• 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.

Cricket Web All Time World XI

SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Then there is my all time favourite : GR Vishwanath

Career average vs Windies (18 tests) 53.9

Series wise :-

- 1970-71(3).........Away.......27.0.........Shephard, Boyce, Sobers, dowe
- 1974-75 (5)........Home.......63.1........Roberts, Holder, Julien,
- 1975-76 (5)........Away........42.5........Roberts, Holding, Julien,
- 1978-79(6).........Home.......71.0........Holder, Clarke, Phillip

But as I said before...stats...damn stats.

You have to have watched it to realise. Thank God for Wisden's ratings of innings at least those who havent seen have some idea of how great some innings were inspite of the scores not being monumental. If I am not mistaken two of Vishy's 90's against the Windies on fiery wickets are ranked in those.

The fact that some much bigger innings by Tendulkar and Gavaskar are not shows how misleading big scores can be if we assess quality ONLY by quantity.
 
Blaze

Blaze

Banned
Gavaskar takes it with 14 votes to Sutcliffe's 12

Gooch and Trumper each got 1 and Richards 2.


Current team

J Hobbs
S Gavaskar
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?


Ok the next round will be very predictable I am guessing so we will pick batsman Number 3 and 4 at the same time. Voting runs until this time tomorrow as usual.
 
ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket

State Vice-Captain
Let me say this in Gavaskar's defence:

Aside from two Tests in the 1980 Wisden Trophy Series, India in West Indies, 1982-83, is the ONLY time that Holding, Marshall, Garner and Roberts played together in the same side. Gavaskar bore the brunt of that attack in four out of five Tests. He managed to score 149* against the quartet, but precious little else.

Amarnath was the hero for India with 598 runs at an average of 66.44, with two centuries and four half centuries. (It should be noted that he scored 54 and 116 in the final Test where Garner didn't play and Holding only bowled one innings; then again Amarnath retired hurt on 39* at his first at bat.)

Holding and Garner had a pretty bad series by their standard. Holding took 12 wickets at 41.83 and Garner 7 at 43.00.

As for the Tests against England where the quartet played -- the third Test is quite strange. Holding, Marshall, Garner and Roberts skittle England for 150 in the first innings, then Lloyd uses nine players (including himself) to try and bowl England out in their second innings. On a cursory glance, Boycott appears to have feared the best, top-scoring for England in both Tests with 75 in one, 86 in the other.

But it's not a shade on Mohinder Amarnath. Therefore, I declare Amarnath the best ever batsman against the West Indian quartet & lo did he suffer in the return series -- 1 run in six innings!!!!
 
Googenheim

Googenheim

U19 12th Man
SJS said:
Then there is my all time favourite : GR Vishwanath

Career average vs Windies (18 tests) 53.9

Series wise :-

- 1970-71(3).........Away.......27.0.........Shephard, Boyce, Sobers, dowe
- 1974-75 (5)........Home.......63.1........Roberts, Holder, Julien,
- 1975-76 (5)........Away........42.5........Roberts, Holding, Julien,
- 1978-79(6).........Home.......71.0........Holder, Clarke, Phillip

But as I said before...stats...damn stats.

You have to have watched it to realise. Thank God for Wisden's ratings of innings at least those who havent seen have some idea of how great some innings were inspite of the scores not being monumental. If I am not mistaken two of Vishy's 90's against the Windies on fiery wickets are ranked in those.

The fact that some much bigger innings by Tendulkar and Gavaskar are not shows how misleading big scores can be if we assess quality ONLY by quantity.
Click to expand...
you seem to be hell-bent on scuttling Gavaskars legacy, so to speak. Whos the alternative? Sutcliffe! Who did he face ??? And you point out that there were other Indian batters who performed better than Sunil against WI, but what about their performances against the rest ? Thats like you suggesting Laxman >> Lara just cause he performs better against Australia . Agreed that Tendulkars last couple of years have been poor compared to his past, salvaged only by a few huge scores in between, but thats not the case with Gavaskar. He was quality + quantity (not to suggest that Tendulkar isnt, just that he was great for 14 years, and average for the last 2).
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Googenheim said:
you seem to be hell-bent on scuttling Gavaskars legacy, so to speak. Whos the alternative? Sutcliffe! Who did he face ??? And you point out that there were other Indian batters who performed better than Sunil against WI, but what about their performances against the rest ? Thats like you suggesting Laxman >> Lara just cause he performs better against Australia . Agreed that Tendulkars last couple of years have been poor compared to his past, salvaged only by a few huge scores in between, but thats not the case with Gavaskar. He was quality + quantity (not to suggest that Tendulkar isnt, just that he was great for 14 years, and average for the last 2).
Click to expand...
No you misunderstand me.

Someone asked who else fared well against the Windies so I just posted these figures. These are not meant to be as challenging to Gavaskar as you seem to have understood.

I am done with Gavaskar after I said his 65 average against Windies has to be seen in perspective of two series (his first and the one where India played a second team in the Packer era) in which Windies were not a great fast bowling attack.

I think Gavaskar is a great opening batsman as was sutcliffe I am sure. I have seen Gavaskar and not seen Sutcliffe.

I have seen Gavaskar from his school boy days. Maybe one is less in awe of those one has seen from close. Maybe the fact that I havent seen Sutcliffe and have read of him from my early impressionable age affects my views. Possible and not surprising is it. We all have our child hood heroes right ? :)

But other than that I have no intention to run down Gavaskar.

I cant do it even if I try. He is beyond small fry like us to run down. He is a legend. But cant we discuss legends dispassionately. :)
 
C_C

C_C

International Captain
ohtani's jacket said:
OK, I struggled with logarithms at school, so I have no idea what those things are, let alone whether Newton could cope with them.

I come from a film background, so I'm aware that some of the silent masters struggled with the advent of sound and others flourished. Therefore my inclination (and it's only an inclination) is that, in any sport, some of the past greats would adapt to the modern game and others wouldn't.
Click to expand...
I am not much aware with film history but i can tell you this - science is a progressive field where one discovery leads to another and it is not necessarily true that one can grasp every scientific concept out there. I still cant grasp Alan Guth's theory of expansionist universe and the fundamental premise of the argument ( Imagine matter. Now imagine vaccum. Now imagine no vaccum but no matter). I am not saying that i am very smart, but the fact is, even Einstien had problems understanding certain concepts. Newton is so far out of phase with modern science that it wouldnt be the least bit surprising if he didnt progress beyond ordinary university student.

What makes you think they were played with less intensity? A Test such as The Oval in 1926 sounds like the most intense of cricketing situations, and from all accounts, Hobbs and Sutcliffe applied themselves as well as any batsmen before or since.

Sutcliffe showed a mastery over all conditions and over the best bowling of his time. He did so for a first class career of more than twenty years. In fairness, that is what he should be judged on.
Click to expand...
What makes me think it was less intensity ? Simply because it was unprofessional- and nomatter what the arguments are, non-professional sports is simply not as competetive as professional sports- the carrot of money is a big one and that does make you try your best. The books written in those eras show the lack of intensity pretty vividly. You had batsmen who considered it unfair to bowl the googley ! You had fielders walk to the boundary and fetch the ball - once you beat the infield, it is a sure four runs almost.
How can one argue about 'same intensity' with that kinda relaxed mindset ?

This makes it seem like batsmen from the 20s and 30s didn't think about the game or develop their skills, but instead played instinctively, with a lack of inhibition or restraint. Yet some of these players were deep thinkers of the game, & indeed, if you're to acknowledge that Grimmett was a legend, then you must give Sutcliffe praise for being able to play Grimmett and discern between the legbreak, topspinner, googly and flipper. For if Grimmett was already beginning to master the variations of spin, then surely Sutcliffe was trying to pick the delivery; how to score and when to defend -- he hardly approached Grimmett with reckless abandon.
Click to expand...
No, its not a question of thinking or developing the game, but more about feedback and scrutiny. There has never been as much scrutiny in the game with the introduction of television- simply because now the players could study the flaws in detail and try to devise methods to counter/exploit that.
Yes, Sutcliffe might've had a decent time against Grimmett, but fact remains, due to the amatuerness of the era, you have a very very wide field in terms of quality. A bit like Murali bowling from one end and a club bowler from the other. Too uneven and too inconsistent a field to worth taking those statistics seriously for what they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top