Worlds Best Batsmen [Present]

[Perm]

Perm isn't a troll he's a very good poster. He isn't a troll for having a different opinion.

Thanks mate.

 

[Laurrz]

PontingIsGod

he's got 20 tests to play next year...sheesh... imagine the records he could break..i hope this insane form which has been goin on for a couple of years continues!

 

[sirdj]

On current performance it has to be Ponting.

 

[Manee]

I wrote an article for planetcricket on the Worlds Greatest Batsman on a widely respected but never backed up point of view.

Cricket is a game of several arts: batting, the several styles of bowling, and fielding. In the first installment of the series, I will hope to provide an accurate insight into who I believe is the master of each particular art. Whether they are playing now or not, is irrelevant.

The World's Greatest Batsman

Many Indian fans will immediately shout the name Sachin Tendulkar. His perfect technique and fluid strokeplay enter him into any contest for the greatest batsman of the world. His trademark stroke is the gentle push down the ground for four and it sums him up perfectly; finesse and grace, but at the same time, rapid accumilation of runs. However, I wish to eliminate him now from my search. As Ian Chappel said in a recent interview, Sachin Tendulkar does not win matches for his team and his career seems to be based on etching out an odd 50 in order to keep a steady average and expand on his already massive tally of runs. He no longer dominates attacks or scores large scores consistantly and has not done for a long time or a substantial portion of his career to be considered great.

Rahul Dravid is an often overlooked candidate. He averages an astonishing 57 in the Test game and a more than respectable 40 in the shorter form of the international game. He holds many impressive but slightly obscure statistics. For one, he averages over 75 when India do not lose a test match which shows that Rahul Dravid is behind his fair share of Indian wins. He is also not out in 27% of his test match innings, which reafirms his nickname as 'The Wall! He plays the defence shot directly under the eyes with the utmost of caution and any full ball on the stumps will be sent racing through midwicket for four. In my opinion, one must set the crowd alight to achieve true greatness and a strike rate of under 50 and 75 in Tests and ODIs respectively does not do this. A valuable member of any cricket team but The World's Greatest Batsman? No!

Donald Bradman is the obvious person who comes to mind upon mentioning "The Greatest Batsman of all time". However, having never played the shorter form of the game, the man with a test average of 99.94, who played on sticky wickets for 15 day test matches will have to settle for one less honour. Had he lived in the age of television or the One Day (or God forbid the twenty20) game, my decision could be different but he didn't, so it's not.

Sir Vivian Richards. An extravagant name and title for an extravagant stroke maker. The strong West Indian carried an aura as he strolled out to the crease. The opposing team, whether it be Australia, India, England or anyone else would know that annihilation of their bowling attack would not be too far away and that they would likely see the ball disappear to all ends of the park. An unorthodox batsman, Viv captivated the audience by seemingly dancing around the crease against spin and pace alike to get the ball in the area of the boundary rope he would prefer. However, what a strike rate near 100 in ODIs and averages over 45 in both forms of the game do not tell you is the very up and down form which the great man had. In 1979, he averaged 131 in ODIs and 118 in Test matches. Compare and contrast this to the 1990 in which he averaged 19 in ODIs and 28 in Test matches. Sadly, this trend was one throughout his career and although this example may be the most extreme, he could not be counted on (especially in ODIs) to score runs when needed. The two batsman I place ahead of him, mentioned later in the article, both consistently score runs and can be counted on to etch the team out of trouble when required. A great man, with a great record, Sir Vivian Richards will forever be remembered as a master of batting. However, living in the age of West Indian dominance have hidden this man's inconsistency from the cricketing public and taking into account what I have exposed has placed this man as number 3 in this article of World's Greatest Batsmen.

I wish to narrow it down to Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara, ironically, both endorse the same cricket game series in which runs are easy to come by as are a wide array of shots placed anywhere around the ground.

Ricky Ponting is a rare breed; he is part of a small group of batsman who out-strike-rate Rahul Dravid in both forms of the game as well as out averaging him! This facet alone enters "Punter" Ponting into my search. When he is on form, it is always worth a 'punt' that he will score runs (sorry). His position at number three in a strong Australian line up is ideal for him. He usually comes in to bat with over 50 on the board scored at about 4 runs an over in Tests, or 5 runs per over in ODIs. With runs on the board and a high run rate to match, he can consolidate the innings with slow steady scoring and in the process build a large the foundation for a large innings for himself. However, Ricky Ponting has seldom had to deal with a quick wicket at the start of the innings. It is much easier to score runs when you have had a solid start than when you are 0/1 off the first over. As the captain of the world's greatest test and one day side of all time, he has never had to carry a series for his team. Ricky Ponting has never been the shining light in an otherwise bleak series, he has always had the support of world class batsman and has never had a fine innings cut short by a lack of partners. No, I do not believe that Ricky Ponting is the greatest batsman of all time because he has rarely had to deal with the pressure of an impending loss and the way one deals with pressure, in my opinion, is the way you judge a great batsman. It is not his fault that he has played for the mighty Australia but one cannot be sure he would have been the same great batsman had he played for Bermuda or Omar.

A batsman is also judged by how many runs they score. However, this simply leads the most capped batsman with the most runs, and this obviously is not correct. My altered theory states that a great batsman is judged on how many runs they score in an innings. In Test matches, Brian Charles Lara has scored 6 double hundreds, a 375 and a quadruple century (not out)! Not only that, he has scored a quintuple (501*) hundred against the 'mighty' Durham in 1994 as well. This astonishing record of huge scores is unmatched in the game of cricket at any level. He consistently shines above his team mates and has attempted and successfully saved and won many matches for the West Indies. These extraordinarily high scores and records where his team mates have failed, point to something very special. As number four in a weak and inconsistant West Indian line up, he often has to build a large innings not only for himself, but to ensure his team put a competitive total on the board. His high bat lift, bent front knee and the resulting powerful stroke are the fear of many great pace and spin bowlers. Not only that but many also often refer to his genius in such strokes as the late cut in which he can eliminate the fielders by placing the ball inches wide of the wicketkeeper and pick up runs in the process.

A genius, a powerful strokemaker and a record breaker, Brian Charles Lara, in my opinion, is the greatest batsman of all time.

 

[Perm]

I wrote an article for planetcricket on the Worlds Greatest Batsman on a widely respected but never backed up point of view.

Excellent article there mate, but I think it's irrefutable that Bradman was the best ever, even if he didn't play ODI cricket. Also I find it rather amusing that you credit Brian Lara for his consistency.

 

[Manee]

Excellent article there mate, but I think it's irrefutable that Bradman was the best ever, even if he didn't play ODI cricket. Also I find it rather amusing that you credit Brian Lara for his consistency.

Well, many reasons I have not picked Bradman, never seen him bat which is the best indication of a class batsman, never knew the quality who bowled agaisnt him either.

As for Lara, that went over my head (ie, I didn't understand it)

Tests

1993 (23y 244d)        7   10   0   586 277   96   52   58.60   1   3   0
1994 (24y 244d)        8   14   0   996 375  167   91   71.14   2   4   1
1995 (25y 244d)       12   20   2  1222 179  152  147   67.88   4   6   1
1996 (26y 244d)        5    9   0   226  74   44   40   25.11   0   1   0
1997 (27y 244d)       12   21   0   859 132  115  103   40.90   3   3   1
1998 (28y 244d)        9   15   1   608  93   89   79   43.42   0   5   0
1999 (29y 244d)        8   15   1   832 213  153* 100   59.42   3   4   0
2000 (30y 244d)        9   17   0   497 182  112   50   29.23   2   1   4
2001 (31y 244d)        9   18   0  1151 221  178  130   63.94   3   4   1
2002 (32y 244d)        7   10   0   351  73   55   52   35.10   0   3   1
2003 (33y 244d)       10   19   1  1344 209  202  191   74.66   5   5   0
2004 (34y 244d)       12   21   1  1178 400* 120  115   58.90   3   4   3
2005 (35y 244d)        9   17   0  1110 226  196  176   65.29   5   0   1
2006 (36y 244d)       10   18   0   749 216  122  120   41.61   3   2   3

Seems pretty consistantly between 30 and 65 which is all great.

ODIs

1993 (23y 244d)       30   30   3  1349 153  128  114   49.96   4   7   1
1994 (24y 244d)       14   14   0   479  89   74   69   34.21   0   4   0
1995 (25y 244d)       15   14   2   806 169  139   72   67.16   2   6   0
1996 (26y 244d)       15   15   3   692 146* 111  104   57.66   3   2   0
1997 (27y 244d)       18   17   2   755 103* 102   90   50.33   2   5   3
1998 (28y 244d)        8    8   1   386 110   93   60*  55.14   1   3   0
1999 (29y 244d)       29   28   2   631 117   60   48   24.26   1   1   2
2000 (30y 244d)       11   10   0   359  87   76   60   35.90   0   4   0
2001 (31y 244d)       20   20   3   732 116*  92   83*  43.05   1   5   3
2002 (32y 244d)       10    9   3   292 111   59*  47   48.66   1   1   1
2003 (33y 244d)       21   21   2   888 116  116  113   46.73   3   4   0
2004 (34y 244d)       20   18   3   484  59*  58   57   32.26   0   3   0
2005 (35y 244d)       15   15   0   438 156   58   52   29.20   1   2   3
2006 (36y 244d)       28   26   5   660  87   71   69   31.42   0   4   1
2007 (37y 244d)       12   11   1   386  83   77   44*  38.60   0   2   0

Slight decline at the end, but consistant.

And finally, really big thank you for reading and liking my article.

 

[Perm]

Well, many reasons I have not picked Bradman, never seen him bat which is the best indication of a class batsman, never knew the quality who bowled agaisnt him either.

As for Lara, that went over my head (ie, I didn't understand it)

Tests

1993 (23y 244d)        7   10   0   586 277   96   52   58.60   1   3   0
1994 (24y 244d)        8   14   0   996 375  167   91   71.14   2   4   1
1995 (25y 244d)       12   20   2  1222 179  152  147   67.88   4   6   1
1996 (26y 244d)        5    9   0   226  74   44   40   25.11   0   1   0
1997 (27y 244d)       12   21   0   859 132  115  103   40.90   3   3   1
1998 (28y 244d)        9   15   1   608  93   89   79   43.42   0   5   0
1999 (29y 244d)        8   15   1   832 213  153* 100   59.42   3   4   0
2000 (30y 244d)        9   17   0   497 182  112   50   29.23   2   1   4
2001 (31y 244d)        9   18   0  1151 221  178  130   63.94   3   4   1
2002 (32y 244d)        7   10   0   351  73   55   52   35.10   0   3   1
2003 (33y 244d)       10   19   1  1344 209  202  191   74.66   5   5   0
2004 (34y 244d)       12   21   1  1178 400* 120  115   58.90   3   4   3
2005 (35y 244d)        9   17   0  1110 226  196  176   65.29   5   0   1
2006 (36y 244d)       10   18   0   749 216  122  120   41.61   3   2   3

Seems pretty consistantly between 30 and 65 which is all great.

ODIs

1993 (23y 244d)       30   30   3  1349 153  128  114   49.96   4   7   1
1994 (24y 244d)       14   14   0   479  89   74   69   34.21   0   4   0
1995 (25y 244d)       15   14   2   806 169  139   72   67.16   2   6   0
1996 (26y 244d)       15   15   3   692 146* 111  104   57.66   3   2   0
1997 (27y 244d)       18   17   2   755 103* 102   90   50.33   2   5   3
1998 (28y 244d)        8    8   1   386 110   93   60*  55.14   1   3   0
1999 (29y 244d)       29   28   2   631 117   60   48   24.26   1   1   2
2000 (30y 244d)       11   10   0   359  87   76   60   35.90   0   4   0
2001 (31y 244d)       20   20   3   732 116*  92   83*  43.05   1   5   3
2002 (32y 244d)       10    9   3   292 111   59*  47   48.66   1   1   1
2003 (33y 244d)       21   21   2   888 116  116  113   46.73   3   4   0
2004 (34y 244d)       20   18   3   484  59*  58   57   32.26   0   3   0
2005 (35y 244d)       15   15   0   438 156   58   52   29.20   1   2   3
2006 (36y 244d)       28   26   5   660  87   71   69   31.42   0   4   1
2007 (37y 244d)       12   11   1   386  83   77   44*  38.60   0   2   0

Slight decline at the end, but consistant.

And finally, really big thank you for reading and liking my article.

Wow, you have researched this a lot. I understand your points about Sir Donald Bradman, since you haven't seen him bat then you can't categorically state he is the best ever, even though all statistical information points to him.

As for Brian Lara, he may be consistent over the years but I was thinking more during a series. If he has scores of 0, 200, 0 and 0 then he would still average 50 and you could hardly call him consistent.

 

[andmark]

Well... yeah, I am, but there are plenty of others who feel the same way about it, TBH.

Me for example.

 

[Perm]

Me for example.

I thought you were a big Twenty20 fan?

 

[Manee]

Wow, you have researched this a lot. I understand your points about Sir Donald Bradman, since you haven't seen him bat then you can't categorically state he is the best ever, even though all statistical information points to him.

As for Brian Lara, he may be consistent over the years but I was thinking more during a series. If he has scores of 0, 200, 0 and 0 then he would still average 50 and you could hardly call him consistent.

That is a very fair point. Let's take 4 random series stretching throughout his career and see if it is true (disclaimer: before writing this, I had not even picked the series yet so this could prove Perm or me right)...

West Indies Vs Pakistan: 2006/7:
Tests: 61, 122, 216, 0, 49

Bangladesh in West Indies, 2004:
Tests: 53, 120

West Indies in England, 2000:
Tests: 50, 6, 5, 13, 112, 4, 2, 0, 47

West Indies in Australia, 1996/7:
Tests: 26, 44, 2, 1, 2, 2, 9, 78, 132

Your point has been backed up here as two series show how Lara can tend to score 1 big score amongst a flurry of small ones, however, the first two series' show that occasionally, Lara has a very good series in 90% of innings in that series.

ODIs now.

West Indies in New Zealand, 2000:
ODIs: 76, 2, 30, 5, 37,

India v West Indies, 1994/95:
ODIs: 10, 6, 39, 89, 47

India v West Indies, 2007:
ODIs: 31, 83. 3

Sri Lanka in West Indies, 2003:
ODIs: 64, 116, 14

Clearly, Perm was right about inconstancy within a series. However, in each series, there is at least one match winning innings and that is superb. Also, in series such as ODI Sri Lanka in West Indies 2003 and TEST West Indies Vs Pakistan: 2006/7, he does hold constant brilliance throughout the series. A very complex issue this.

 

[GIMH]

The day that everyone starts using 20/20 (or ODI for that matter) as a judge of how good a batsman someone is, is the day that I'll kill myself (or switch my allegiance to football).

Guys, I think from now on we should all use 20/20 to decide how good a batsman someone is.

 

[Fiery]

Guys, I think from now on we should all use 20/20 to decide how good a batsman someone is.

haha, too easy GIMH

 

[Richard]

Guys, I think from now on we should all use 20/20 to decide how good a batsman someone is.

Feel a bit guilty about this, never thought I'd have to use it on you but...















YES, THIS - you know it

 

[Perm]

Feel a bit guilty about this, never thought I'd have to use it on you but...

If that was coming from haroon then maybe the rolleyes would've been needed, whereas GIMH's post was about as serious as the sky is orange.

 

[howardj]

Ponting clearly ahead, and followed by Kallis, Dravid and Yousuf, KP who all pretty even.

Agree entirely.

 

[pasag]

I wrote an article for planetcricket on the Worlds Greatest Batsman on a widely respected but never backed up point of view.

Good article Manee, just a fundamental problem with it though. You can't make an article about the greatest batsman of all time but only include pepople from 1971 and onwards (because that's when ODI cricket was started which you rate highly in your analysis). You've made a list of the greatest in histrory but excluded anyone from the 19th century and the majority of the 20th centruy. Perhaps you should rename it to the greatest batsmen of the modern era, defining that as 1970s and onwards. But to have it as the greatest of all time but disqualify anyone from 1877-1971 is fundamentally flawed imo.

Another similar point, if you don't want to pick a batsman because you've never seen him bat, then you can't make an all-time list, because you haven't seen all the batting for 'all time'.

 

[R_D]

Perm isn't a troll he's a very good poster. He isn't a troll for having a different opinion.

hehehe

I do think Perm is a good poster too.

 

[Manee]

Good article Manee, just a fundamental problem with it though. You can't make an article about the greatest batsman of all time but only include pepople from 1971 and onwards (because that's when ODI cricket was started which you rate highly in your analysis). You've made a list of the greatest in histrory but excluded anyone from the 19th century and the majority of the 20th centruy. Perhaps you should rename it to the greatest batsmen of the modern era, defining that as 1970s and onwards. But to have it as the greatest of all time but disqualify anyone from 1877-1971 is fundamentally flawed imo.

Another similar point, if you don't want to pick a batsman because you've never seen him bat, then you can't make an all-time list, because you haven't seen all the batting for 'all time'.

That is interesting, and I will take that into consideration when writing other articles.

 

[Richard]

If that was coming from haroon then maybe the rolleyes would've been needed, whereas GIMH's post was about as serious as the sky is orange.

Probably needed a YES, THIS POST - etc. TBH. Will edit before he sees...

 

[Perm]

Probably needed a YES, THIS POST - etc. TBH. Will edit before he sees...

The rolleyes is not to be treated lightly my friend.