For me, they are quite close as batsmen, but, yes that did come into it. Mainly it was Hammond's reputation as such a great fielder, along with his bowling, which could be useful alongside Sobers, as partnership breakers that drew me in over Headley. There isn't that much of a difference between their batting. Its like the classic Warne/Murali argument. I believe Murali was the better bowler, but Warnie adds with the bat, and as an exceptional fielder as well.
Like others, I also think you should finish the list as it is. It doesn't matter what ranks they finish at. We have been looking at all different components (most great innings, best innings with average, best peak points). All that will become irrelevant if you change your calculation now. Fun is in seeing how players ranked on one criterion applied uniformly even if it is not perfect. So please change anything. It's your work after all.
you ****ing bastard! we all have our lives too!!! stay right there. don't move an inch. finish the list right now!!!!Ok, fair enough. Give the people what they want.
I'm going away for a couple of days anyway, so in any case you'll have to wait.
ultimately, cricket is the loser here
