• 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.

Sunil Gavaskar vs Wally Hammond

Who was the greater test batsman?

  • Sunil Gavaskar

    Votes: 20 51.3%

  • Wally Hammond

    Votes: 19 48.7%
  • Total voters
    39
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
Nah, Barry and Chappell weren't as good as Sunny, simply put. Viv was World's undisputed best for 5 years only as well, Lara arguably 93-95 but that's not something to vouch for, Sobers have given example of etc. Don't think being best for 3-4 years undoubtedly is a big deal, you have to be for atleast 10 years imo.
Click to expand...
This has been replied to on multiple occasions, but you will believe what you wish.
The best batsman in the world from 70 to 76 was one BA Richards, not Chappell, not Gavaskar, Richards. It wasn't something that was overly disputed.

Even in the late 70's it was Barry who was recruited for WSC over said Gavaskar, where he again established his dominance while Sunny just boosted his average.

To say Sunny is definitively better than Chappell would be nothing more than personal opinion, they are close as hell, and Chappell just proved himself more in the 70's.

Again to say that Viv was the best batsman in the world for only 5 years is the definition of revisionist history, or less delicately, you're just making **** up.

Not sure what point you're trying to make with the rest of the statement, but not trying to figure it out right now.

This is just but one resource that chronicles the passage of the title of world no. 1
Of course there will be times when that title can be disputed or there was loss of form.or challengers, but with reference to the placing of one BA Richards he did mention there was a little doubt as to who the best batsman was up until the onslaught of runs from his namesake made it clear the baron had been passed.

1902-12: Trumper
1912-28: Hobbs
1928-30: Hammond
1930-49: Bradman
1949-55: Hutton
1955-60: May
1960-70: Sobers
1970-76: Barry Richards
1976-90: Viv Richards
1990-94: Gooch
1994-95: Lara
1995-97: Steve Waugh

1901-19: Barnes
1919-24: Jack Gregory
1924-30: Tate
1930-32: Grimmett
1932-46: O'Reilly
1946-50: Lindwall
1950-54: Bedser
1954-56: Lindwall (again)
1956-59: Laker
1959-64: Trueman
1965-68: Lance Gibbs
1968-72: Snow
1972-83: Lillee
1983-90: Marshall
1990-93: Ambrose
1993-97: Warne

Anyways, do you.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Coach
kyear2 said:
This has been replied to on multiple occasions, but you will believe what you wish.
The best batsman in the world from 70 to 76 was one BA Richards, not Chappell, not Gavaskar, Richards. It wasn't something that was overly disputed.

Even in the late 70's it was Barry who was recruited for WSC over said Gavaskar, where he again established his dominance while Sunny just boosted his average.

To say Sunny is definitively better than Chappell would be nothing more than personal opinion, they are close as hell, and Chappell just proved himself more in the 70's.

Again to say that Viv was the best batsman in the world for only 5 years is the definition of revisionist history, or less delicately, you're just making **** up.

Not sure what point you're trying to make with the rest of the statement, but not trying to figure it out right now.

This is just but one resource that chronicles the passage of the title of world no. 1
Of course there will be times when that title can be disputed or there was loss of form.or challengers, but with reference to the placing of one BA Richards he did mention there was a little doubt as to who the best batsman was up until the onslaught of runs from his namesake made it clear the baron had been passed.

1902-12: Trumper
1912-28: Hobbs
1928-30: Hammond
1930-49: Bradman
1949-55: Hutton
1955-60: May
1960-70: Sobers
1970-76: Barry Richards
1976-90: Viv Richards
1990-94: Gooch
1994-95: Lara
1995-97: Steve Waugh

1901-19: Barnes
1919-24: Jack Gregory
1924-30: Tate
1930-32: Grimmett
1932-46: O'Reilly
1946-50: Lindwall
1950-54: Bedser
1954-56: Lindwall (again)
1956-59: Laker
1959-64: Trueman
1965-68: Lance Gibbs
1968-72: Snow
1972-83: Lillee
1983-90: Marshall
1990-93: Ambrose
1993-97: Warne

Anyways, do you.
Click to expand...
Yeah no, from 70-76 Boycott scored way more runs in CC, at a good 10 runs higher average. Graeme Pollock was better.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah no.

Sobers (1970-73)
13 matches 1156 @ 60.84 5 tons 3 fifties

Plus him completely outclassing Richards and Pollock in that ROW XI tour in 1970.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
I also love the fact that Davidson doesn’t make the list at all.

Also Bradman being so great he was still the best for a year after his retirement.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
OverratedSanity said:
1976-1990 for Viv seems generous tstl.
Click to expand...
The fun thing about our favourites is that we can pick long dates that match their highs and claim them as the best in the world, despite there being a bunch of people better than them at some stage in that period.

Viv probably was the best bat in the world from exactly 76-90. I dont think he would have been the best for exactly 77-90, and there are probably 10 or 20 bats ahead of him at some stage in the period.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bolo. said:
The fun thing about our favourites is that we can pick long dates that match their highs and claim them as the best in the world, despite there being a bunch of people better than them at some stage in that period.

Viv probably was the best bat in the world from exactly 76-90. I dont think he would have been the best for exactly 77-90, and there are probably 10 or 20 bats ahead of him at some stage in the period.
Click to expand...
That and it'd also be like if I claimed Sachin was the best batsman in the world from 1996-2011. Second most runs at the highest average among anyone remotely close to him in the runs tally. But do I actually think he was the best in the world for the entire period? Clearly not. There were periods in that 15 year span when Ponting/Kallis/Lara/Dravid were flat out better than him. He may have been the best overall, but the implication that he was always the best in that span is false.

There is no way I can buy Viv being the best for that 15 year period when for 10 of those (1981-1990), he only averaged 45 or so with lots of batsmen putting up far superior numbers in the mid/late 80s. If this is purely a reputation thing where he was considered the best despite not actually being the best then I have little time for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top