Who Is The Second Greatest Batsman Ever?

[99*]

Hobbs. You don't score 5410 @ 56.94 by being average. And he backs up that with his 61760 FC runs. Sheer weight of numbers put him ahead for me.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It doesn't give a criteria for voting so I'm going for Viv Richards as I don't expect to ever see a better batsman. Second choice would be Tendulkar from the list in the absence of Barry Richards.

 

[King Pietersen]

Yeah, the lack of Barry Richards in the poll in disappointing. Deserves to be on the list more than quite a few of those names.

 

[fredfertang]

I'd be interested to know why DingDong chose Ernest Tyldesley

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'd be interested to know why DingDong chose Ernest Tyldesley

Probably because he's a nob.

 

[archie mac]

I'd be interested to know why DingDong chose Ernest Tyldesley

By all reports Johnny was the better batsman, but hard to argue with the younger brothers record

 

[Richard]

Hobbs only played against two teams. I wonder how use to he got to the bowlers.

Probably about the same anyone got used to the bowlers when they played for 20-odd years. He faced a lot of different bowlers in that time.

 

[bagapath]

any of grace, trumper, hobbs, hammond, headley, hutton, sobers, g.chappell, richards, gavaskar, tendulkar, lara, ponting and probably 10 other equally stellar names could rightfully be given the title.

Hobbs, IMO, is the primus inter pares.

 

[Himannv]

Voted for Hobbs.

 

[Teja.]

I'd have it as a lock between Barry Richards and SRT, since the former isn't an option, I chose SRT.

 

[zaremba]

any of grace, trumper, hobbs, hammond, headley, hutton, sobers, g.chappell, richards, gavaskar, tendulkar, lara, ponting and probably 10 other equally stellar names could rightfully be given the title.

Hobbs, IMO, is the primus inter pares.

AWTA. And I voted for Hobbs myself, although on another day I might've gone for just about any of the others.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah, the lack of Barry Richards in the poll in disappointing. Deserves to be on the list more than quite a few of those names.

Could've argued the same for Mike Hussey had his career ended after 20 Tests like Graeme Pollock.

 

[Teja.]

Could've argued the same for Mike Hussey had his career ended after 20 Tests like Graeme Pollock.

It is not Richards' or Pollock's fault that SA was banned from Cricket, Richards' was breathtaking in WSC as well, and absolutely massive in FC cricket, he is a legend of the game and comparing him to Hussey(Atleast, right now) is ludicrous.

 

[fredfertang]

Hussey is an interesting one - on the subject of fault its not his fault that he wasn't selected for a Test until he was 30, five years older than Pollock was when his Test career ended - I never saw him bat before his Test debut so can't really form a view but would like to hear the views of anyone who did see the 19 year old Hussey play

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hussey is an interesting one - on the subject of fault its not his fault that he wasn't selected for a Test until he was 30, five years older than Pollock was when his Test career ended - I never saw him bat before his Test debut so can't really form a view but would like to hear the views of anyone who did see the 19 year old Hussey play

He was a gun when he was younger and scored tons of runs, but never got selected. He then contemplated quitting the game after not getting rewarded with selection and his performance dropped off considerably during that period (aged mid 20's). Apparently his wife played a great part in getting him back on track.

 

[Richard]

Could've argued the same for Mike Hussey had his career ended after 20 Tests like Graeme Pollock.

No you couldn't. Hussey like Pollock and Barry Richards played domestic cricket for over a decade, and his performances were nowhere near so impressive as theirs.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

No you couldn't. Hussey like Pollock and Barry Richards played domestic cricket for over a decade, and his performances were nowhere near so impressive as theirs.

Yeah there is a massive difference between 53 and 54, right? Even so, Hussey made a far bigger impact in his first 20 Tests then what Richards or Pollock did in their brief International careers.

 

[fredfertang]

Ben has a point Richard - Hussey's average after 23 tests was 14 ticks higher than Pollock's - Having watched a good deal of Hussey and just a bit of Pollock I don't like the idea that Hussey is the better batsman but the evidence suggests he may be

 

[Richard]

The domestic cricket Hussey played was almost certainly of a far lower standard than that Pollock did. In county cricket especially and state cricket to a lesser extent, he bashed some utterly woeful fare.

That's why I said "their performances" not "their records". Richards averaged 60 in SAfrican domestic cricket; IIRR, Hussey currently averages about mid-40s in Australian domestic cricket, which was for much of his career of a lower standard than Currie Cup cricket during Richards'.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Ben has a point Richard - Hussey's average after 23 tests was 14 ticks higher than Pollock's - Having watched a good deal of Hussey and just a bit of Pollock I don't like the idea that Hussey is the better batsman but the evidence suggests he may be

Had Hussey continued that form of his first 23 Tests to this very day then Hussey would undoubtably be better then Richards and Pollock. During those first 23 Tests Hussey was capable of doing everything that makes a batsman great. His massive form slump following his first 23 Tests completely tarnished his reputation.

The domestic cricket Hussey played was almost certainly of a far lower standard than that Pollock did. In county cricket especially and state cricket to a lesser extent, he bashed some utterly woeful fare.

That's why I said "their performances" not "their records".

Australian domestic cricket over the past 15-20 years, during Hussey's era has been as stronger if not stronger then any form of domestic cricket that Richards or Pollock played in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyHvFArouAM

That is rubbish standard for domestic cricket.