Oh yeah, Stan McCabe is B+ easily!oh yeah forgot Harvey. Always forget someone
McCabe def worthy of the B+ tier as well
and after much internal debate, I reckon Sanga is pushing hard for an A rating. His record speaks for itself(especially without the gloves)
I mean, trumper I think is widely regarded as easily a top 10 opener of all time and by some a top 5 opener so it's plausible, although personally I can't put him above Chappell or ponting.Trumper is so hard to rate due to his era. Some people consider him our best player after the Don and they mean it too. But yeah I'd personally have Ponting just above Chappell, I know Ponting had a crappy end to his career but **** he played some great innings. Was averaging 60+ after like 100 tests or some crazy stat
Don't you own a website that rates players?Sanga is A. What does he lack to be considered A- over those on A? Too many rate this batsman threads right now though.
If we make an A++ tier exclusive to Bradman (which I'm perfectly fine with), then I more or less agree with you list except I would potentially drop Trumper to A and McCabe to B+Bradman needs to be A++
Then I'd have:
Ponting: A
G. Chappell: A+
Border: A
S. Waugh: A-
Trumper: A+
Clarke: B+
Harvey: A-
Macartney: B+
McCabe: A-
Interesting. I know that Grace was so far ahead of his contemporaries in every way imaginable, but I struggle to think that he would be as dominant as Bradman in later eras. I feel like he would be more in line with the batsmen in A or A-.WG Grace deserves an A+ too IMO
Nice idea for a thread BCL.Do you guys think maybe its easier if we just try to fill in the tiers one at a time? I feel this process would have more structure that way
We could start by filling A and continue down a tier at a time
Now that is a good question. It depends on whether we want to just rate pure batsmen or whether F symbolizes a man who cannot really use the bat at all e.g. McGrath.Nice idea for a thread BCL.
I would personally find it more helpful if you gave ballpark ratings on a few players. For instance who is a C- in your eyes?
What would you rate (approx) Atherton or Ramprakash?
Stephen Fleming on the B/B- border for me, probably B. He was a fantastic batsman for New Zealand for a very long time to be honest.yeah I'll also chuck in Fleming, Astle and McMillan to that^
Cheers for explaining your thinking. I know you've just provided examples as a guide but I feel like there needs to be another grading between Langer and Jayasuriya or Jayasuriya and Imran. Basically for me, I would try and distinguish the proper batsman's grades more and offer less spots for guys in that under 30 average range. With Richard Hadlee for instance, if you disregard his bowling and assume (probably very unfairly) that he'd bat the same if he didn't bowl, I think he is more of a D or D- career Test batsman.Now that is a good question. It depends on whether we want to just rate pure batsmen or whether F symbolizes a man who cannot really use the bat at all e.g. McGrath.
I was thinking of using a said system, where it is something like the following:
A tier - simply the greatest batsmen in the history of the game and unanimous all time greats (example: A+ Bradman, A Tendulkar, A- Ponting)
B tier - very good - world class international batsmen in their era (example: B+ Chanderpaul, B Langer, B- Jayasuriya)
C tier - average international top order bat, very strong middle order bats (example: C+ Imran Khan, C Botham, C- Kapil Dev)
D tier - still handy bats 20-30 average range (although I hate to use circket averages!) (example: D+ Hadlee, D Benaud, D- Akram)
E tier - tail ender (example: E+ Marshall, E Warne, E- Lillee)
F tier - the end of the tail (example: Waqar, McGrath, Barnes)
Of course, we don't have to go all the way down to F haha, just a rough guide in my eyes.
I would be thinking Atherton is around a B- I suppose, high B- though, could be a B.
Ramprakash is a lot harder to rate because he was an exceptional first class player but was awful at test level for various reasons. Maybe C? I'm not really too sure
No, actually, I would prefer more grades at the top and really we don't need to gauge bowlers to be honest. I just felt maybe it would be harder to distinguish between the grades in the middle. We could just disregard the bowlers altogether really and create more distinctions between the grades.Cheers for explaining your thinking. I know you've just provided examples as a guide but I feel like there needs to be another grading between Langer and Jayasuriya or Jayasuriya and Imran. Basically for me, I would try and distinguish the proper batsman's grades more and offer less spots for guys in that under 30 average range. With Richard Hadlee for instance, if you disregard his bowling and assume (probably very unfairly) that he'd bat the same if he didn't bowl, I think he is more of a D or D- career Test batsman.
You can continue with your way though, I might just be a bit harsher marker.
I think we should judge it on test performance to be honest. Keep it simple.If we are judging purely on Test matches, there is no way Grace is an A+.