most exciting batsmen

[Mr Casson]

It might make the purists choke on their Pimms, but I reckon for sheer excitement you can't beat a powerful tailender having a mow.

I think Harmison's thirty-odd against The Windies in the 4th test was pretty good value, excitement wise. Of course it was an adjunct to a solid batting display & I might've not found quite so enjoyably exciting if he'd come in at 150-8!

Haha, you've hit the nail on the head for me! It's wonderful. Ugly, but wonderful at the same time. Like Langer was today.

 

[iamdavid]

Has to be Herschelle Gibbs for me , mixes aesthetics and elegance with flamboyance and quick scoring.

 

[The Baconator]

i tend to find slogging only a bit more exciting that just good test match cricket but nothing can beat the likes of murali and harmison having a swing

 

[a massive zebra]

Dravid and Lara

 

[a massive zebra]

Mr Gilly no contest

Its only no contest if strike rate equals excitement. Personally I prefer to watch a genius like Lara or a technically perfect master like Dravid.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Harmison the batsman is great to watch because as soon as he makes contact it's not a case of how many but of how many rows back it's gonna land. I think the fact that you're not really expecting Harmison or various others to smash the ball all over the place makes it more exciting - although it's agony if an opposing player does it. Of proper batsmen Flintoff when he goes up a few notches is the most exciting to watch, the way he constructs innings means his strike rate isn't the fastest, but once he goes for it he scores as fast as anyone - he's had so many occasions where he's hit his last 50 (out of 100 odd or whatever) off 20-25 balls.

 

[Barney Rubble]

In a really weird way, I love watching Matthew Hoggard bat - mostly because of his absolute rock-solid determination not to play any attacking shot of any kind, it's great - seeing him unintentionally cover-drive Corey Collymore for four in the summer was priceless, especially because soon after that, he actually tried some attacking shots! One dropped just over mid-off's head, the next went straight down cover's throat!

I really get the impression that, because he obviously has little or no natural talent with the bat, he has to work incredibly hard for every run he gets - which is why I would love to see him score a Test 50 at some point, and I believe he will. I can see him playing a heroic match-saving innings of 10* off 120 balls or something v Aus next summer!

It's not exciting, but it's funny as hell.

 

[Richard]

I really get the impression that, because he obviously has little or no natural talent with the bat, he has to work incredibly hard for every run he gets

IMO he's got far more natual talent than most give him credit for - he wouldn't be able to hit the ball anywhere near as comfortably as he can if he didn't have a reasonable eye.
The real improvement has simply come in his mentality - instead of trying to slog everything out of sight (which, believe me, he did up to summer 2002), he's dropped his backlift, reined himself in and looked to do the easiest thing - block the straight balls and leave the rest.
Yes, it's taken an immense amount of hard work and he should be given full credit for that, but IMO those who brand him as less talented than, say, Harmison or Johnson are wrong and harsh on Hoggard.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

The last 99 Warney hit

 

[SJS]

Laxman,
Gibbs,
Ponting,
and Lara

either of them in full flow against world class bowling is a feast.

The quality of bowling is equally important for me. Howsoever great the batsman, if he is slaughtering a mediocre attack , it never excites me.

 

[viktor]

for sheer fun, nuthin can match harbhajan's chopper shots

 

[Neil Pickup]

In a really weird way, I love watching Matthew Hoggard bat - mostly because of his absolute rock-solid determination not to play any attacking shot of any kind, it's great - seeing him unintentionally cover-drive Corey Collymore for four in the summer was priceless, especially because soon after that, he actually tried some attacking shots! One dropped just over mid-off's head, the next went straight down cover's throat!

I really get the impression that, because he obviously has little or no natural talent with the bat, he has to work incredibly hard for every run he gets - which is why I would love to see him score a Test 50 at some point, and I believe he will. I can see him playing a heroic match-saving innings of 10* off 120 balls or something v Aus next summer!

It's not exciting, but it's funny as hell.

He's getting a lot better and quickly too - he made 89* for Yorkshire at the end of last season on night-watch at number six when the rest of the tail deserted him. I'm sure the Test fifty and FC ton aren't far away - I reckon something's on against Bangladesh in May.

 

[krishneelz]

sachin tendulkar at 31 still exciting

 

[Richard]

The quality of bowling is equally important for me. Howsoever great the batsman, if he is slaughtering a mediocre attack , it never excites me.

Trouble, for an attack to be slaughtered, it normally has to bowl pretty mediocrely...
For instance, Pakistan's attack in WC2003 came with all the reputation in The World - and bowled a pile of trash at Tendulkar, Sehwag and Kaif.
On the other hand, Chris Gayle hit a breathtaking 90 (it stopped being breathtaking once he hit 90, and the next 26 runs were just normal Gayle) off 60 balls against South Africa at Newlands last winter without the bowling being too bad at all. It was an incredible innings - though, inevitably, there were some streaky shots, there were plenty of perfectly good balls slapped or flayed or short-arm-jabbed to the boundary.
That innings rates second on my list of breathtaking innings - after, clearly, the Astle 222 at Christchurch - again, there was nothing wrong with the bowling but everything he touched turned to stardust. No matter what they bowled, the result was it would hit the middle of his bat and fly off at a rate of knotts. People mainly remember the last century (39 balls, within 1 of breaking Viv Richards' record for the fastest 100 runs in Test-cricket) and forget the early part of the innings, where he was regularly despatching a swinging ball through and over the cover-ring, and pulling stuff that was dragged down with regularity. I remember both with equal fondness.
Some write the innings off because there was never a realistic chance of it influencing the result. Personally I say that a chanceless 222 of 158 balls - not merely chanceless but without once ever really looking like getting out - is perhaps a never-to-be-repeated (or even approached) effort, given the high quality of the bowling.

 

[pakster]

Afridi, without question!

Tendulkar is a close second IMO, that innings he played against pak in the last world cup was nothing short of astonoshing.

Flintoff, Klusner (the old one), Razzaq also deserve a mention.

 

[a massive zebra]

Trouble, for an attack to be slaughtered, it normally has to bowl pretty mediocrely...

Not when Lara is in form. i.e. Australia 98/99 or Sri Lanka 2001/02

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't say Lara slaughtered the Sri Lanka attack in 2001\02, he just conquered it.
It was great, two fantastic bowlers (Chaminda and Murali) bowling brilliantly, only one great batsman managing to resist them.
I haven't a clue how the Australia attack bowled in 1998\99 - I do know, however, that but for Mark Waugh's drop on 44 in the double-century and Healey's with 7 needed in the 153* Lara's performance would not be nearly so highly regarded as it is.
Nonetheless, I'd not put it past Lara to every now and then play an innings where he flayed perfectly decent bowling to all corners - he's that sort of player.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I wouldn't say Lara slaughtered the Sri Lanka attack in 2001\02, he just conquered it.
It was great, two fantastic bowlers (Chaminda and Murali) bowling brilliantly, only one great batsman managing to resist them.
I haven't a clue how the Australia attack bowled in 1998\99 - I do know, however, that but for Mark Waugh's drop on 44 in the double-century and Healey's with 7 needed in the 153* Lara's performance would not be nearly so highly regarded as it is.
Nonetheless, I'd not put it past Lara to every now and then play an innings where he flayed perfectly decent bowling to all corners - he's that sort of player.

Even if Healy held him during 153*, to have gotten the team so close already banked it as a great innings. Also, it wasn't the simplest of misses. Simply saying "dropped catch" doesn't do Healy much justice.

118.1 Gillespie to Lara, no run, outside edge, DROPPED, ball was
travelling at some speed, Lara trying to glide it past the slips,
too fine, healy was leaping to his left in front of the slip

 

[SJS]

Trouble, for an attack to be slaughtered, it normally has to bowl pretty mediocrely...
For instance, Pakistan's attack in WC2003 came with all the reputation in The World - and bowled a pile of trash at Tendulkar, Sehwag and Kaif.
On the other hand, Chris Gayle hit a breathtaking 90 (it stopped being breathtaking once he hit 90, and the next 26 runs were just normal Gayle) off 60 balls against South Africa at Newlands last winter without the bowling being too bad at all. It was an incredible innings - though, inevitably, there were some streaky shots, there were plenty of perfectly good balls slapped or flayed or short-arm-jabbed to the boundary.
That innings rates second on my list of breathtaking innings - after, clearly, the Astle 222 at Christchurch - again, there was nothing wrong with the bowling but everything he touched turned to stardust. No matter what they bowled, the result was it would hit the middle of his bat and fly off at a rate of knotts. People mainly remember the last century (39 balls, within 1 of breaking Viv Richards' record for the fastest 100 runs in Test-cricket) and forget the early part of the innings, where he was regularly despatching a swinging ball through and over the cover-ring, and pulling stuff that was dragged down with regularity. I remember both with equal fondness.
Some write the innings off because there was never a realistic chance of it influencing the result. Personally I say that a chanceless 222 of 158 balls - not merely chanceless but without once ever really looking like getting out - is perhaps a never-to-be-repeated (or even approached) effort, given the high quality of the bowling.

I agree.

I saw the Astle innings later in TV highlights. It was an amazing knock. It is one of my two big regrets of missed innings. This one and Kapils , unrecorded, 175 not out against Zimbabwe.

You are right that the brilliance of an innings can not be judged purely on the basis of how it affects the outcome of the game , but when it does like Bothams great solo effort against Australia it makes it extra special and there is a tingling excitement/nervousness/edge-of-the-seat feeling added to the joy of watching breathtaking strokes.

Also the batsman, presumably, is going through different kind of mental stresses the thought of which is exciting in itself.

 

[aliG]

Afridi, without question!

NO doubt about it my friend. He simply butchers the ball. A true entertaining delight to watch. When he gets going, simply NO one can escape his fury. In practice, against sami and akhtar; in odi's against lee, pathan, streak, mcgrath and ESPECIALLY VAAS (refer to fastest fifty/hundred game against sri). I mean you name the top quality fast bowler, this man has given them a spanking, like no one we have ever seen. Great eyesight is the key.