Who has been the worst ever best batsman in the world?

[sammy2]

His penultimate test was in 1948 though, so he played just one test in the years after Bradman's retirement.

It's kinda funny how if he'd been around in any other era, he'd have attained an even more legendary status, but even his incredible ability and figures pale in comparison with the Don's FC average of 95.

Bradman is in a whole different world, and I think the more you play games the harder it becomes for your avg to fall significantly. I don't think any modern player will see their avg fall by 6 if they failed in a few games.

 

[Richard]

More matches for the WI would have addressed this problem, but at least the post war matches got him past the 20 Test threshold that seems to be often used as a criteria for inclusion in serious lists of career stats etc. Reckon that seems to be the figure most commonly used from my very non-scientific overview of such things. Up to the commencement of WWII, he only had 19 tests.

Yeah, I've thought that too. Had he not played them, it's possible he'd be as much of a nobody to the greater crowd as is Bryan Valentine.

Personally I don't neccessarily like the unambiguous "20-Test" cut-off. I think a bit of flexibility when poor team schedules are taken into account is required.

 

[Matt79]

^^ True, although post-WWII, Bradman actually bettered his overall career average.

Cricinfo Statsguru - DG Bradman - Test matches - Batting analysis

Not saying this with any wish to denigrate Headley's remarkable accomplishments, but is it accurate to say that the English teams sent to tour the WIs in that period were not full-strength teams?

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, I've thought that too. Had he not played them, it's possible he'd be as much of a nobody to the greater crowd as is Bryan Valentine.

Personally I don't neccessarily like the unambiguous "20-Test" cut-off. I think a bit of flexibility when poor team schedules are taken into account is required.

Agreed, but if you're doing a basic list for the casual review, you have to pick a figure, and 20 matches often seems to be the number they go for.

 

[Richard]

Not saying this with any wish to denigrate Headley's remarkable accomplishments, but is it accurate to say that the English teams sent to tour the WIs in that period were not full-strength teams?

Certainly at least one of them wasn't - the one of 1930. Not sure about the other one.

Headley's performances have always tended to suggest to me that had he played against full-strength England he'd still have done better than almost anyone, however. And it must be remembered that of times in those days, England vs England A would often have been at the very least a highly competetive game - and sometimes you'd have struggled to see which side was which. At least, maybe you would have but for Hammond.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, 20 Tests / 30 Innings / 1000 runs seem to be the most common cutoffs.

I like the 1000 runs purely because it gets that wonderful crazy bastard Sid Barnes a mention.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, 20 Tests / 30 Innings / 1000 runs seem to be the most common cutoffs.

I like the 1000 runs purely because it gets that wonderful crazy bastard Sid Barnes a mention.

I often make my own TBH, to get Barry Richards in there.

 

[silentstriker]

1 Test 1 Run?

 

[Matt79]

...by right handed South African openers who played fewer than 5 tests, itbt

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've just found an old newspaper cutting that I knew I had from 1975 when Fred Trueman (when asked about England's struggles in the 74/75 series) described Geoff Boycott as the best batsman in the World. Strangely though in the mid-80's when the pair fell out over Boycott being sacked, Trueman claimed he wasn't in the top 20 cricketers in Yorkshire's history.