Who is the best middle order batsman these days?

[Richard]

Wtf happened here? The irony of this in light of the "Atmosphere in CC" thread is not lost on me.

You been taking angry pills Richard? You can't have known the OP was a dupe when you made your initial posts, that diatribe was extraordinary really.

As I said - saying "Craig McMillan" is hardly a diatribe. And no, I didn't know that the thread-starter was a d00plicate until it was banned today.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

Hurrh, it doesn't take a nuclear biologist to figure out whether the OP was a spam artist or not.

Just paste the posts inside quotation marks into Google, and when you find such posts plastered all over Yahoo Answers, it's a safe bet the person/thing in question does not have good intentions.

Some of you just like tearing into Rich for the sake of doing so.

 

[andyc]

Cut it out guys. There's a thread now to discuss the state of CC, so go there to do that.

And in reply to DN, yeah, osho was a multi of gap4 and has been banned.

 

[honestbharani]

regardless of who the starter was and what the OP was, I do not think it was a seriously wrong thing to ask in a cricket forum.. And neither do I think Richard going "Craig McMillan" was any big insult...

 

[pasag]

How did Shiv go from being the best middle order bat in the world to out of everyone's reckoning so quickly?

 

[morgieb]

How did Shiv go from being the best middle order bat in the world to out of everyone's reckoning so quickly?

I dunno, but he hasn't been at his 07/08 standards recently. He's still good however.

To answer the question, Sachin's probably no. 1.

Dire form from Richard, it must be said.

 

[SJS]

How did Shiv go from being the best middle order bat in the world to out of everyone's reckoning so quickly?

Because he never was good enough to be called the best batsman in the world (middle order or anywhere else) ever. There is a tendency to call the best in the world purely based on current batting form thus we have seen the best batsman in the world tag being bandied around like ... I dont know what.

In about six years on CW I have seen the best batsman(opener, middle order or overall) in the world being used for Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Steve waugh, Hayden, Inzemam, Yoyo and Moyo, Pietersen, Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Jayawardene, Kallis, Hussey and of course Chanderpaul.

It seems like everyone has an internal ranking system like the ICC or Suzuki or MRF ranking systems and it just, sub-conciously, works on the last known/remembered/recalled stats and decides on the number one ranked player. No one knows what the period of reference is of course. The shorter you make it the more often the best batsman(or bowler) in the world will keep changing.

There are enough ranking systems in the world to do this for us and they do it with a fixed period of reference and conscious and accurate working out of statistics.

I remember some one asking me here why I did not consider Chanderpaul too highly and gave me the batsman's stats over a period of time. I do not recall what I replied but the fact is that to say who has been scoring the most runs in the last three (or six or twelve) months (again ignoring attacks and conditions) is completely different, in my humble opinion than calling them the best in the world.

I am always reminded in such debates of Sachin's early career when he was quickly hailed as a great batsman when still in his teens. By the end of the series in South Africa in 1992-93, he had played 21 Tests and averaged 38.6 per innings Four months later he was twenty. In these four months he played four Tests at home against England (3) and Zimbabwe(1) and his averaged went on to 44.7.

In ODI's, by the time of his 20th birthday, he had scored 1520 runs at 32.34 with a top score of 84 - that's all. Not earth shattering by any stretch of imagination. Yet he was acclaimed the world over as the next great batsman from India after Sunil Gavaskar.

And he was - not because of his figures but inspite of them. You could see it when you saw him at the crease. This is what I dont see with players like Chanderpaul. Every time I see him score big rune I am amazed and wonder if the great bowlers of the past would have let him score so many. The fast bowlers from the West Indies itself in the 80's, the Indian spinners of the 70's, Imran, Lillee and Hadlee I would like to ask them what they really thought of Chanderpaul and his batting.

Mind you I am not saying he is a useless batsman. He is good and he is a very determined young man who has, inspite of his unorthodox stance and style scored very many runs at the top level but one has always wondered whether this could be sustained against the very best bowling for a longer period of time.

But the best in the world . . . . ???

PS : It is just an opinion and it is biased

 

[pasag]

Because he never was good enough to be called the best batsman in the world (middle order or anywhere else) ever. There is a tendency to call the best in the world purely based on current batting form thus we have seen the best batsman in the world tag being bandied around like ... I dont know what.

In about six years on CW I have seen the best batsman(opener, middle order or overall) in the world being used for Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Steve waugh, Hayden, Inzemam, Yoyo and Moyo, Pietersen, Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Jayawardene, Kallis, Hussey and of course Chanderpaul.

It seems like everyone has an internal ranking system like the ICC or Suzuki or MRF ranking systems and it just, sub-conciously, works on the last known/remembered/recalled stats and decides on the number one ranked player. No one knows what the period of reference is of course. The shorter you make it the more often the best batsman(or bowler) in the world will keep changing.

There are enough ranking systems in the world to do this for us and they do it with a fixed period of reference and conscious and accurate working out of statistics.

I remember some one asking me here why I did not consider Chanderpaul too highly and gave me the batsman's stats over a period of time. I do not recall what I replied but the fact is that to say who has been scoring the most runs in the last three (or six or twelve) months (again ignoring attacks and conditions) is completely different, in my humble opinion than calling them the best in the world.

I am always reminded in such debates of Sachin's early career when he was quickly hailed as a great batsman when still in his teens. By the end of the series in South Africa in 1992-93, he had played 21 Tests and averaged 38.6 per innings Four months later he was twenty. In these four months he played four Tests at home against England (3) and Zimbabwe(1) and his averaged went on to 44.7.

In ODI's, by the time of his 20th birthday, he had scored 1520 runs at 32.34 with a top score of 84 - that's all. Not earth shattering by any stretch of imagination. Yet he was acclaimed the world over as the next great batsman from India after Sunil Gavaskar.

And he was - not because of his figures but inspite of them. You could see it when you saw him at the crease. This is what I dont see with players like Chanderpaul. Every time I see him score big rune I am amazed and wonder if the great bowlers of the past would have let him score so many. The fast bowlers from the West Indies itself in the 80's, the Indian spinners of the 70's, Imran, Lillee and Hadlee I would like to ask them what they really thought of Chanderpaul and his batting.

Mind you I am not saying he is a useless batsman. He is good and he is a very determined young man who has, inspite of his unorthodox stance and style scored very many runs at the top level but one has always wondered whether this could be sustained against the very best bowling for a longer period of time.

But the best in the world . . . . ???

PS : It is just an opinion and it is biased

Can't say I agree at all. The best batsman in the world is a dynamic thing and perhaps it should change quickly. Ponting was quite clearly the best bat in the world in 2006 and then he lost form and then he wasn't. Or a batsman might break a leg and lose that mantle or he could be overtaken. It's simply a relative exercise comparing all the batsman in the world and deciding who should take the number one position. Like anything in life if you don't work to maintain that position you can lose it quickly. In a two year period we might have five or six best bats and there's no problem with that, IMO. And if you saw some of Shiv's heroic innings during the past few years I don't think you'd be so quick to question his place at that point in time.

 

[SJS]

Can't say I agree at all. The best batsman in the world is a dynamic thing and perhaps it should change quickly. Ponting was quite clearly the best bat in the world in 2006 and then he lost form and then he wasn't. Or a batsman might break a leg and lose that mantle or he could be overtaken. It's simply a relative exercise comparing all the batsman in the world and deciding who should take the number one position. Like anything in life if you don't work to maintain that position you can lose it quickly. In a two year period we might have five or six best bats and there's no problem with that, IMO. And if you saw some of Shiv's heroic innings during the past few years I don't think you'd be so quick to question his place at that point in time.

PS : It is just an opinion and it is biased

 

[Ikki]

Well SJS, that's why I have such a problem with people rating others simply based on looks. Does Bradman really look at least better than twice every other batsman in history for example? Some things can't be taught and have little to do with orthodox styles.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Who is the best batsman in the world and who I'd want batting for me tomorrow are probably two different questions. Don't know if I ever would have said Chanderpaul was the best batsman in the world, but there were stages where I would have picked him as the man I'd most want batting for me.

 

[Richard]

If there was a better batsman around than Chanderpaul between 2007 and 2008/09 I'd want to know who he was.

 

[SJS]

Who is the best batsman in the world and who I'd want batting for me tomorrow are probably two different questions. Don't know if I ever would have said Chanderpaul was the best batsman in the world, but there were stages where I would have picked him as the man I'd most want batting for me.

Exactly.

Batsmen will run into purple patches in their careers - all of them from good to great to the greatest. but they are classified (good, great or greatest) not just on the basis of what they do during that purple patch.

But I can see that the difference is in semantics.

If instead of saying the best batsman in the world at present we were to ask for the batsman in the best form as of date we could surely give too different answers (or the same for that matter).

 

[Richard]

Another trouble with "the best batsman at the moment" is the fact that whether something is a purple patch or the start of a genuine translation from good to excellent can only be analysed in hindsight.

I prefer to assess who the best batsman (and bowler, and all-rounder, and wicketkeeper-batsman, etc.) around is only in hindsight. Trying to do it at the time leads to so many things that cannot really be analysed properly.

 

[SJS]

Another trouble with "the best batsman at the moment" is the fact that whether something is a purple patch or the start of a genuine translation from good to excellent can only be analysed in hindsight.

I prefer to assess who the best batsman (and bowler, and all-rounder, and wicketkeeper-batsman, etc.) around is only in hindsight. Trying to do it at the time leads to so many things that cannot really be analysed properly.

True.