Top 50 Greatest test batters

[capt_Luffy]

Gavaskar played two series against Hadlee.

One in 1976 : 119, 14, 66, 15, 2 and 43.

One in 1981 : 23, 12, 53, 5 and 33.

Sunny faced fast medium maestro just 5 times.

Had a home Series I believe. Was pretty good in it.

 

[Johan]

Does 1930s NZ even count?Otherwise it is just Australia and one series in 1920s SA?

Yeah.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes. And his failures was against a Hadlee who was having a mid Series. And that innings of Greg also came before Hadlee was true ATG. If you want to big it up and say it's enough to be better away, fine ig

No that inning was against prime Hadlee. He became worldclass fast medium 78 onwards.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gavaskars successes were against early career Hadlee before he became the fast medium maestro. We have gone over this.

This stuff is just ****ing stupid sometimes. I could argue Gavaskar himself was a lesser batsman by the time Hadlee hit his peak and faced him in the 80s. Gavaskar only averaged 45 odd after 1980. So why is only Gavaskar punished for Hadlee not being at his peak when he did well against him, and not the other way around.

 

[subshakerz]

Decent, but unlucky. Think he was sawn off a few times. I wouldn't call it a great or very good series but also not a failure considering the circumstances of the decisions he got.

I am fine either way as long as we have a consistent standard.

 

[subshakerz]

This stuff is just ****ing stupid sometimes. I could argue Gavaskar himself was a lesser batsman by the time Hadlee hit his peak and faced him in the 80s. Gavaskar only averaged 45 odd after 1980. So why is only Gavaskar punished for Hadlee not being at his peak when he did well against him, and not the other way around.

You can do the other way around it wouldn't change the fact that he didn't have the success against prime Hadlee.

And I don't get your ire. Don't we always look at how good a bowler was at a particular stage to rate a batting performance. We aren't going to rate an innings against a debutant McGrath the same as McGrath in his worldclass phase.

 

[DrWolverine]

This stuff is just ****ing stupid sometimes. I could argue Gavaskar himself was a lesser batsman by the time Hadlee hit his peak and faced him in the 80s. Gavaskar only averaged 45 odd after 1980.

So why is only Gavaskar punished for Hadlee not being at his peak when he did well against him, and not the other way around.

I was just about to say this.

One could argue that Hadlee has his success against Sunny post his prime.

 

[Johan]

This would be an epic way to evade Lara's struggles against Donald and Wasim in 1998.

 

[subshakerz]

I was just about to say this.

One could argue that Hadlee has his success against Sunny post his prime.

So Gavaskars entire 80s decade was post-prime? Seriously?

There is a difference between comparing a performance against a player when they are early career stage and in Hadlees case, fundamentally a different and inferior bowler, versus when they are just past peak but still quality with essentially the same skillset.

 

[subshakerz]

This would be an epic way to evade Lara's struggles against Donald and Wasim in 1998.

It's not. Lara still sucked then. It's just that we wouldnt rate Donald and Wasim for doing as well against him at that stage in his career.

It's dumb frankly because we aren't making a distinction between formative stage versus poor form.

 

[Johan]

Though No, Gavaskar was gun until the very end, his 96 in his last inning is often argued as the best knock he ever played. I think 80s Gavaskar was a little lesser than 70s but still a very strong Batsman, he averaged 45 after all in a bowling era. It's not like Hadlee who was averaging 36 until 1978 or Imran who averaged 32 until 1980

 

[subshakerz]

Though No, Gavaskar was gun until the very end, his 96 in his last inning is often argued as the best knock he ever played. I think 80s Gavaskar was a little lesser than 70s but still a very strong Batsman, he averaged 45 after all in a bowling era. It's not like Hadlee who was averaging 36 until 1978 or Imran who averaged 32 until 1980

Exactly. Gavaskar in the 80s was still a valuable wicket. I'm not rating pre-78 innings against Hadlee that highly.

 

[DrWolverine]

Exactly. Gavaskar in the 80s was still a valuable wicket. I'm not rating pre-78 innings against Hadlee that highly.

I agree.

But he played only 5 innings against Hadlee afterwards which is not enough to say he was unsuccessful against him.

 

[Johan]

He struggled with pre 78 Hadlee too.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree.

But he played only 5 innings against Hadlee afterwards which is not enough to say he was unsuccessful against him.

I am not saying he failed but that he didn't succeed compared to Chappell with a great knock.

 

[Johan]

won't really call Chappell uber successful against Hadlee though he has a great knock

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/4558.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1407;template=results;type=batting

 

[DrWolverine]

It’s just 3 Tests and 5 innings. One series. A very low sample size.

It is not like Brian Lara failing to score even a single century against Allan Donald despite playing 10 Tests across multiple series over the years.

 

[Johan]

Yeah Sunny mainly just got stomped by Lillee, didn't really get crushed by anyone else, though, it was much more than just 5 innings overall.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28794.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1407;template=results;type=batting

Hadlee bowled some fire against Gavaskar, got his first ten wicket hall under just 60 runs, also did well in India given the wickets and so forth, both Hadlee's success and Gavaskar's hundred should be valid.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah Sunny mainly just got stomped by Lillee, didn't really get crushed by anyone else.

1 series. 3 Tests.

 

[Johan]

1 series. 3 Tests.

2 Series. 7 Games.