• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best Batsman

Which batsman would you choose and why?

  • Lara

    Votes: 22 21.2%
  • Tendulkar

    Votes: 21 20.2%
  • Ponting

    Votes: 30 28.8%
  • Dravid

    Votes: 14 13.5%
  • Kallis

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • Inzamam ul Haq

    Votes: 7 6.7%
  • Hayden

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 4.8%

  • Total voters


Eyes not spreadsheets
telsor said:
Another Dunce of the highest order here. ( is it wrong to feel pride at that? )
No, because it appears that almost everyone on here is a dunce, except Richard...

Read into that what you will.


Eyes not spreadsheets
Robertinho said:
I chose Dravid, simply because he'd be the "rock" of the lineup. Though, Ponting if he would be in his current form, Tendulkar if he was back at his best...
I reckon it's so that you don't get called a dunce really ;)


Whatever it takes!!!
Personally, as others have pointed out, it is between Tendulkar and Lara for me. And since I generally tests > ODIs, I have to vote for Lara. I think he is a slightly better test batter than Sachin.


Hall of Fame Member
I chose Dravid, but I'm still a dunce of the highest order, because I chose him because I think he's the best and not because of what he's accomplished because Lara and Tendulkar actually HAVE accomplished more than him.


International Vice-Captain
I think Lara and Tendulkar are lightyears ahead of the rest.

The effect these two had on cricket is enourmous, they were the shining lights of their countries sides for years and carried the hope of a nation(in the Widnies case, a small one) where ever they played.

Lara was/is a genius, capable of playing superb innings under pressure and knotching up giagantic scores, he averages 52 against the strongest bowling line-up in world cricket and would have as many centuries as Sachin if doubles counted(of which he has 8,Sachin 4).
Admitedly, he isn't the most consistent player over a series, but his overal record speaks for itself, especialy as he's carried the worst Windies line-up for years.

Sachin has been playing international cricket since he was 16, and has had to put up with
un-precidented amounts of media pressure. He is capable of destroying top class bowling attacks and does not have a bad record against any country(i think, haven't checked the stats) he has been amazingly consistent in both forms of the game for someone who's been playing international cricket for 16 years. He was a national hero and just looks a million miles beter than anyone when he's playing well. Ok, you may point to the fact that he hasn't scored as many noticeable innings as Lara, but the amount of runs/centuries he has scored are just as valuable.

These two are both legends of the game, and i think atm they deserve to be head and shoulders above the rest.

Out of the others, i think Ponting is a clear 3rd. He is well placed to break a lot of records set by Lara/Sachin and the form he's been on of late has been outstanding. The only real reason i rate Lara and Tendy higher than him is because he hasn't finished his career so it would be un-fair to rate him totaly when he could still get better.

Dravidand Kallis are both terrific players, but in my opinion they bat too slowly and don't have the same match winning ability as the other 3. When their careers are finsihed, i don't think they will have the same status as Lara and Sachin because there will always be the question of batting too 'selfishly' (not that i think they do). This may be unfair because they are still fantastic players but i won't speak to my grand children in the same manner about these two than i will about Lara/Sachin/Ponting.

Inzy is also a great player, and does fantasticaly well in tight situations but i think he has had too many bad patches to be considered in the same bracket as the others.


International Coach
I dont really believe in 'best batsman' / 'best bowler' etc.

Rather, I think they are on different plains - which can be occupied by one or more players.

Tendulkar and Lara, in their pomp, were on the same (top) plain.

Below that is Ponting.

Below that are Dravid and Kallis.


International Captain
Sanz said:
Houston, We have a Problem here. ;)
well I dont think anyone can deny the huge impact Tendulkar has had on Indian and world cricket,( no matter how his form has been since 2002 :laugh: :) )


Hall of Fame Member
Lara as a favourite player I can understand.
Lara as the most talented player of his generation I can understand.

But Lara as the best player is a sign of looking at impressive and gaudy stats over actual contribution to the team.

In this post I do not expect to change peoples minds about Lara but I would like to get people thinking and viewing things from a different perspective.

Too many people are giving Lara a free pass because they say he is playing for a weak WI team, without actually looking at what he has done.

Lara deserves to be catagorized amongst the best based on style, average and records but it is important to scratch the surface and realize that Lara has not been the stalwart of WI cricket he has been made out to be.

I have illustrated other issues in other threads but I would like to point out another problem in this one.

The most telling fact is his performances in series and how that has affected the result.

Throughout his career (the good and the bad times), In the 1st test of a series Lara averages only 40.42. The 1st test is the most important in setting the tone for the series and very important in determining the potential for a series win. This is not a bad average, but certainly way below what we would expect from an 'alltime great' in the most important test of a series.

Compare that to the fact that Lara averages 81.19 once the result of the series has been determined (either won or lost).

Simply Lara does not produce (compared to what many beleive) when it matters in regards to team success.

Add in the fact that Lara averages 74 in drawn games.

The legend of Lara has been built on his performance in meaningless games.

If Lara saved his best for when the team could still win a series I would push him into the cricketing hall of fame myself. However, this is far from the case. A simplistic but relatively accurate observation is that once Lara plays his best the series is is already lost. In general he has failed to combine performing with helping the WI to a series win.

For far too long Lara has not been held responsible for his part in the WI failure to win series. In reality he has performed far better without pressure (the accusation of soft can be leveled at him). His failings have been hidden behind a weight of unimportant runs that deceive the casual observer.

This current series against NZ is a case in point. Failed in the 1st 2 tests. Series is now lost so he can relax, feel no pressure and bat well in the final meaningless test.

Again, I do not expect to change peoples minds, but please consider the evidence presented here and think about it for a minute. Even if you do not agree it is always important to consider a different arguement before deciding yours is correct.
Last edited: