything unless you want your trees pruning.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
As far as I'm concerned the truly great players are 10's. Not sure that Mark Waugh is a benchmark for anything unless you want your trees pruning.

20 tons but averaged 40, he's a nice indicator for those who nearly got the most out of their talent but didnt. Steve Waugh did that little bit better and therefore could make the 9 tier
 

RK_123

School Boy/Girl Captain
I think all the points raised are pretty acceptable and worth respectable but now I believe one should come back to the thread rather than going into Bradman and how far he is from the other greatest of all ratings and other stuffs. Would be nice if we are sticking to the thread only.
 

Top