What's new

Is Mohinder Amarnath the most underrated batsman ever?

Acricketfan

Local Club Star
Joined
May 5, 2015
Runs
2,129
Here is his record against the two best fast bowling attacks of his era

wi.JPG

pak.JPG

It's a shame that he never gets the recognition he deserves.
 
He had an incredible purple patch in the early 80s. He was the best player of fast bowling for two or three years, but his career lacked overall consistency. So you can't say that he was underrated. He is rated for some of his exploits against fast bowlers, but that can't be extrapolated over his whole career to make him look better.
 
No.

He had one exceptional series against WI in WI and is given due credit for that.

But he was very inconsistent throughout his career.
 
It tends to happen when you play alongside more illustrious and celebrated players.

The trio of Amarnath, Vengsarkar and Vishwanth were to Gavasker like Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly are to Sachin.

Among the three, I guess Vengsarkar is most underrated while other two do get the deserved recognition.
 
Last edited:
It tends to happen when you play alongside more illustrious and celebrated players.

The trio of Amarnath, Vengsarkar and Vishwanth were to Gavasker like Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly are to Sachin.

Among the three, I guess Vengsarkar is most underrated while other two do get the deserved recognition.
Vengsarkar has one blemish against his name. He doesn't have a good track record against WI. In fact his is very poor I heard. That is something that still haunts him.
 
He had an incredible purple patch in the early 80s. He was the best player of fast bowling for two or three years, but his career lacked overall consistency. So you can't say that he was underrated. He is rated for some of his exploits against fast bowlers, but that can't be extrapolated over his whole career to make him look better.
This.
 
Vengsarkar has one blemish against his name. He doesn't have a good track record against WI. In fact his is very poor I heard. That is something that still haunts him.

Dude, average of 44 and 6 centuries against Holding, Marshall, Garner and Roberts is a record any batsman would be proud of.

He played one of the finest 4th innings knock against Pakistan where India almost chased down 400.

He is most successful Asian player at Lord's (3 centuries).

Was a resolute played and used to stand up when others were failing.
 
^ 1991 Ranji Trophy final was one of the most historic match in the history of Indian domestic cricket.

He was playing for Mumbai and Mumbai were chasing 350+ against Haryana. Haryana had Kapil Dev as bowling spearhead.

He along with Sachin brought Mumbai to the brink when he ran out of partners and Mumbai lost the match by 2 runs. He was not out on 130+.

After the match, he kept crying for long and none of team mates could dare to come close to him. I love his commitment.

He was never as talented as Gavasker or Vishy, still made a mark despite their presence.
 
^ 1991 Ranji Trophy final was one of the most historic match in the history of Indian domestic cricket.

He was playing for Mumbai and Mumbai were chasing 350+ against Haryana. Haryana had Kapil Dev as bowling spearhead.

He along with Sachin brought Mumbai to the brink when he ran out of partners and Mumbai lost the match by 2 runs. He was not out on 130+.

After the match, he kept crying for long and none of team mates could dare to come close to him. I love his commitment.

He was never as talented as Gavasker or Vishy, still made a mark despite their presence.

Wow...your knowledge is next level.

How do you know so much stuff? Even about Indian domestics? And what's your age if I may ask?
 
Wow...your knowledge is next level.

How do you know so much stuff? Even about Indian domestics? And what's your age if I may ask?

Would be roughly of same age as you :)

Read a lot of cricketing stuff. Used to be one of my hobby for years. Also I get better with aged guys than those of my own age. So I also do get a lot of it from elders.

Though, there have been much more knowledgeable posters on PP so I guess this isn't something I can boost of :10:
 
Would be roughly of same age as you :)

Read a lot of cricketing stuff. Used to be one of my hobby for years. Also I get better with aged guys than those of my own age. So I also do get a lot of it from elders.

Though, there have been much more knowledgeable posters on PP so I guess this isn't something I can boost of :10:

Always felt that you were my age (btw, how do you my age) but your posts make me wonder about your age.

Don't think there are many knowledgeable posters than you here.
 
Always felt that you were my age (btw, how do you my age) but your posts make me wonder about your age.

Don't think there are many knowledgeable posters than you here.

Guessing from your posts. You are one of the posters while scrolling a thread, I stop when see you avatar to read your posts.

So just have an idea about your age by your posts, considering which players you have seen and which ones were before your time :)
 
^ 1991 Ranji Trophy final was one of the most historic match in the history of Indian domestic cricket.

He was playing for Mumbai and Mumbai were chasing 350+ against Haryana. Haryana had Kapil Dev as bowling spearhead.

He along with Sachin brought Mumbai to the brink when he ran out of partners and Mumbai lost the match by 2 runs. He was not out on 130+.

After the match, he kept crying for long and none of team mates could dare to come close to him. I love his commitment.

He was never as talented as Gavasker or Vishy, still made a mark despite their presence.
I watched final day of that match , i didn't know which team to root for entire day. From the generation above i heard that Vengsarkar first made his name by hitting sixes Indian spinners like bedi , chandra etc in mid 70's in some FC matches.
 
^^ Yeah I can relate to those emotions since I have heard similar story about Asif Iqbal.

It was Asif's last match against India, and Pakistan were to chase something in the final innings.

Asif and Miandad were playing for the victory but Asif slipped during taking a run and got run out. Whole stadium gave him standing ovation which wasn't common for opposition players in those days in India Pakistan matches. He went to the pavilion crying and rubbing his eyes and since he was captain so no other player came close to him. He sat in a room and kept crying for hours.

These were the reasons

-) It was his last match for Pakistan

-) His run out put finished Pakistan's chances of winning the match

-) He was such a brilliant runner, never got run out during his whole career, and got out in that fashion in his last match (though I later checked, he got run out once before).


So that Ranji match is more endearing to me cuz I can relate Vengsarkar and Asif's feelings.

But yes, its tough to chose whom to support if you are watching it live.

It was Haryana's first and the only chance to win Ranji while Mumbai has done that many a times. But the way Sachin and Vengsarkar played, its hard on them that they end up on the losing side.
 
Last edited:
Dude, average of 44 and 6 centuries against Holding, Marshall, Garner and Roberts is a record any batsman would be proud of.

He played one of the finest 4th innings knock against Pakistan where India almost chased down 400.

He is most successful Asian player at Lord's (3 centuries).

Was a resolute played and used to stand up when others were failing.
All at home if I'm not mistaken. I had seen a documentary where he himself rued the fact that his record against WI in WI still rankles him.

Yes that Ranji final was epic.
 
All at home if I'm not mistaken. I had seen a documentary where he himself rued the fact that his record against WI in WI still rankles him.

Yes that Ranji final was epic.

Yup, at home.

But even Vishy don't have much better record in WI. Gavasker too, didn't score much in 83 tour (when WI were at their deadliest).

So I don't count this fact that Vengsarkar haven't scored any century in WI against him.
 
It tends to happen when you play alongside more illustrious and celebrated players.

The trio of Amarnath, Vengsarkar and Vishwanth were to Gavasker like Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly are to Sachin.

Among the three, I guess Vengsarkar is most underrated while other two do get the deserved recognition.

Slightly off topic but i have to say that you're my favorite new poster on this forum. You and [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] are encyclopedia of pakpassion.
 
Slightly off topic but i have to say that you're my favorite new poster on this forum. You and [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] are encyclopedia of pakpassion.

Thanks for the compliment. Feeling elated :)

Though I don't think I am even half as erudite in my discussions as MMHS. He is just awesome.
 
He had a great away tour to Pak and WI but probably was one of the most inconsistent players at home and considering 50% of matches were going to be at home i think that was the reason he is still not rated as he never really performed that well in front of the home crowd.
 
^ 1991 Ranji Trophy final was one of the most historic match in the history of Indian domestic cricket.

He was playing for Mumbai and Mumbai were chasing 350+ against Haryana. Haryana had Kapil Dev as bowling spearhead.

He along with Sachin brought Mumbai to the brink when he ran out of partners and Mumbai lost the match by 2 runs. He was not out on 130+.

After the match, he kept crying for long and none of team mates could dare to come close to him. I love his commitment.

He was never as talented as Gavasker or Vishy, still made a mark despite their presence.

yeah it was the most iconic Ranji match ever. Alas! We dont see those high profile ranji matches these days. Now regular players of indian team, rarely play ranjis
 
I would say that Amarnath was the most underrated cricketer ever! He had the largest contribution to India's breakthrough moment in cricket, winning the 1983 World Cup. While Kapil Dev had spectacular contributions, such as the 175 against Zimbabwe and the running catch to dismiss Richards, it was Amarnath who won the Man of the Match awards in both the semi-finals and finals. He won these awards for his performance with both the bat and the bowl.

Amarnath remains my personal favorite because of his courage and refusal to take crap from the cricketing establishment. At the Bridgetown 1982-83 Test after being hit on the head and forced to retire with a bloody wound he returned to face Holding. Instead of ducking he stood his ground and hooked Holding.
 
Yes.

. and yes.



Jimmy batting against West Indian pace battery was nothing less than Gladiator stuff. His record against them puts many statistical greats of his time to shame. :jm
 
Don't know him

Underrated can also mean unknown...

'What separated Jimmy from the others,' Michael Holding said, 'was his great ability to withstand pain... A fast bowler knows when a batsman is in pain. But Jimmy would stand up and continue.'

David Boon said "Concede didn't seem to be in his vocabulary".

Vivian Richards called him "one of the nicest men to have ever played the game".

Not known, but should be known!
 
He's the guy that got struck on the head by a IK bouncer, right ?
 
Don't know him

<a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/154462.html">Article 1<a/>

<a href="http://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/mohinder-amarnath-a-saga-of-fearless-hook-shots-and-endless-comebacks-31278">Article 2<a/>

<a href="http://www.cricwaves.com/mobile/loadArtD?aid=PCsvD2QkTR_drh-sevawcirc">Article 3<a/>

I suggest you read these articles whenever you are free.
 
I suggest you read these articles whenever you are free.


Thanks for the article links. Really, when one reads about Amarnath, the thing that makes him stand out is his courage. Yes, he had some series with spectacularly high averages against the best speed bowling, but it was really his fearlessness that defined him.

Amarnath's courage went beyond simply having a high pain threshold, it was an integral part of his character, something that also made him unpopular with the selectors and the cricketing establishment in general.

Amarnath may or may not be the most underrated batsman, but he is definitely a person with great character, and that is what really counts in a man.
 
I would say that Amarnath was the most underrated cricketer ever! He had the largest contribution to India's breakthrough moment in cricket, winning the 1983 World Cup. While Kapil Dev had spectacular contributions, such as the 175 against Zimbabwe and the running catch to dismiss Richards, it was Amarnath who won the Man of the Match awards in both the semi-finals and finals. He won these awards for his performance with both the bat and the bowl.

Amarnath remains my personal favorite because of his courage and refusal to take crap from the cricketing establishment. At the Bridgetown 1982-83 Test after being hit on the head and forced to retire with a bloody wound he returned to face Holding. Instead of ducking he stood his ground and hooked Holding.

This. And I have read that he came back to bat with the same bloodied shirt and scored runs in that innings. That innings made him determined to work on his game against short pitched bowling to the extent that he became one of the finest hookers and pullers of his era...a perfect mentor for someone like Raina to look up to and learn - great servant of Indian cricket.
 
I don't think so. Actually, apart from that couple of years' purple patch, I don't think Amarnath was anything special. If one takes a couple of years peak, Jimmy 'll be among all time greats, but not much either side. If I can recall correctly, just after the WC of 1983, WI toured IND & Jimmiy had probably 1 run in 6 innings - 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0 or something like that. He is credited for what he was great at - courage, thy name is Jimmy Amarnath.

For IND, if any player is under-rated, it has to be Kapil Dev; wonderful cricketer, for me the best ever Indian to play Cricket. If anyone comes after him, when it's about under-rate, it's GR Vishi - he was a much, much, much better player than that 42 average & 12 hundreds suggests.

Most over-rated from IND - Sunil Gavasker - one can go to those 125 Tests' scorecard, match by match & can see what he is credited for & what was fact..........................
 
I don't think so. Actually, apart from that couple of years' purple patch, I don't think Amarnath was anything special.

Let me just say that being the Man of the Series in a WCC and the largest contributor to the team that won the Championship is enough to make a player special.
 
Most over-rated from IND - Sunil Gavasker - one can go to those 125 Tests' scorecard, match by match & can see what he is credited for & what was fact..........................

I just opened the cumulative scores list. Please help me understand how he is over rated.
 
Let me just say that being the Man of the Series in a WCC and the largest contributor to the team that won the Championship is enough to make a player special.


Do you fancy that I don't know that? Read the lines of "couple of year", in my post ............ Also, I am sure the topic was about the batsman Jimmy & his Test career (take a notice to the tables of OP). Amarnath didn't win the MoM & MoS for his batting only.
 
The one and only greatest batsmen of PACE, hands down no one else would come close. His series in WI vs those great WI fast bowlers was testament of his unhuman ability to bat against the best quality fast bowling vs legendary bowlers
 
The one and only greatest batsmen of PACE, hands down no one else would come close. His series in WI vs those great WI fast bowlers was testament of his unhuman ability to bat against the best quality fast bowling vs legendary bowlers

How can you forget the 'great' Inzamam?
 
I don't think so. Actually, apart from that couple of years' purple patch, I don't think Amarnath was anything special. If one takes a couple of years peak, Jimmy 'll be among all time greats, but not much either side. If I can recall correctly, just after the WC of 1983, WI toured IND & Jimmiy had probably 1 run in 6 innings - 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0 or something like that. He is credited for what he was great at - courage, thy name is Jimmy Amarnath.

For IND, if any player is under-rated, it has to be Kapil Dev; wonderful cricketer, for me the best ever Indian to play Cricket. If anyone comes after him, when it's about under-rate, it's GR Vishi - he was a much, much, much better player than that 42 average & 12 hundreds suggests.

Most over-rated from IND - Sunil Gavasker - one can go to those 125 Tests' scorecard, match by match & can see what he is credited for & what was fact..........................

Amarnath had two incredible tours - the WI tour and Pakistani tour of 1982. His performances were of the ATG realm on these two tours - against the WI quicks and against an imposing IK (who averaged 13odd for that tour). He had a few other successful tours as well - Australian tour in 1985, Pakistani tour of 1984 etc. While Amarnath was exceptionally good when he was on song, he was also downright terrible when he was out of form. Truly great players do not play so poorly over extended periods, which is why Amarnath deserves only what he gets now. In half the test match series he played, he averaged less than 30 and he had plenty of tours where he averaged less than 20.
 
I just opened the cumulative scores list. Please help me understand how he is over rated.

You need to know a bit history for that. Let me sum up for you (though I don't like bringing stats time & again to defame a great).

1. Gavasker is most famous for his greatness against hostile fast bowling - which is not correct actually. He hardly played WI fearsome 4 attack - In 1971-72 he scored 774 runs against an WI attack which had 36 years old Sobers as opening bowler. That was the lean patch of WI cricket when they hardly had any bowler (If you click the links of the career, you 'll see apart from Sobers, hardly any name)

In 1974 WI came with only a pair of fast bowler - Roberts & Jullien (?) - Gavasker went AOWL
In 1976 IND chased 400+ at PoS, Gavasker (& a couple of others) did get a 100, but that WI attack only had a young Holding. That was a Test WI went with 3 spinners & Lloyd actually declared after discussing with his spinners - 3 of them (Insan Ali, Padmore & forgot the 3rd one) - for next 12 years only spinner played a single Test for WI - Butts, as a replacement of injured Lloyd.
1970s cricket was disturbed by WSC, for next WI Series Gavasker mastered a Packered reject WI side for 650+ with 4 centuries in 6 Tests - that WI side was missing their top 15 cricketers, barring Kalicharan. That attack didn't have Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Clarke, Holder & Mosely. Only a 20 years old Marshall made his debut in a high scoring series where 6 Test produced only 1 result & rest 5 were high scoring draws.
Gavasker faced a full strength WI side in 1982-83 in WI - taking out his 147* in a high scoring draw at Guyana (which is traditionally the highest scoring ground in WI those days), he would have averaged under 15 in that Series. He played last time against WI was in 1983-84 at home against Marshal & Holding (Garner didn't come & Roberts hardly played) - his 236* (In deed a great knock) actually took his series total to 400+, in a 6 Test series.

2. Gavasker is credited among very few players having a 100 at every venue on mainland AUS (all the Test venues of his time, Hobert wasn't a Test venue then) - again massive, massive mis-leading bravado. In 1977-78, he took on a Packer reject AUS (Thompson was there, but he was mostly injured) - Lille, Maxwaker, Pascoe wasn't there & Hogg didn't debut. Try to find to the credentials of the bowlers he mastered for 3 Centuries. 1979-80 against AUS at hime, he again mastered 600+ in 6 Test with 4 hundreds, but that attack didn't have Lillee, Thompson, Pascoe or Hogg (? - sure about first 3). After the great generation of 70s, AUS went into a slump in mid 80s, one of the weakest ever AUS side & that too was hurt by the self exile of Rackman, Lawson, Aldermann & young McDermott was injured - AUS opened with Simon Davis & ........ in 1985-86 home series - Gavasker mastered 166 (out of 600/4 d) & 170+.

In between, only time Gavasker faced Lillee, Pascoe & Hogg was 1980-81; barring his 70 at 3rd Test, he would have ended 3 Test series with total less than 100 for the Series.


3. Against NZ, he has a century at Acuckland in 1975, a match that IND won & NZ was missing a certain name - RJ Hadlee. In 1979-80, he did face RJ - for a total of 135 in 3 Tests, at an average of..................

4. Gavasker had great record against PAK - but not so in the 1982-83 series when Imran was at his prime. He mastered a PAK attack of Azim Hafeez & forgot names in 1983 & had a great series in 1978 at home, when Khan was mostly injured. In between, he had a great Test at Karachi in 1978, I agree, one of few in a 125 Test career

5. Gavasker had relatively better outings in UK, made a great hundred in 1974 at Old Traford & 222 at Oval in 1979, but his majority of the runs against ENG was at home, that too not much in 1972 or 1976 when ENG had Willis, Snow, Old & Underwood at their prime. He roosted a poor English side in 1982 for 700+.............

Look, I have nothing personal against him, one of the all time greatest; but he simply wasn't the player he is credited for. Besides,he was the utmost selfish, vindictive & ill headed person. I give you 4 examples -
1. In 1975-76 when Pataudi retired, there were 2 incumbent for Indian Captaincy - Sunny & Bedi. Most of the management was for Bedi for his few years in County, Gavasker never liked that & he had a life time dig at BS whenever he got the chance. Later, Bombay lobby forced Bedi to resign on disciplinary grounds & a compromise choice (Venkat, from South) was picked.
2. A MCG 1980-81, Lillee got him LBW (probably he in-side edged that) & showed him the way - Gavasker declared, conceded the match (& series). It was Indian Manager Pataudi, that ran into the field & sent Chauhan back to batting for a match IND eventually won.
3. He had twice a mid pitch brawl with Fletcher & Zaheer - in a meaning less match, in last hour, both those Captains offered draws, Gavasker used his influence to home Umpire & made them continue the match till he reached his 100. Zaheer was damn upset, but he was good buddy of Sunny, not much happened there, but Fleatcher wasn't that sober then.
4. In 1984-85 5th Test, Azhar was 65* & could have got 4th century of his career (in 3rd Test, 2nd of the match - a record hold by Sunny) - he declared the innings giving a side leading 2-1 (ENG) to chase 250 in 40 overs & win it 3-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5. In 1985-86, IND became the 1st Asian side coming very close to win a Test Series in AUS, at MCG IND needed 120+ with rain threatening around - Kapil was the Captain, who had just replaced Gavasker as Indian Captain. Do you know what Sunny did - he took 75 minutes & 50 balls to score 8, until rain saved AUS..........

Not to mention his 36* (60 overs).

Look, I again say, don't judge me with my Nationality or question my integrity, I love this game & do study lot on this from passion. You spoiled my Sunday morning yaar - we are smashing those chokers, sorry Proteus..........
 
You need to know a bit history for that. Let me sum up for you (though I don't like bringing stats time & again to defame a great).

1. Gavasker is most famous for his greatness against hostile fast bowling - which is not correct actually. He hardly played WI fearsome 4 attack - In 1971-72 he scored 774 runs against an WI attack which had 36 years old Sobers as opening bowler. That was the lean patch of WI cricket when they hardly had any bowler (If you click the links of the career, you 'll see apart from Sobers, hardly any name)

In 1974 WI came with only a pair of fast bowler - Roberts & Jullien (?) - Gavasker went AOWL
In 1976 IND chased 400+ at PoS, Gavasker (& a couple of others) did get a 100, but that WI attack only had a young Holding. That was a Test WI went with 3 spinners & Lloyd actually declared after discussing with his spinners - 3 of them (Insan Ali, Padmore & forgot the 3rd one) - for next 12 years only spinner played a single Test for WI - Butts, as a replacement of injured Lloyd.
1970s cricket was disturbed by WSC, for next WI Series Gavasker mastered a Packered reject WI side for 650+ with 4 centuries in 6 Tests - that WI side was missing their top 15 cricketers, barring Kalicharan. That attack didn't have Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Clarke, Holder & Mosely. Only a 20 years old Marshall made his debut in a high scoring series where 6 Test produced only 1 result & rest 5 were high scoring draws.
Gavasker faced a full strength WI side in 1982-83 in WI - taking out his 147* in a high scoring draw at Guyana (which is traditionally the highest scoring ground in WI those days), he would have averaged under 15 in that Series. He played last time against WI was in 1983-84 at home against Marshal & Holding (Garner didn't come & Roberts hardly played) - his 236* (In deed a great knock) actually took his series total to 400+, in a 6 Test series.

2. Gavasker is credited among very few players having a 100 at every venue on mainland AUS (all the Test venues of his time, Hobert wasn't a Test venue then) - again massive, massive mis-leading bravado. In 1977-78, he took on a Packer reject AUS (Thompson was there, but he was mostly injured) - Lille, Maxwaker, Pascoe wasn't there & Hogg didn't debut. Try to find to the credentials of the bowlers he mastered for 3 Centuries. 1979-80 against AUS at hime, he again mastered 600+ in 6 Test with 4 hundreds, but that attack didn't have Lillee, Thompson, Pascoe or Hogg (? - sure about first 3). After the great generation of 70s, AUS went into a slump in mid 80s, one of the weakest ever AUS side & that too was hurt by the self exile of Rackman, Lawson, Aldermann & young McDermott was injured - AUS opened with Simon Davis & ........ in 1985-86 home series - Gavasker mastered 166 (out of 600/4 d) & 170+.

In between, only time Gavasker faced Lillee, Pascoe & Hogg was 1980-81; barring his 70 at 3rd Test, he would have ended 3 Test series with total less than 100 for the Series.


3. Against NZ, he has a century at Acuckland in 1975, a match that IND won & NZ was missing a certain name - RJ Hadlee. In 1979-80, he did face RJ - for a total of 135 in 3 Tests, at an average of..................

4. Gavasker had great record against PAK - but not so in the 1982-83 series when Imran was at his prime. He mastered a PAK attack of Azim Hafeez & forgot names in 1983 & had a great series in 1978 at home, when Khan was mostly injured. In between, he had a great Test at Karachi in 1978, I agree, one of few in a 125 Test career

5. Gavasker had relatively better outings in UK, made a great hundred in 1974 at Old Traford & 222 at Oval in 1979, but his majority of the runs against ENG was at home, that too not much in 1972 or 1976 when ENG had Willis, Snow, Old & Underwood at their prime. He roosted a poor English side in 1982 for 700+.............

Look, I have nothing personal against him, one of the all time greatest; but he simply wasn't the player he is credited for. Besides,he was the utmost selfish, vindictive & ill headed person. I give you 4 examples -
1. In 1975-76 when Pataudi retired, there were 2 incumbent for Indian Captaincy - Sunny & Bedi. Most of the management was for Bedi for his few years in County, Gavasker never liked that & he had a life time dig at BS whenever he got the chance. Later, Bombay lobby forced Bedi to resign on disciplinary grounds & a compromise choice (Venkat, from South) was picked.
2. A MCG 1980-81, Lillee got him LBW (probably he in-side edged that) & showed him the way - Gavasker declared, conceded the match (& series). It was Indian Manager Pataudi, that ran into the field & sent Chauhan back to batting for a match IND eventually won.
3. He had twice a mid pitch brawl with Fletcher & Zaheer - in a meaning less match, in last hour, both those Captains offered draws, Gavasker used his influence to home Umpire & made them continue the match till he reached his 100. Zaheer was damn upset, but he was good buddy of Sunny, not much happened there, but Fleatcher wasn't that sober then.
4. In 1984-85 5th Test, Azhar was 65* & could have got 4th century of his career (in 3rd Test, 2nd of the match - a record hold by Sunny) - he declared the innings giving a side leading 2-1 (ENG) to chase 250 in 40 overs & win it 3-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5. In 1985-86, IND became the 1st Asian side coming very close to win a Test Series in AUS, at MCG IND needed 120+ with rain threatening around - Kapil was the Captain, who had just replaced Gavasker as Indian Captain. Do you know what Sunny did - he took 75 minutes & 50 balls to score 8, until rain saved AUS..........

Not to mention his 36* (60 overs).

Look, I again say, don't judge me with my Nationality or question my integrity, I love this game & do study lot on this from passion. You spoiled my Sunday morning yaar - we are smashing those chokers, sorry Proteus..........

Wow, I mentioned nearly the same thing in an old post of mine here. May be in 2011/2012 or so. How did you come to the same conclusion? Gavaskar was an ATG, but he wasn't as good as he is made out to be especially when it comes to his record against the WI. :)

Vishy and Kapil Dev were better team players compared to Gavaskar and usually delivered where it mattered more. Vishy was a pressure specialist like Laxman though he didn't utilize all easier chances like Gavaskar.
 
Amarnath was perhaps one of the bravest cricketers in history. He was hit on the dead couple of times by fast bowlers (pre-helmet era).
I fortunately own his book "Grit & Grace" , where quite a few ATG wrote about him.

Richard Hadlee (Aerial Duels) - wrote about MA getting cracked skull from his bouncer during county match in 1979-80
Imran Khan (A Worthy Opponent) - Applauded him for his courage for coming back to cricket despite nasty head injury.
Clive LLoyd (A rare breed)
Viv Richards (One of the All Time Men of the Game)
Dennis Lillee (His fighting Spirit)
Sachin Tendulkar (He could teach me to handle pressure)
Malcom Marshall (He stood like a rock) - Called him one the top six batsman which included Gooch , Border , Gavaskar , Crowe and Miandad.
 
Amarnath didn't win the MoM & MoS for his batting only.

It is not merely the runs he scored, but the way he scored them in 1983. If you actually watched that WCC you would see that when other batsmen were getting bogged down, it was Amarnath who had the ability to hit over the heads of the close fielders. That is what kept the run rate up, and finally was crucial in India's victories.
 
You need to know a bit history for that. Let me sum up for you (though I don't like bringing stats time & again to defame a great).

1. Gavasker is most famous for his greatness against hostile fast bowling - which is not correct actually. He hardly played WI fearsome 4 attack - In 1971-72 he scored 774 runs against an WI attack which had 36 years old Sobers as opening bowler. That was the lean patch of WI cricket when they hardly had any bowler (If you click the links of the career, you 'll see apart from Sobers, hardly any name)

...

Writing so much to try and prove something that doesn't exist :(

Basically one can pick and choose different incidents from a career that spanned a couple of decades and find much to criticize. But the question is, who was better than Gavaskar in his time? None actually! Maybe Richards came closest, with a century every 5.04 Tests he played compared to Gavaskar's once every 3.68 Tests. The other greats who come to mind are Allan Border, who scored once ever 5.78 Tests and Miandad who scored once every 5.39 Tests.

It is easy to pick negative instances in a long career, but when Gavaskar's entire career is considered he beat out his competition comprehensively. Even later greats like Lara and Tendulkar could not match his rate of century scoring. Lara scored once every 3.85 Tests, and Tendulkar once every 3.92 Tests.

And of course Gavaskar, unlike Richards and Border etc., scored against WI and Australia. The memory of Gavaskar has faded a bit with time, but I remember in the 1970s and 1980s, he was considered by many to be the greatest batsman after Bradman. After all, which other batsman was there after Bradman and before Gavaskar, who could be considered greater than Gavaskar?
 
Writing so much to try and prove something that doesn't exist :(

Basically one can pick and choose different incidents from a career that spanned a couple of decades and find much to criticize. But the question is, who was better than Gavaskar in his time? None actually! Maybe Richards came closest, with a century every 5.04 Tests he played compared to Gavaskar's once every 3.68 Tests. The other greats who come to mind are Allan Border, who scored once ever 5.78 Tests and Miandad who scored once every 5.39 Tests.

It is easy to pick negative instances in a long career, but when Gavaskar's entire career is considered he beat out his competition comprehensively. Even later greats like Lara and Tendulkar could not match his rate of century scoring. Lara scored once every 3.85 Tests, and Tendulkar once every 3.92 Tests.

And of course Gavaskar, unlike Richards and Border etc., scored against WI and Australia. The memory of Gavaskar has faded a bit with time, but I remember in the 1970s and 1980s, he was considered by many to be the greatest batsman after Bradman. After all, which other batsman was there after Bradman and before Gavaskar, who could be considered greater than Gavaskar?



I resign here. Learn to count bro..................
 
Writing so much to try and prove something that doesn't exist :(

Basically one can pick and choose different incidents from a career that spanned a couple of decades and find much to criticize. But the question is, who was better than Gavaskar in his time? None actually! Maybe Richards came closest


:))):))):)))


Sorry, but couldn't resist after reading that.
 
I resign here. Learn to count bro..................

The question was "After all, which other batsman was there after Bradman and before Gavaskar, who could be considered greater than Gavaskar?"

Lacking an answer, I see you resort to drama instead...
 
:))):))):)))


Sorry, but couldn't resist after reading that.


I got the measures, actually - someone talking about 70s without the name of Gregory Stephan Chappell.................. And if we take out those "few different incidents", someone should count where that 3.68 'll end.

I was a bit surprised, that someone could start a response without reading the post properly................... and yes regarding Richards
:(
 
The question was "After all, which other batsman was there after Bradman and before Gavaskar, who could be considered greater than Gavaskar?"

Lacking an answer, I see you resort to drama instead...

Dude, you are going over the top here.

If you don't know the answer, its not his fault.
 
I got the measures, actually - someone talking about 70s without the name of Gregory Stephan Chappell.................. And if we take out those "few different incidents", someone should count where that 3.68 'll end.

I was a bit surprised, that someone could start a response without reading the post properly................... and yes regarding Richards
:(

Tbh his next post is even more funny :))
 
Writing so much to try and prove something that doesn't exist :(

Basically one can pick and choose different incidents from a career that spanned a couple of decades and find much to criticize. But the question is, who was better than Gavaskar in his time? None actually! Maybe Richards came closest, with a century every 5.04 Tests he played compared to Gavaskar's once every 3.68 Tests. The other greats who come to mind are Allan Border, who scored once ever 5.78 Tests and Miandad who scored once every 5.39 Tests.

It is easy to pick negative instances in a long career, but when Gavaskar's entire career is considered he beat out his competition comprehensively. Even later greats like Lara and Tendulkar could not match his rate of century scoring. Lara scored once every 3.85 Tests, and Tendulkar once every 3.92 Tests.

And of course Gavaskar, unlike Richards and Border etc., scored against WI and Australia. The memory of Gavaskar has faded a bit with time, but I remember in the 1970s and 1980s, he was considered by many to be the greatest batsman after Bradman. After all, which other batsman was there after Bradman and before Gavaskar, who could be considered greater than Gavaskar?

Viv was a notch above any of his peers (due to his ability to decimate the opposition). Among others, Gavaskar and G.Chappell were near equals. Miandad, Border, Greenidge, M.Crowe and Lloyd were slightly below Gavaskar and Chappell. Players like Amarnath, Vishy, Vengsarkar, Zaheer Abbas, Gower, Boon, Boycott, Haynes etc come in the next tier.
 
Man, this thread makes me feel really inadequate about what I know about cricket. This is a table for the big boys.
From what I have heard second hand: maqsood Ahmed and wasim raja have also had the odd strong series against the windies
 
Viv was a notch above any of his peers (due to his ability to decimate the opposition). Among others, Gavaskar and G.Chappell were near equals. Miandad, Border, Greenidge, M.Crowe and Lloyd were slightly below Gavaskar and Chappell. Players like Amarnath, Vishy, Vengsarkar, Zaheer Abbas, Gower, Boon, Boycott, Haynes etc come in the next tier.

No, IW, I don't agree with you here. Greg was way better than Sunny. In fact Greg was more complete batsman than Viv, but nobody could match Viv for his style, domination & power. On pure batting skills, I don't think there had been any better Aussie ever batted in baggy green.......... Barry Richards was outstanding, but his sample was too small, we have seen a 24 years old Barry at his prime, didn't see his struggle, what he could have done later.

Personally, I rate Vishy slightly better that Sunny on pure batting merit - he had 12 centuries & probably another 12 in 90s (or over 85), but no Indian had ever made his contribution count like Vishy. I don't think a very poor Indian side of 70s & 80s ever lost when Vishy had a century.

Among his contemporary, AB 'll definitely be better than Sunny for the runs he scored under pressure for a weak & rebuilding Aussie side. Javed, I don't rate him even best Test batsman for PAK. Javed had different attributes, like his fighting spirit, his improvisations, his batting intelligence, but as a complete batsman, he was not that great. Two other batsmen whom I do rate much, much higher than heir stats are Gordon Grineedge & Ian Chappel. Chappel Sr. had lots of fight with ACB & his career ended after being man handled by Botham, but from 1967 to 1974, ChappellI was probably among the top 3/4 best batsman in world. An, if I call the name of Rohan Kanhai, this buddy cricketpater might freak out..........
 
I got the measures, actually - someone talking about 70s without the name of Gregory Stephan Chappell.................. And if we take out those "few different incidents", someone should count where that 3.68 'll end.

I was a bit surprised, that someone could start a response without reading the post properly................... and yes regarding Richards
:(

Okay, that is a better answer. You have Greg Chappell and Viv Richards. No, Gavaskar was still greater than these two great batsmen. While their numbers may be roughly the same (and Chappell scored centuries at a faster rate), Gavaskar due to his longevity (34 centuries compared to 24 for Chappell) and the fact that he played for India (weak bowling side) still comes out ahead.
 
No, IW, I don't agree with you here. Greg was way better than Sunny. In fact Greg was more complete batsman than Viv, but nobody could match Viv for his style, domination & power. On pure batting skills, I don't think there had been any better Aussie ever batted in baggy green.......... Barry Richards was outstanding, but his sample was too small, we have seen a 24 years old Barry at his prime, didn't see his struggle, what he could have done later.

Personally, I rate Vishy slightly better that Sunny on pure batting merit - he had 12 centuries & probably another 12 in 90s (or over 85), but no Indian had ever made his contribution count like Vishy. I don't think a very poor Indian side of 70s & 80s ever lost when Vishy had a century.

Among his contemporary, AB 'll definitely be better than Sunny for the runs he scored under pressure for a weak & rebuilding Aussie side. Javed, I don't rate him even best Test batsman for PAK. Javed had different attributes, like his fighting spirit, his improvisations, his batting intelligence, but as a complete batsman, he was not that great. Two other batsmen whom I do rate much, much higher than heir stats are Gordon Grineedge & Ian Chappel. Chappel Sr. had lots of fight with ACB & his career ended after being man handled by Botham, but from 1967 to 1974, ChappellI was probably among the top 3/4 best batsman in world. An, if I call the name of Rohan Kanhai, this buddy cricketpater might freak out..........

Gavaskar was a test opener, an unenviable job in those days. The reason I rated Gavaskar ahead of every one else except Viv is because it was unusually difficult to average 50 as a test opener in the 70s and 80s - only Boycott and Sunny managed it and only Sunny managed it over 120 tests. Chappell usually batted at #4, considered one of the easier batting slots in test cricket. Chappell averaged only 43 at #3 compared to 59 at #4 - an opener's job is much harder than a #4.
 
Gavaskar was a test opener, an unenviable job in those days. The reason I rated Gavaskar ahead of every one else except Viv is because it was unusually difficult to average 50 as a test opener...

Yes, I forgot to mention that Gavaskar also opened.

As for Viv Richards, while a great batsman, not sure greater than Gavaskar:

1) Gavaskar scored many more centuries playing about the same number of tests.
2) Gavaskar had a marginally higher average.
3) Gavaskar played for a weaker bowling team.

Richards has a mystique about him, but the above numbers are over entire careers and it appears that Gavaskar comes out ahead.
 
Yes, I forgot to mention that Gavaskar also opened.

As for Viv Richards, while a great batsman, not sure greater than Gavaskar:

1) Gavaskar scored many more centuries playing about the same number of tests.
2) Gavaskar had a marginally higher average.
3) Gavaskar played for a weaker bowling team.

Richards has a mystique about him, but the above numbers are over entire careers and it appears that Gavaskar comes out ahead.

Richards was a destroyer. Gavaskar an accumulator. Gavaskar had his strengths over Richards, but overall I think neutrals would go for Richards. TBH, they would complement each other very well in an All time XI rather than be seen as contenders for the same slot.
 
Gavaskar was a test opener, an unenviable job in those days. The reason I rated Gavaskar ahead of every one else except Viv is because it was unusually difficult to average 50 as a test opener in the 70s and 80s - only Boycott and Sunny managed it and only Sunny managed it over 120 tests. Chappell usually batted at #4, considered one of the easier batting slots in test cricket. Chappell averaged only 43 at #3 compared to 59 at #4 - an opener's job is much harder than a #4.

I agree that stats part IW, that why I said that he is over rated - he is credited for "things" that he actually he doesn't deserve, when we consider other factors.

Average of 51.12, 34 centuries..... these are absolute stunning figures for an opener, if you consider

1. 14 Test hundreds against those frightening West Indians at 64 average, in 70s & 80s when they had Holding, Garner, Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Holder, Clarke, Jullien.........
2. 5 Test hundreds in all 5 AUS venues, in total 8 Test hundreds against AUS of 70s & 80s with Lillee, Thoomo, Max, Pascoe, Hogg
3. A match winning Test hundred in NZ in 1970s.............
4. 8 centuries against PAK when they had Imran, Sarfraz..................

I tell you, these are absolute gems, you can't imagine better than this - then you put the "few different incidents" in to the context - you 'll see that he doesn't stand much even against the likes of his contemporary Gooch or Grineedge or Boycott..............
 
Last edited:
Okay, that is a better answer. You have Greg Chappell and Viv Richards. No, Gavaskar was still greater than these two great batsmen. While their numbers may be roughly the same (and Chappell scored centuries at a faster rate), Gavaskar due to his longevity (34 centuries compared to 24 for Chappell) and the fact that he played for India (weak bowling side) still comes out ahead.

Chappel scored his run a bit faster, compared to Sunny - and you are talking about scoring rate in between Gavasker, GS Chappel & Viv, without mentioning Viv .....

Hmmmmm.....
 
Richards was a destroyer. Gavaskar an accumulator. Gavaskar had his strengths over Richards, but overall I think neutrals would go for Richards. TBH, they would complement each other very well in an All time XI rather than be seen as contenders for the same slot.

I am not sure I understand this difference between "destroyer" and "accumulator". X+1 runs scored by an "accumulator" still beats X runs scored by a "destroyer".

Maybe you mean that Richards was a more attacking batsman and could hit many boundaries etc. However, Gavaskar's patient (like Boycott) approach and long stay in the was what India needed in the 1970s and 1980s in Test matches, where their weak bowling often meant that a draw was the best result they could hope for in a Test.
 
then you put the "few different incidents" in to the context - you 'll see that he doesn't stand much even against the likes of his contemporary Gooch or Grineedge or Boycott..............

The "few different incidents" are your subjective opinions, not much to discuss here.

Pray tell why you consider Gooch (avg. 43 vs. 51, 20 vs. 34 centuries), Greenidge (avg. 45 vs. 51, 19 vs. 34 centuries) or Boycott (avg. 48 vs. 51, 22 vs. 34 centuries) superior to Gavaskar? And don't forget that all these players played for teams with better bowling than Gavaskar's team.
 
I agree that stats part IW, that why I said that he is over rated - he is credited for "things" that he actually he doesn't deserve, when we consider other factors.

Average of 51.12, 34 centuries..... these are absolute stunning figures for an opener, if you consider

1. 14 Test hundreds against those frightening West Indians at 64 average, in 70s & 80s when they had Holding, Garner, Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Holder, Clarke, Jullien.........
2. 5 Test hundreds in all 5 AUS venues, in total 8 Test hundreds against AUS of 70s & 80s with Lillee, Thoomo, Max, Pascoe, Hogg
3. A match winning Test hundred in NZ in 1970s.............
4. 8 centuries against PAK when they had Imran, Sarfraz..................

I tell you, these are absolute gems, you can't imagine better than this - then you put the "few different incidents" in to the context - you 'll see that he doesn't stand much even against the likes of his contemporary Gooch or Grineedge or Boycott..............

Gavaskar played in a weak bowling team, perhaps the weakest bowling team of that era. For half his career, the so called pacers (Karsan Ghavri etc) were used by the team to take the shine off the new ball. Indian bowling attack was essentially comprised of four spinners bowling in tandem. Even during the latter half of his career, India had just one quality pace bowler in Dev. Were Greenidge, Gooch and Boycott in the same boat? You cannot apply context only to Gavaskar's good innings and then leave out everything that went against him. If Gavaskar had played like Greenidge India would have lost most of the matches they managed to draw. Sidelined by playing for a weak bowling team that often struggled to bowl out the opposition, Gavaskar had to play for as long as possible to keep his team in a race for a draw. Gavaskar often did that admirably.
 
I am not sure I understand this difference between "destroyer" and "accumulator". X+1 runs scored by an "accumulator" still beats X runs scored by a "destroyer".

Maybe you mean that Richards was a more attacking batsman and could hit many boundaries etc. However, Gavaskar's patient (like Boycott) approach and long stay in the was what India needed in the 1970s and 1980s in Test matches, where their weak bowling often meant that a draw was the best result they could hope for in a Test.

Not necessarily. Destroyers can change the complexion of a match dramatically, often in a session. Accumulators don't do that.

Gavaskar may have played differently had he played in a team like WI. But Richards domination was so much and it cannot be accounted for just by the strength of his bowling team. Richards played far more aggressively compared to his team mates.
 
Gavaskar was accumulator but he had the ability to attack the best bowlers.
94 ball 100 against Marshall and Holding is my absolute favorite.
[utube]wFhGOR1AH98[/utube]
 
Last edited:
Gavaskar could play aggressively if he chose to. He did not because his bowlers did not afford him that luxury. Gavaskar was forced to put up a very heavy price on his wicket because this was the only way India could draw test matches. In fact Gavaskar's batting strike rate against the WI team is around 60 (way ahead of his career S/R of 44) - something even aggressive batsmen of his time would be proud of.
 
Gavaskar could play aggressively if he chose to. He did not because his bowlers did not afford him that luxury. Gavaskar was forced to put up a very heavy price on his wicket because this was the only way India could draw test matches. In fact Gavaskar's batting strike rate against the WI team is around 60 (way ahead of his career S/R of 44) - something even aggressive batsmen of his time would be proud of.

But if he can do that against Wi, why not against other attacks?

I think for batsmen there is a cruise mode and peak mode.

Gavaskar in peak mode may have been relatively more aggressive but don't think that's the case if he was in cruise mode.
 
Gavaskar played in a weak bowling team, perhaps the weakest bowling team of that era. For half his career, the so called pacers (Karsan Ghavri etc) were used by the team to take the shine off the new ball. Indian bowling attack was essentially comprised of four spinners bowling in tandem. Even during the latter half of his career, India had just one quality pace bowler in Dev. Were Greenidge, Gooch and Boycott in the same boat? <b>You cannot apply context only to Gavaskar's good innings and then leave out everything that went against him.</b> If Gavaskar had played like Greenidge India would have lost most of the matches they managed to draw. Sidelined by playing for a weak bowling team that often struggled to bowl out the opposition, Gavaskar had to play for as long as possible to keep his team in a race for a draw. Gavaskar often did that admirably.

Yes, I agree. Picking negative incidents from a long career does not make a convincing argument.

In the 1970s and 1980s, for the Indian team it was often Gavaskar standing between a draw and defeat. I would say that India may have lost twice as many tests in many series were it not for Gavaskar. I can't think of any other batsman who had the same positive impact for his team like Gavaskar did.

As for comparing Chappell to Gavaskar, the comparison is closest among his contemporaries. Chappell had an higher average (54 vs. 51) and a faster rate of scoring centuries (3.63 vs. 3.68), but Gavaskar had longevity (34 vs. 24 centuries, 10K vs. 7K total runs). Also Gavaskar played for a weaker bowling team and was an opener, I would still go with Gavaskar over Chappell.
 
But if he can do that against Wi, why not against other attacks?

I think for batsmen there is a cruise mode and peak mode.

Gavaskar in peak mode may have been relatively more aggressive but don't think that's the case if he was in cruise mode.

WI bowling was tougher than other attacks. Even their weakest bowling attacks had quality. The only way to get a lot of runs against the WI bowlers was by going after them. One of their bowlers would get you sooner or later, so you had to make every scoring opportunity count. It was nearly impossible to last 300-400 deliveries against any WI attack from the mid 70s and 80s - so those slow and grounded out hundreds were rare against WI. Gavaskar always hit a lot of boundaries - especially against the WI bowlers. Against weaker teams, Gavaskar was pretty sure that it was difficult to dismiss him, so he could afford to collect the runs at leisure.
 
WI bowling was tougher than other attacks. Even their weakest bowling attacks had quality. The only way to get a lot of runs against the WI bowlers was by going after them. One of their bowlers would get you sooner or later, so you had to make every scoring opportunity count. It was nearly impossible to last 300-400 deliveries against any WI attack from the mid 70s and 80s - so those slow and grounded out hundreds were rare against WI. Gavaskar always hit a lot of boundaries - especially against the WI bowlers. Against weaker teams, Gavaskar was pretty sure that it was difficult to dismiss him, so he could afford to collect the runs at leisure.

Very interesting.

But that means that he had to be pushed (through situations) to score faster.

It was more like if he didn't do that, he won't score much (compared to what he did) so what he did was maximize his runs and his team's chances (a sensible decision).

But that doesn't make him naturally aggresive.

A naturally aggressive batsman is aggressive naturally (in cruise mode). He can score at a decent clip without getting out (which guys like Boycott, Dravid and Kallis can't in test cricket which is why they block a lot more). Of course, nothing wrong with blocking (cos win is a win).

Watching Dravid for Rajasthan Royals (a season before he retired) was super fun. He was quite attacking without slogging. He too had a attacking streak but wasn't naturally aggressive.
 
Very interesting.

But that means that he had to be pushed (through situations) to score faster.

It was more like if he didn't do that, he won't score much (compared to what he did) so what he did was maximize his runs and his team's chances (a sensible decision).

But that doesn't make him naturally aggresive.

A naturally aggressive batsman is aggressive naturally (in cruise mode). He can score at a decent clip without getting out (which guys like Boycott, Dravid and Kallis can't in test cricket which is why they block a lot more). Of course, nothing wrong with blocking (cos win is a win).

Watching Dravid for Rajasthan Royals (a season before he retired) was super fun. He was quite attacking without slogging. He too had a attacking streak but wasn't naturally aggressive.

I think Dravid struggled in SA (also against Aus when McGrath played) because he did not change his natural game and try to score faster. Dravid had a strike rate of 34odd while playing in SA, and 39 in Australia. Dravid would usually be good in these places until he would be dismissed by an awful delivery. If Dravid received 100 balls all he would make is 35 runs on average, naturally his averages in these places wasn't very impressive. If Dravid had adopted Gavaskar approach against the WI, he would have had better success in SA and Aus. Dravid's natural game worked perfectly against teams without the best bowlers, but whenever teams had extremely good bowlers, his scoring rate sometimes caused his downfall.

I don't think accumulators would get cheaply dismissed if they tried to attack. They block not because they fear dismissal but because they lack the full range of strokes. Accumulators usually lack some scoring strokes that more flamboyant players don't, so the fielding team can plug those holes with good field placings. Dravid, for example was exceptionally strong on the on side, but his off side game used to be comparatively weak during the early part of his career, which made him an accumulator. At his peak, Dravid had rectified this weakness and was scoring hundreds for fun. In IPL, Dravid didn't slog but he had developed the game to play all round the wicket.
 
I think Dravid struggled in SA (also against Aus when McGrath played) because he did not change his natural game and try to score faster. Dravid had a strike rate of 34odd while playing in SA, and 39 in Australia. Dravid would usually be good in these places until he would be dismissed by an awful delivery. If Dravid received 100 balls all he would make is 35 runs on average, naturally his averages in these places wasn't very impressive. If Dravid had adopted Gavaskar approach against the WI, he would have had better success in SA and Aus. Dravid's natural game worked perfectly against teams without the best bowlers, but whenever teams had extremely good bowlers, his scoring rate sometimes caused his downfall.

I don't think accumulators would get cheaply dismissed if they tried to attack. They block not because they fear dismissal but because they lack the full range of strokes. Accumulators usually lack some scoring strokes that more flamboyant players don't, so the fielding team can plug those holes with good field placings. Dravid, for example was exceptionally strong on the on side, but his off side game used to be comparatively weak during the early part of his career, which made him an accumulator. At his peak, Dravid had rectified this weakness and was scoring hundreds for fun. In IPL, Dravid didn't slog but he had developed the game to play all round the wicket.

Exactly.

Accumulators don't have the range to play the attacking strokes which means if they tried playing that, they would get out more often than not or their output won't be as high as they could get by blocking. Of course, in certain cases, their output would be higher if they attack more (as compared to their output if they don't attack).

If a player is an accumulator across an entire career, there is a reason for that.
 
Last edited:
Opposite cases are true too.

Sehwag and Warner can't defend and stay on the wicket. Attack for them is a necessity to survive.
 
Exactly.

Accumulators don't have the range to play the attacking strokes which means if they tried playing that, they would get out more often than not or their output won't be as high as they could get by blocking. Of course, in certain cases, their output would be higher if they attack more (as compared to their output if they don't attack).

If a player is an accumulator across an entire career, there is a reason for that.

The fielding team knows which batsmen have which weaknesses. So they setup a field which dries up the runs. For example in Dravid's case, the fielding team could pack the legside and bowl on his legs. Dravid would be able to play a lot of strokes but he won't get too many runs. In test matches, bowlers don't bowl to contain so they would not be content in bowling to Dravid's offside to see him defend or leave ball after ball. If you don't make the batsman play you don't get wickets. So accumulators do get the chance to attack in their strong zones (and often play as attackingly as destroyers), but they don't make enough runs. Attacking batsmen get more runs for their shots because they can play a variety of shots and easily pierce the field.
 
Gavaskar was accumulator but he had the ability to attack the best bowlers.
94 ball 100 against Marshall and Holding is my absolute favorite.

Nice link, thanks!

There is one simple statistic that shows how far ahead Gavaskar was of Chappell. The best and most hostile bowling attack both these batsman faced were the WI.

Yes, Chappell scored his centuries at a slightly faster rate (3.63 vs. 3.68) but the question is where did he score them?

Of his 24 centuries, how many did Chappell score in WI? Just ONE century in Bridgetown in 1973.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_cricket_centuries_by_Greg_Chappell

Of his 34 centuries, how many did Gavaskar score in WI? No less than SEVEN. Gavaskar actually scored FOUR times the number of centuries in his debut series in the WI compared to the number scored by Chappell in his entire career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_cricket_centuries_by_Sunil_Gavaskar

What percentage of his centuries did Chappell score at home? 16/24 = 67%

What percentage of his centuries did Gavaskar score at home? = 16/34 = 47%

Gavaskar had already scored 8 centuries abroad (including a mind boggling 6 in WI) by the time he finally got around to scoring one at home in 1977.

Chappell was a tiger at home, abroad not so much. Gavaskar tamed the best bowling abroad in hostile conditions. There is not much more that needs to be said.
 
Gavaskar played in a weak bowling team, perhaps the weakest bowling team of that era. For half his career, the so called pacers (Karsan Ghavri etc) were used by the team to take the shine off the new ball. Indian bowling attack was essentially comprised of four spinners bowling in tandem. Even during the latter half of his career, India had just one quality pace bowler in Dev. Were Greenidge, Gooch and Boycott in the same boat? You cannot apply context only to Gavaskar's good innings and then leave out everything that went against him. If Gavaskar had played like Greenidge India would have lost most of the matches they managed to draw. Sidelined by playing for a weak bowling team that often struggled to bowl out the opposition, Gavaskar had to play for as long as possible to keep his team in a race for a draw. Gavaskar often did that admirably.


I don't think weak bowling attack of IND has anything to do with Gavaskers' scoring volume. Scoring rate wasn't his strength & none credits him for that. With due respect, he was extremely self-centered & played every ball for his own stats. It was irony that the man starting with 36* in 60 overs ended with a 85 balls hundred. Scoring rate was often his self imposed selfishness to pile up mile stones & maintain average - I can point few ODIs, when Gavasker batted through out 50 overs & IND lost by big margin with lots of wickets at hand.

Through out 70s & 80s IND played home Tests on absolute dead tracks to bail out draws & with spinners sometimes get the visitors off guard, some thing we are trying to master now. Besides, in mid 70s to mid 80s, often teams toured IND without their main bowlers - one can check how many Test against Holding, Garner, Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke...... Lillee, Thompson, Pascoe, Maxwalker, Hogg, Lawson, Mcdermott, Aldermann, Rackmann,........... Hadlee, Willis, Snow, Hendricks, Botham......Imran, Sarfraz............... Gavasker played & what was the record. And I say, don't even bother to exclude those Tests Gavasker played against young Marshall or Botham.

In can mention the period from 1977 to 1981 - Gavasker scored over 5,000 runs (or close to that), often against under strength teams on absolute belters - 5/6 Test series ended 1-0 or at best 2-0 with most Test not having the 4th innings. 500+ & 600+ was the standard proceedings in 1st 4 days. Often (4 times if I can recall correctly), IND played the 1st Test on rank turners & next 5 Test were there for Gavasker to pile up. In between, whenever IND toured outside, you can check the difference of "performance".

I don't need to explain to you at least what I am trying to say - just check the Series between 1977 to 1982 in IND (Or for that matter in WI or AUS for the Packer periods). It's not about the stats, that's everyone can see from CricInfo, but you should realize my point.
 
I don't think weak bowling attack of IND has anything to do with Gavaskers' scoring volume. Scoring rate wasn't his strength & none credits him for that. With due respect, he was extremely self-centered & played every ball for his own stats. It was irony that the man starting with 36* in 60 overs ended with a 85 balls hundred. Scoring rate was often his self imposed selfishness to pile up mile stones & maintain average - I can point few ODIs, when Gavasker batted through out 50 overs & IND lost by big margin with lots of wickets at hand.

Through out 70s & 80s IND played home Tests on absolute dead tracks to bail out draws & with spinners sometimes get the visitors off guard, some thing we are trying to master now. Besides, in mid 70s to mid 80s, often teams toured IND without their main bowlers - one can check how many Test against Holding, Garner, Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke...... Lillee, Thompson, Pascoe, Maxwalker, Hogg, Lawson, Mcdermott, Aldermann, Rackmann,........... Hadlee, Willis, Snow, Hendricks, Botham......Imran, Sarfraz............... Gavasker played & what was the record. And I say, don't even bother to exclude those Tests Gavasker played against young Marshall or Botham.

In can mention the period from 1977 to 1981 - Gavasker scored over 5,000 runs (or close to that), often against under strength teams on absolute belters - 5/6 Test series ended 1-0 or at best 2-0 with most Test not having the 4th innings. 500+ & 600+ was the standard proceedings in 1st 4 days. Often (4 times if I can recall correctly), IND played the 1st Test on rank turners & next 5 Test were there for Gavasker to pile up. In between, whenever IND toured outside, you can check the difference of "performance".

I don't need to explain to you at least what I am trying to say - just check the Series between 1977 to 1982 in IND (Or for that matter in WI or AUS for the Packer periods). It's not about the stats, that's everyone can see from CricInfo, but you should realize my point.

very good post it's hard to skip your posts in any thread.
 
Back
Top