Top 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

[DrWolverine]

The unluckiest batsman ever was Wally Hammond. He was undoubtedly a great batsman but everything he accomplished paled in comparison to his rival Don.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

The unluckiest batsman ever was Wally Hammond. He was undoubtedly a great batsman but everything he accomplished paled in comparison to his rival Don.

He wasn’t as good as Bradman, or quite got the applause from pundits like Hobbs. But, he was treated like a god from past type. Walter was always hailed in tremendously high regard as a player for decades, even after his death.

 

[Qlder]

The unluckiest batsman ever was Wally Hammond. He was undoubtedly a great batsman but everything he accomplished paled in comparison to his rival Don.

Not really. While Bradman and Hammond were playing together Hammond broke Hobb's record as the highest run scorer in Test cricket. He held that record from 1937 to 1970 so it was one record that Bradman never held

 

[DCH]

No.7

Sachin Tendulkar (India) 854

2019 edition: rank 7

Career: 1989-2013, 15921 runs (rank 1)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (329 inns): 49.59 (53.79) 44.61 (48.39) 49.96 (53.96) (rank 22)
Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1997-2002; 69 inns): 66.25 59.53 56.08 (rank 8)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (176 inns): 50.01 45.18 50.51 (rank 15)
Top Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (39 inns): 46.55 43.03 50.10 (rank 38)

If he had retired after the 2011 world cup, Tendulkar would have finished in 4th on 867 points.

"If he had retired after the 2011 world cup, Tendulkar would have finished in 4th on 867 points."

Similarly, If his teen years are excluded, what would be his rating ?
From January 1993 Eng tour of India till 2011 cricket worldcup. Is it 900+ ?
A career phase of 18+ years and rating of 900+

 

[The Sean]

"If he had retired after the 2011 world cup, Tendulkar would have finished in 4th on 867 points."

Similarly, If his teen years are excluded, what would be his rating ?
From January 1993 Eng tour of India till 2011 cricket worldcup. Is it 900+ ?
A career phase of 18+ years and rating of 900+

Given the marginal increases in ratings as we've gone up the rankings, a leap to over 900 would seem like a real stretch, though DoG may well correct me on that. Remember that if you exclude all those years for Tendulkar then while his averages go up significantly, his career rating will go down as he'll lose six years and about 3,000 runs.

 

[Johan]

I have no argument agaist him as a great, sorry ATG batsman and was arguing for him long before it became popular to.

But top 4 or 5, no, and I have discussed my reasoning multiple times.

But what I was agreeing with was your statement that he isn't quite as highly rated outside of CW as he is has been of late around here.

Hammond has long been rated above him among English batsmen alone. Outside of that, Sobers, Vivian and Sachin were long seen as his superiors as well.
Even among openers Hobbs was seen as clearly above him and his competitor has long been Gavaskar and even at times the other Richards.

Hutton overtook Hammond somewhere in the 80s as far as rating goes.

 

[DrWolverine]

From January 1993 Eng tour of India till 2011 cricket worldcup. Is it 900+ ?

Not sure where he will rank but stats are brilliant

1992-2011(till World Cup)
164 Tests. 14026 runs @ 59 and 50 centuries.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Hutton overtook Hammond somewhere in the 80s as far as rating goes.

Hammond had a lean 80s, yeah.

 

[Johan]

Let him retire subz. He is already rated ahead of lara, hutton and sobers. If he can keep up for year or two he will defo beat hobbs to be best after Bradman

Who told you he is rated ahead of Sobers and Hutton? he got absolutely ravaged by Sobers in a comparison

 

[The Sean]

Not sure where he will rank but stats are brilliant

1992-2011(till World Cup)
164 Tests. 14026 runs @ 59 and 50 centuries.

You're including a whole (commendably prolific) year as a teenager there though, which we were excluding for this example.

 

[Johan]

He wasn’t as good as Bradman, or quite got the applause from pundits like Hobbs. But, he was treated like a god from past type. Walter was always hailed in tremendously high regard as a player for decades, even after his death.

There is a similar difference in perception between those who saw Wally and those who read of him as there is between the perception of IVA Richards.

I think there was a pretty fun story where Tom Goddard on a turning wicket got fifteen wickets against Leicestershire, he was bragging off the field about how well he bowled and so forth, an annoyed Hammond told him that he doesn't think he's a good bowler at all and that rather he was bowling to some poor batsmen of spin, he took Goddard to the same turning pitch, turned the bat sideways to play Goddard with his bat's edge and for half an hour effortlessly without being dismissed and just tapping it back to him.

His reputation on turning or wet damaged wickets is legendary, I think he is one of those players who is hurt by Test only analysis as his FC feats are stuff of legends and I think he would be rated higher if he got to face some ATG bowlers and a few years of a bowling era, even if average does down a bit.

 

[kyear2]

Timing of someone’s arrival helps a lot. Among batsman, Sutcliffe got the worst by far.

Lillee and Warne probably are the biggest beneficiaries of arriving at the right time. Among batsman, it’s probably Victor Trumper.

There were reasons why Sutcliffe was rated well below Hobbs, and subsequently Hammond and even Hutton.

He played his entire career in the flattest era of all time, on a strong XI with the GOAT as a teammate and still batted an a slower than pedestrian rate.

Hutton at least got credit for playing in a exponentially tougher era and in more varied conditions.

He didn't stand out in any way or overcome any major obstacles.

He didn't score overwhelmingly like Bradman, have the gap over his peers or bat as aggressively as early Hobbs, didn't carry a team like Headley, overcome a tought era like Hutton, or do it as elegantly as Hammond.

None of that went unnoticed.

 

[Johan]

Kyear, pal, you just can't help yourself can you?

 

[kyear2]

Hutton. Sobers. Richards. Lara. Sachin. Smith.
All top contenders for being the best since Don.

Yes, but at the end of the day there are a couple there where it's more difficult to say with tour chest, he is the second best batsman of all time.

Hutton seems to be more in that category. Anecdotally he's the only one who's never been quite characterized in that light. He's never been acclaimed at the 2nd best, especially being seen even among his supporters here as being a clear step down to Hobbs. He was also the only one in that group, who was either unwilling or unable to, on anything approaching a consistent basis, dominante the opposition.

Smith is still playing and kinda still, as you've pointed out still to find his niche, but there's still time.

Lara had the highest of highs, at his best I would comfortably say he was as good if not better than some even in this group. But he also has a couple of micro fractures along the way that add up.

But that's just my take.

 

[kyear2]

Let him retire subz. He is already rated ahead of lara, hutton and sobers. If he can keep up for year or two he will defo beat hobbs to be best after Bradman

He is?

 

[kyear2]

He wasn’t as good as Bradman, or quite got the applause from pundits like Hobbs. But, he was treated like a god from past type. Walter was always hailed in tremendously high regard as a player for decades, even after his death.

Yup, even playing alongside Bradman he was still highly regarded and received his plaudits.

Playing alongside greats doesn't automatically place one at a disadvantage.

 

[kyear2]

Hutton overtook Hammond somewhere in the 80s as far as rating goes.

Yes, over 2 decades after his career ended, and numbers take precedence over real time perception.

 

[Johan]

Yes, over 2 decades after his career ended, and numbers take precedence over real time perception.

Yeah, like Marshall overtook Lillee.

 

[kyear2]

There is a similar difference in perception between those who saw Wally and those who read of him as there is between the perception of IVA Richards.

I think there was a pretty fun story where Tom Goddard on a turning wicket got fifteen wickets against Leicestershire, he was bragging off the field about how well he bowled and so forth, an annoyed Hammond told him that he doesn't think he's a good bowler at all and that rather he was bowling to some poor batsmen of spin, he took Goddard to the same turning pitch, turned the bat sideways to play Goddard with his bat's edge and for half an hour effortlessly without being dismissed and just tapping it back to him.

His reputation on turning or wet damaged wickets is legendary, I think he is one of those players who is hurt by Test only analysis as his FC feats are stuff of legends and I think he would be rated higher if he got to face some ATG bowlers and a few years of a bowling era, even if average does down a bit.

+ 1

Though I would say that the entire test experience agaist Martindale and Constantine doesn't exacly cover him in glory.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, like Marshall overtook Lillee.

From the mid 80's, yeah.