Top 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

[Johan]

From the mid 80's, yeah.

Not really, Lillee retained his reputation as the greatest of pacers from people of that generation. Comfortably crushed Marshall in Wisden 100, and proceeded to crush him again in the all time XI nominations Peterhrt posted, where Lillee had over twice the mentions of Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

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

Tell me which part of what I said was incorrect.

I'll repeat it here for convenience,

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.

There's a top ten list by a group of writers that I would have to go looking for, that excluded and failed to mention said Sutcliffe but included all of the aforementioned batsmen.

 

[Johan]

Tell me which part of what I said was incorrect.

I'll repeat it here for convenience,

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.

There's a top ten list by a group of writers that I would have to go looking for, that excluded and failed to mention said Sutcliffe but included all of the aforementioned batsmen.

Sutcliffe scored slightly under par from an opening standard for his era but it does not matter because he was one of the greatest tough wicket batters in history of this sport which led to some of the greatest Ashes victories in history.

 

[DrWolverine]

Maco overtook Lillee sometime around 2000s.

 

[kyear2]

Not really, Lillee retained his reputation as the greatest of pacers from people of that generation. Comfortably crushed Marshall in Wisden 100, and proceeded to crush him again in the all time XI nominations Peterhrt posted, where Lillee had over twice the mentions of Marshall.

For the umpteenth time I will respond to this.

From as early as '88 Marshall was beginning to gain recognition as the greatest fast bowler of all time. His peer rating from among the players of his era was on par with that of Lillee if not higher, his domination across the globe and agaist all allies placed him ahead for many.

As early as '91 he was named as part of a world XI as the leader pacer

For their 70th anniversary in 1991 the magazine asked their president, EW Swanton, to pick his World XI covering the period 1921-1991. He chose the following team, all of whom he had seen:

Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman*, Sobers, Headley, Miller, Davidson, Evans+, Marshall, O'Reilly, Gibbs. 12th man: Constantine.

Swanton's four certainties were Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and O'Reilly. He wanted the left-handed Sobers at number four. He stressed he was looking for attacking potential, bowling variety and fielding prowess (with only O'Reilly under par in that regard).

When Imran was asked if Wasim or Waqar were capable of being ATGs, the names referenced were Lillee and Marshall, when asked about the best of his era, Viv cited Marshall, because unlike others he didn't only bark in his own back yard. Border, Gower etc chose him as the best they faced and Wasim hailed him as the best they've seen. The two most experienced posters here, rate him the same. He was clearly rated as the greatest bowler of his generation by his peers.

The media however....

With regards to Lillee being seen ahead, the lauded Richie Benuad left him off his top 6 fast bowlers list and rated at least Hadlee ahead of him as well. TMS and Woodcock released lists that had him in the 60's and 70's respectively. Yes, they were less subtle but the message was very clear throughout the 80's and 90's.

The West indies quartet were vilified in the British and only to a slighly lesser extent the Australian one. They were called barbaric, accused of destroying the sport and playing outside of the rules, despite mind you, they not doing anything Lillee and Thompson patented. That didn't stop Benaud and the like from extolling the virtues of Lillee while castigating Marshall, Holding and co. It was biased, targeted and for a while, at least in the media, quite effective.

Rules and restrictions soon followed, and yes we know the main ones regarding bouncers and over rates, but more nuanced ones like restricting fan access and participation.

But no, Marshall's reputation didn't spike out of the blue 20 years after his retirement as so many of the more dour players like Barrington and Sutcliffe that came along with the advent of more access to spread sheets.

In terms of peer rating and general acclaim, there's Barnes, Lillee, Marshall, Wasim and McGrath.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hutton is clearly a top five batsman of all time imo if we're discussing solely Tests.

 

[kyear2]

Hutton is clearly a top five batsman of all time imo if we're discussing solely Tests.

And all I'm saying is that definitely wasn't the wprception even when he was playing or after his retirement and still a widely held view outside of this site.

In my opinion and that of many observers he's behind...
Bradman, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Lara and Smith.

From his own era many rated Hammond and Headly ahead of him.

Clearly is not a word I would use.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And all I'm saying is that definitely wasn't the wprception even when he was playing or after his retirement and still a widely held view outside of this site.

In my opinion and that of many observers he's behind...
Bradman, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Lara and Smith.

From his own era many rated Hammond and Headly ahead of him.

Clearly is not a word I would use.

Hammond and Headley weren't from his Era, at all. And yk that many people don't rate Smith much. There are several senior posters here alone who doesn't necessarily rate him over Ponting or Waugh to begin with

 

[kyear2]

Hammond and Headley weren't from his Era, at all. And yk that many people don't rate Smith much. There are several senior posters here alone who doesn't necessarily rate him over Ponting or Waugh to begin with

Their careers did cross, and overall at the end of his career he was seen as below both. All I meant, but yes, his era can be seen as the 50's.
But it can't be ignored that he did break the record before the war and that's not an insignificant part of his legacy.

And hes, the second part is very true. No arguments there, and I feared and admired Punter so much more. On a quality level I would go with Punter as a bat and in the cordon, but the decline did occur and it sadly is a factor.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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

Pollock and Richards.

 

[Johan]

For the umpteenth time I will respond to this.

From as early as '88 Marshall was beginning to gain recognition as the greatest fast bowler of all time. His peer rating from among the players of his era was on par with that of Lillee if not higher, his domination across the globe and agaist all allies placed him ahead for many.

As early as '91 he was named as part of a world XI as the leader pacer



When Imran was asked if Wasim or Waqar were capable of being ATGs, the names referenced were Lillee and Marshall, when asked about the best of his era, Viv cited Marshall, because unlike others he didn't only bark in his own back yard. Border, Gower etc chose him as the best they faced and Wasim hailed him as the best they've seen. The two most experienced posters here, rate him the same. He was clearly rated as the greatest bowler of his generation by his peers.

The media however....

With regards to Lillee being seen ahead, the lauded Richie Benuad left him off his top 6 fast bowlers list and rated at least Hadlee ahead of him as well. TMS and Woodcock released lists that had him in the 60's and 70's respectively. Yes, they were less subtle but the message was very clear throughout the 80's and 90's.

The West indies quartet were vilified in the British and only to a slighly lesser extent the Australian one. They were called barbaric, accused of destroying the sport and playing outside of the rules, despite mind you, they not doing anything Lillee and Thompson patented. That didn't stop Benaud and the like from extolling the virtues of Lillee while castigating Marshall, Holding and co. It was biased, targeted and for a while, at least in the media, quite effective.

Rules and restrictions soon followed, and yes we know the main ones regarding bouncers and over rates, but more nuanced ones like restricting fan access and participation.

But no, Marshall's reputation didn't spike out of the blue 20 years after his retirement as so many of the more dour players like Barrington and Sutcliffe that came along with the advent of more access to spread sheets.

In terms of peer rating and general acclaim, there's Barnes, Lillee, Marshall, Wasim and McGrath.

I like how the angle you take is completely non-cricket related. I'm fine with it, racism is and has always been a central part of the society alongside other discriminatory factors, the same factors that leads to defensive batsmen being underestimated in comparisons to the "aggressive" ones.

The fact is, Cricket and all it's instructions, are existing largely to serve the very same concept — Capitalism. With the difference of a few independent writers and some historians, almost all forms are institutionalised and constructed in a way they glorify what brings more eyes on the game. That is simply the reality of the matter. Almost all forms of letters and even writers want the game to stay alive and thus directly or indirectly serving the Bourgeoisie on top by fattening their pockets with more cash from larger gates.

The demonification of the West Indies bowlers is rooted in racism, while the demonification of orthodox and conservative batting is rooted in a desire to uphold capitalism, and the belief is largely sold by and made wide by the ruling Bourgeoisie over Cricket as they control the institutions and writing about the game.

A.good example is Compton and Barrington. They both strike at the same rate and yet one was rated far higher and the other was termed by certain selectors as selfish, because fundamentally selfish batting is just another way of saying batting that doesn't entertain crowds. In previous eras, when so much of the money made in the game was dependant on the gates and such, logically it made sense to be promotive of the unorthodox and exciting style that Compton deployed, even if it made zero difference in comparison to Barrington.

See it as this, the administrative and ruling classes of Cricket as the Bourgeoisie, the cricketers as workers and your source of income. Fundamentally, you want workers who draw in more money, and that is done by drawing in more people, and therefore a cricketer who brings in more people and causes larger gates is bringing in more money, which makes the institution wealthier and therefore logically you want to be promotive of this because more players playing an exciting and unorthodox brand of Cricket are simply bringing in more money. On the flip side, you want to be discouraging of a more orthodox and boring style of play whenever you can be, because that would turn people away. Fundamentally, a good worker is the one who brings in more money, and a poor one is the one who potentially drives away money, and therefore the establishment is much more in profit if they are promotive of the good workers and demonise the bad ones, therefore promoting an aggressive and exciting brand of Cricket, which gets termed as "entertaining", "breathtaking", "fantastic" while denouncing the more orthodox and boring style of play which is termed "selfish", "negative", "conservative" and so forth.

I don't believe in upping Bourgeoisie propaganda, so I just don't care much for players being underrated because of having a boring style of play.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can we please leave the discussion about other people's opinions on bowlers out of his thread?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Kyear just can't let certain cricketers be placed high without writing a bunch of paragraphs on why they suck, it's actually insane.

 

[Gob]

Can we please leave the discussion about other people's opinions on bowlers out of his thread?

I'm drunk and read this as blowers instead of bowlers

 

[kyear2]

Kyear just can't let certain cricketers be placed high without writing a bunch of paragraphs on why they suck, it's actually insane.

Have you even read what Johan wrote above, that was longer than mine.

But we're back to the personalty posting.

Is it better to give thought out reasons or just say, he's clearly top 5 because it want them to be?

And again, it's a trend. All rounders are automatically better, slower top order batsmen should be higher rated, where none of it makes any sense.

These blanket statements that lack nuance or reason, while trying to recreate history.

And again, where were you when I was attacked for years for defending said Hutton. It even got to the point where one particular poster, and they know who they are, made the point that it wasn't a war injury but a training one, don't know what difference that would have made.

 

[kyear2]

I like how the angle you take is completely non-cricket related. I'm fine with it, racism is and has always been a central part of the society alongside other discriminatory factors, the same factors that leads to defensive batsmen being underestimated in comparisons to the "aggressive" ones.

The fact is, Cricket and all it's instructions, are existing largely to serve the very same concept — Capitalism. With the difference of a few independent writers and some historians, almost all forms are institutionalised and constructed in a way they glorify what brings more eyes on the game. That is simply the reality of the matter. Almost all forms of letters and even writers want the game to stay alive and thus directly or indirectly serving the Bourgeoisie on top by fattening their pockets with more cash from larger gates.

The demonification of the West Indies bowlers is rooted in racism, while the demonification of orthodox and conservative batting is rooted in a desire to uphold capitalism, and the belief is largely sold by and made wide by the ruling Bourgeoisie over Cricket as they control the institutions and writing about the game.

A.good example is Compton and Barrington. They both strike at the same rate and yet one was rated far higher and the other was termed by certain selectors as selfish, because fundamentally selfish batting is just another way of saying batting that doesn't entertain crowds. In previous eras, when so much of the money made in the game was dependant on the gates and such, logically it made sense to be promotive of the unorthodox and exciting style that Compton deployed, even if it made zero difference in comparison to Barrington.

See it as this, the administrative and ruling classes of Cricket as the Bourgeoisie, the cricketers as workers and your source of income. Fundamentally, you want workers who draw in more money, and that is done by drawing in more people, and therefore a cricketer who brings in more people and causes larger gates is bringing in more money, which makes the institution wealthier and therefore logically you want to be promotive of this because more players playing an exciting and unorthodox brand of Cricket are simply bringing in more money. On the flip side, you want to be discouraging of a more orthodox and boring style of play whenever you can be, because that would turn people away. Fundamentally, a good worker is the one who brings in more money, and a poor one is the one who potentially drives away money, and therefore the establishment is much more in profit if they are promotive of the good workers and demonise the bad ones, therefore promoting an aggressive and exciting brand of Cricket, which gets termed as "entertaining", "breathtaking", "fantastic" while denouncing the more orthodox and boring style of play which is termed "selfish", "negative", "conservative" and so forth.

I don't believe in upping Bourgeoisie propaganda, so I just don't care much for players being underrated because of having a boring style of play.

I genuinely can't belive this is a serious post.

The highlighted one is particularly galling and I can only hope the entire thing is sarcasm.

The Barrington piece was particularly interesting. To say he was selfish because he didnt help the gates instead of the fact that to others he basically batted for himself and his average is rich.

I can't recall if it was @peterhrt or @Jane Austen who posted about how Barrington, for all his numbers was great on flatter wickets, but when the ball started to move was often soon found out. Could that be why he wasn't as highly rated? He flourished in high scoring matches but when things were tough looked out to sea?

That's why peer acknowledgements is still needed and important.

Let's use Lara and Chanderpaul, two West Indians. One is one rated higher than the other because he brought in more money than the other? Or because one was infinitely more talented and the other was a selfish player who's main objective was his comfort and average.

History does not remember kindly the dour nor selfish and I don't have an issue with genius being recognized as same. I don't for an instance dont pretend that both don't have a place in the game, but the pecking order is more than fair.

And quite frankly, the comparison between why we were unfairly, tangibly and institutionally targeted and what ever that was not only ridiculous but borderline offensive.

 

[Johan]

The Barrington piece was particularly interesting. To say he was selfish because he didnt help the gates instead of the fact that to others he basically batted for himself and his average is rich.

I can't recall if it was @peterhrt or @Jane Austen who posted about how Barrington, for all his numbers was great on flatter wickets, but when the ball started to move was often soon found out. Could that be why he wasn't as highly rated? He flourished in high scoring matches but when things were tough looked out to sea?

Being a FTB is not a thing related to anything as a character, lots of fast scoring batsmen are FTBs, Warner springs to mind, Jamie Smith feels like one, Bairstow was one and many examples of such.

Though, if anything, Peter once mentioned that a selector told Barrington to the face that he was a selfish batsman, in turn he also mentioned that Dexter and Cowdrey played at a similar rate, and a selector would never dare say such a thing to them. He mentioned that there was a hypocrisy around Barrington's scoring rates and not entirely unrelated to social class barriers, which I'm inclined to believe. While it is true that Barrington was not regarded as the greatest tough wicket batsman, he was no worse than a Weekes on them, infact if memory serves Jane mentioned a fantastic knock he played on a difficult rain effected wicket against Pakistan.

By all accounts, Barrington was an absolute gentleman loved and respected by those who knew him and he was a proper fighter who batted three for his team and wanted to win at all times.

That's why peer acknowledgements is still needed and important.

Let's use Lara and Chanderpaul, two West Indians. One is one rated higher than the other because he brought in more money than the other? Or because one was infinitely more talented and the other was a selfish player who's main objective was his comfort and average.

History does not remember kindly the dour nor selfish and I don't have an issue with genius being recognized as same. I don't for an instance dont pretend that both don't have a place in the game, but the pecking order is more than fair.

One is rated higher than the other because they were a better batsman, Chanderpaul averaged 48 without minnows in the flattest era of the sport, and even then had a low RPI.

I'll be clear with you, Chanderpaul is not critiqued because he struck at 43 strike rate, he is critiqued because he insisted on sticking to number 6 while he couldn't bat with the tail, both those combined, he damaged the team greatly by robbing them of their best batsman batting in the top order and helping out the inexperienced top order, It's not about scoring rate, and even if Chanderpaul scored at the same rate as Lara, he won't be a better player.

If you agree that both have a place in the game, why are you so offended by others not putting one methodology on the pedestal and giving extra credit for it?

And quite frankly, the comparison between why we were unfairly, tangibly and institutionally targeted and what ever that was not only ridiculous but borderline offensive.

What the **** are you talking about? are you seriously turning this into a dick-measuring contest when I actively agreed with your explanation, and then seperately told you there is a reason a certain style of play is promoted and it isn't entirely gameplay related? Please don't respond if you can't have a discussion without trying to poison the well.

 

[The Sean]

I reckon Lara or Sobers will be next up. Which I guess means I think they will be the next two.

 

[Coronis]

How?

Well a (quite vocal) number of posters here, believe him to be a top 5 bat with an argument for best after Bradman. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him ranked that highly outside of CW.

 

[Johan]

Well a (quite vocal) number of posters here, believe him to be a top 5 bat with an argument for best after Bradman. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him ranked that highly outside of CW.

In my defense, I'm not THAT loud.