so I went through this as I was curious on what reasoning one can have to remotely have Weekes and Walcott below Worrell, and well I was dissapointed that it's the usual "average in England and Australia" argument, I had hoped he had done some more research on the matter than just statsguru but I really don't think he particularly cared about it after like 20 batsmen. With Compton he cites the away issue, which I don't think anyone who has read into his away tours take much of an issue with, maybe a minor dissapointment at most. He seems to group Waugh and Chanderpaul together but... c'mon, there's a huge difference there. Steve Waugh was a fighter while Chanderpaul was a turtle who hid in his shell, to suggest anything Chanderpaul did comes close to achievements of Waugh against all the great pacemen of the 1990s is simply absurd.
He says Miandad handled lateral movement well but I'd say his England record is anything but contrary to that, more or less very good at handling soft duke balls from medium paced trundlers on sunny days and flat roads, I say this because in games in England that actually finished IE had result oriented wickets he averaged a pathetic 22.1. I'd have preffered if he went more indepth with Hammond against fast bowling, the man made four hundreds in ten innings against the infamous Larwood and Voce Bodyline duo after all. He suggested that Sutcliffe was often troubled by the likes of Nissar, Wall and Griffith, I wish I had a way to know what he is talking about.
He also seems to believe that the West Indies brought back short pitched fast bowling after it was banished after Bodyline, obviously, that is a myth. Short pitched pace was never banished, and it always happened, Ted McDonald and John Gregory bowled it before Harold Larwood. After the war, Raymond Lindwall and bowled short pitched balls intentionally to hurt the already injured Weekes and Walcott in 1951-52 Australia series, Fred Trueman/Wes Hall/Frank Tyson all consistently bowled short, Trueman bowled six bouncers in an over sometimes. It's really just a myth that the West Indies bowlers did short pitched bowling anymore than those who came before.
He also explained that David Gower is not on the list because of his record in India and at home against West Indies...as if that is a fair metric – The fact is, most of the batsmen he mentions don't even have to face an ATG attack at all, Cook never had to face anything that even came close to the West Indies juggernaut for example except perhaps the 2007 Ashes team, so frankly I get the vibe that Gower is being downgraded in a sense for having to face the strongest attack ever assembled in Cricket and having to face it constantly throughout his career. and...that simply does not sit right with me. Gower also has a better record against the West Indies than Miandad but that was glossed over. Gooch is not there because he did not average north of 40 when batting away, kind of arbitrary restriction considering he did well everywhere but Australia but that is whatever. He calls Geoffrey Boycott selfish while simultaneously admitting that Boycott won games...uh, I'm quite confused on how that works, I didn't think the nature of a cricketer mattered, only the effectiveness.
His explaination for Grace's placement was quite strange, I think he more or less said that had there been more tests from 1860s, Grace would rank a lot higher but come on, you don't rate someone like Doctor Grace over his Test record. He claims Hayden and Sehwag get boost for their strikerates...as if Hayden and Sehwag are in any sense equivalent in their strike rate...? He discusses the wobble ball a lot and in a similar fashion as starfighter I kind of am not a fan of the pretending that this is some new delivery instead of just scrambled seam spam and hitting the right spots to get deviation off the wicket. I think the Harvey rating was also kind of off? I won't really describe Harvey as struggling against England, I think he should've looked more into the nature of the wickets in England on that regard.
All in all, I feel like after the top 3 or 5, the research was a bit undercooked.
