Rank The Teams (In Terms of Batting)

[cricketboy29]

Completely agree, my pommy brother.

[Current List:

1. Australia
2. England
3. Pakistan (maybe not after Asif/Akhtar, but we'll see)
4. India
5. South Africa
6. Sri Lanka
7. New Zealand
8. West Indies

Forget all-time, to hard to decide what 4-8 will be, but i think that list posted by SS, is quite accurate. However, the WI did beat Aus, something to think maybe.

But I guess what it coems down to is ...Consistency. Something that us Indians have been after for time immemorial.

 

[oz_fan]

India have no pace bowling. Ranking them ahead of SA and Pakistan in an all time team is ludicrous IMO.

I was only ranking them on batting line ups

 

[Turbinator]

Wow, mixed reviews.

Also, yea guys please just stick to batting. That is why I rated India so highly.

 

[Turbinator]

Thanks Vic for changing the title, I was having some problems with creating a thread yesterday and didn't realise this one was already created.

 

[Matteh]

I was having some problems with creating a thread yesterday and didn't realise this one was already created.

Damn that filter system eh?

Personally i'm going for:
Australia
England
India
Pakistan
South Africa
Sri Lanka
New Zealand
West Indies

Give it another 6 months/year and England could potentially slip to 4th on that list but as it is currently they just edge out a couple of teams.

 

[Turbinator]

^ Yup that filter system is really bothering me.

 

[nightprowler10]

As I don't claim to know enough about each nation's cricket history, I'll only rank them based on current batting strengths.

1) Australia
2) England (just edging Pakistan at the moment)
3) Pakistan
4) India
5) South Africa
6) New Zealand
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies

 

[C_C]

Alltime batting teams :

1. Australia :Pretty much the Braddles and Gilly factor that essentially tips the scale in their favour.

2. West Indies :sorry but they come ahead of England or the rest- look at their alltime lineup- Sobers, Viv, Lara, Greenidge, Haynes/Hunte, Weekes. Easily the second best.

3. India : I'd take Sehwag-Gavaskar-Dravid-Tendy lineup over any of the rest barring the top 2

4. England: True, they dominated for long, but much of the time it was because they were one of the two class sides around. No truely great player- except perhaps Boycott- in the last 30-40 years. I dont rate namby-pamby amatuers highly so they'd be around here.

5. Pakistan : Its a toughie, i can see it either being Pakistan or South Africa but most of South African team alltime is unproven due to apartheid ban

6. South Africa : Their strength in alltime stakes is actually their bowling depth- they can easily field six top class bowlers without compromising middle order batting too much and extend the tail all the way to #9 or so.

7. Sri Lanka : Its again, tough but i'd rate them ahead-marginally so- than the Kiwis.

8. Kiwis : Crowe and Turner apart, any other kiwi would struggle to break into the top six of any other alltime team. And even then, Crowe and Turner wouldnt break into most.

9. Zimboks : Flower power.

10. Bangladesh : last man left, by virtue of elimination.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If we're doing all-time batting lineups:

Australia
England
West Indies
India
South Africa
Pakistan
New Zealand
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh

England are fairly close to Australia I think. Certainly they have a list of openers that is the envy of all the other teams, and in the likes of Hammond and Barrington in the middle order they've got some more solid options. Lacking a bit in depth of quality middle order batsmen compared to Australia or the West Indies though, and not much to speak of in recent decades.

West Indies the fairly clear choice at 3, and then India who have always had batting as their main strength, and at least three genuinely great batsmen. South Africa are certainly unproven because of apartheid, but Pakistan don't have a great deal outside of Miandad and Inzy, and are slightly behind. New Zealand marginally ahead of Sri Lanka on the strength of Crowe, who is better than any Sri Lankan batsman, and their openers. New Zealand also have great batting depth through their bowlers, if one takes such things into account. Sri Lanka suffer a bit because a couple of their better batsmen in Jayawardene and Sangakarra are just reaching their peaks now.

Zimbabwe have two very fine test batsmen in Flower and Goodwin and not much else, but that's still more than Bangladesh.

 

[silentstriker]

Thing about India is though they have three genuinely great batsmen (Merchant, Gavaskar, Tendulkar) and a really strong one (Dravid) they don't really have as much depth as the top three. Or maybe even South Africa.

Though batting has been our strengths, and we have lots of 'very good' batsmen, but when it comes to an all time team...there aren't as many 'all time greats' except Tendy and Gavaskar.

Whereas a lot of the other teams seems to have worse overall batting over the years but they have more than a couple all time greats to make up a team and end up with a stronger batting lineup.

 

[Matt79]

All time:
1) Australia (Ponsford, Trumper, Bradman, Chappell, Border, S.Waugh/Harvey, Gilchrist)
2) Eng (Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Grace, Barrington, Compton, Ames)
3) WI (Greenidge, Fredricks, Headley, Richards, Weekes, Sobers, Walcott)
4) Ind (Merchant, Gavaskar, Dravid, Tendaulkar, Hazare, Ganguly(?), Engineer)
5) SA (Taylor, Richards, Nourse, Pollock, Kallis, Mitchell, Boucher)
6) Pak (Hanif Mohammad, Anwar, Abbas, Miandad, Ul Haq, Mohammad Yousuf, Bari?)
7) NZ
8) SL
9) Zim
10) Bang.

Can't think of the top seven for the last four off the top of my head.

England/WI are the hardest to rate - England's openers are much better, 3 is a slight advantage to Hammond IMO, 4-7 are in the Windies favour. That said, I think the "Three Hs" provide enough of an advantage at the top of the order.

 

[nightprowler10]

Bari was a wicket keeper, probably our best. Very poor batsman though. Averaged 16 in tests.

 

[silentstriker]

All time:
4) Ind (Merchant, Gavaskar, Dravid, Tendaulkar, Hazare, Ganguly(?), Engineer)

Ganguly and Engineer would not make the top twenty best batsmen of India. The others are right though, especially the inclusion of Merchant and Hazare.

 

[nightprowler10]

Shoaib Mohammad would be an honorable mention though.

 

[Matt79]

Bari was a wicket keeper, probably our best. Very poor batsman though. Averaged 16 in tests

I was including 'keepers for every country. I know he wasn't a great bat, hence the "?". Who would be the best keeper-batsman Pakistan's produced then?

 

[Matt79]

Ganguly and Engineer would not make the top twenty best batsmen of India. The others are right though, especially the inclusion of Merchant and Hazare.

See my response to NP - I'm including a keeper.

 

[nightprowler10]

I'd say its between Imtiaz Ahmed and Kamran Akmal to be honest.

 

[silentstriker]

See my response to NP - I'm including a keeper.

Ah. Well Ganguly is out either way. Farokh Engineer was an excellent keeper though.

 

[Matt79]

Ah. Well Ganguly is out either way. Farokh Engineer was an excellent keeper though.

Happy for any suggestions for a sixth bat - normally I have Kapil Dev at 6, but if batting strength alone is the criteria, I'm sure there are better options. Azharuddin?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thing about India is though they have three genuinely great batsmen (Merchant, Gavaskar, Tendulkar) and a really strong one (Dravid) they don't really have as much depth as the top three. Or maybe even South Africa.

Though batting has been our strengths, and we have lots of 'very good' batsmen, but when it comes to an all time team...there aren't as many 'all time greats' except Tendy and Gavaskar.

Whereas a lot of the other teams seems to have worse overall batting over the years but they have more than a couple all time greats to make up a team and end up with a stronger batting lineup.

Gavaskar, Dravid and Tendulkar are the great Indian batsmen IMO, and all definitely deserve that title. Merchant was amazing in first class cricket of course, but only in the one country, and a high scoring one at that, and I wouldn't rate him on the same level as those three, unless you're going to include say Hussey for Australia based on his record in England.

Anyway, I agree about most of your post, and that's why I placed India 4th. I think the presence of those three plus support like Merchant, Hazare, Azharuddin etc puts them ahead of SA and Pakistan, but they are clearly not in the same league as the top 3.