What's new

Who do Indians consider to be their greatest ever Test batsman?

I think he once said that he is not a Pakistani but I have my doubts we are dealing with a sour grape Pakistani here, his posts are starting to give it away.

Interesting (and wrong) logic in a thread in which:

1) I called Gavaskar the greatest Asian batsman,
2) I called his innings at Bangalore the greatest ever innings by an Asian, and
3) I called that same innings the greatest ever innings against spin.

Yet the fact that I watched cricket in the 1970s and remember that Barry Richards was better than Sunil Gavaskar means that I must be a Pakistani?

I think that that tells us more about your prejudices and insecurities than mine! And I mean that in a friendly, teasing way, not a hostile or angry way! :)
 
(And Romali, if you're attending Australia v England at the World Cup or the Final, I'd still love to meet up! My teasing is only ever intended to be friendly and affectionate!)
 
I

Yet the fact that I watched cricket in the 1970s and remember that Barry Richards was better than Sunil Gavaskar means that I must be a Pakistani?

Dude, I dont care if you are a Pakistani in hiding this is a Pakistani website, you are showing a lot of sour grapeness which is a common trend among Pakistanis when it comes to Indian players.... For some reason I cannot rate a player who has only played 4 international matches better than someone who has played 125 matches at a high level :)
 
(And Romali, if you're attending Australia v England at the World Cup or the Final, I'd still love to meet up! My teasing is only ever intended to be friendly and affectionate!)

Only match I am going to will be my first India/Pakistan match in Adelaide...
 
Dude, I dont care if you are a Pakistani in hiding this is a Pakistani website, you are showing a lot of sour grapeness which is a common trend among Pakistanis when it comes to Indian players.... For some reason I cannot rate a player who has only played 4 international matches better than someone who has played 125 matches at a high level :)

But you are applying the wrong measuring criteria.

The SuperTests were a much higher, harder form of cricket than any Test matches ever have been and Gavaskar never even played one, while all the great players of his generation did.

So those of us who remember the 1970s would instantly reply that the player who never get tested at that higher level was Gavaskar, not Richards!

The Supertests exposed some players who had survived at Test level - Tony Greig and David Hookes spring to mind.

Some of you modern day Indians seem to assume that Packer's SuperTests equated to the ICL compared to "official" cricket's IPL.

You couldn't be more wrong. The SuperTests were the absolute pinnacle of cricket ever played.

And Barry Richards had to play his against Australia and the West Indies.
 
But you are applying the wrong measuring criteria.

The SuperTests were a much higher, harder form of cricket than any Test matches ever have been and Gavaskar never even played one, while all the great players of his generation did.

So those of us who remember the 1970s would instantly reply that the player who never get tested at that higher level was Gavaskar, not Richards!

The Supertests exposed some players who had survived at Test level - Tony Greig and David Hookes spring to mind.

Some of you modern day Indians seem to assume that Packer's SuperTests equated to the ICL compared to "official" cricket's IPL.

You couldn't be more wrong. The SuperTests were the absolute pinnacle of cricket ever played.

And Barry Richards had to play his against Australia and the West Indies.
If we started applying this criteria, then Bradman never played World Series Cricket. We shouldn't rate him I suppose?
 
But you are applying the wrong measuring criteria.

The SuperTests were a much higher, harder form of cricket than any Test matches ever have been and Gavaskar never even played one, while all the great players of his generation did.

So those of us who remember the 1970s would instantly reply that the player who never get tested at that higher level was Gavaskar, not Richards!

The Supertests exposed some players who had survived at Test level - Tony Greig and David Hookes spring to mind.

Some of you modern day Indians seem to assume that Packer's SuperTests equated to the ICL compared to "official" cricket's IPL.

You couldn't be more wrong. The SuperTests were the absolute pinnacle of cricket ever played.

And Barry Richards had to play his against Australia and the West Indies.

Your assertion that some fun Packer sponsored thing was higher than test cricket has little value.You can keep shouting the same all day,makes little difference.

Test Cricket is the pinnacle of cricket and BArry Richards played a total of 4 tests.Not even fit to tie shoelaces of Gavaskar in terms of a test opener.
 
Btw when you speak of "those of us who watched cricket in 70s"how many people do you represent?Speak for yourself.LOL.
 
Sachin, Dravid, Gavaskar in that order.

Gavaskar's records against the WI is somewhat hyped in my opinion. Gavaskar scored a lot of runs against WI when their bowling was generally under strength (with less than two of their dreaded bowlers playing in the same match). Sure, he scored 774 against the WI in 1971, but who were the WI bowlers on that tour? No Hall, no Roberts, no Holding, no Marshall, no Garner. Again, take his terrific home series against the WI in 1978 - WI did not have any of their feared bowlers again.

Rated Dravid ahead of Sunny due to his tremendous ability to peak during the years 2001-2006 in match winning causes. Gavaskar never had those "invincible" years.

Sachin edges ahead of Dravid due to his better performances against fast bowling and his superior record against Oz/SA.
 
The most underrated has to be Mohinder Amarnath. His performances against the fearsome WI pace attack ( away from home ) are stuff of legend.

He is rightly rated. He also managed a total of one run in six innings against the WI in one series, that was legendary too. Amarnath averaged less than 40 in 65% of all tours. He also had numerous sub 20 tours. He had three or four great tours and he is rated for that, but he failed more often than not.
 
He is rightly rated. He also managed a total of one run in six innings against the WI in one series, that was legendary too. Amarnath averaged less than 40 in 65% of all tours. He also had numerous sub 20 tours. He had three or four great tours and he is rated for that, but he failed more often than not.

During the series in WI he was practically unbreakable scoring runs at will. I heard WI game planned differently for him during the WI tour of India and did not bowl short to him like the last series in WI and he didnt score any runs..
 
Gavaskar's records against the WI is somewhat hyped in my opinion. Gavaskar scored a lot of runs against WI when their bowling was generally under strength (with less than two of their dreaded bowlers playing in the same match). Sure, he scored 774 against the WI in 1971, but who were the WI bowlers on that tour? No Hall, no Roberts, no Holding, no Marshall, no Garner. Again, take his terrific home series against the WI in 1978 - WI did not have any of their feared bowlers again.

Vaskar avgs 41 vs the Legendary WI bowlers, that is not a bad average...
 
For me, it 'll be Rahul, closely followed by SRT & then Gavasker. Many of Gavasker's runs were not against the toughest opponents. However, there should be a special mention for 3 players - Viru for his brutal aggression, VVS for his fight & Azhar for his grace...


I am surprised to see nobody mentioned GR Vishi.....Probably the best specimen along with Victor Trumper to prove that statistics doesn't tell the full story always.

He scored most of his runs against the mighty West indies who had 10 times fierce than current bowlers.
 
Vaskar avgs 41 vs the Legendary WI bowlers, that is not a bad average...

Not bad at all. But his career avg of 65 against the WI is an inflated figure. In matches not involving any of Roberts, Marshall, Holding and Garner, Gavaskar's average against the WI rises to a Bradmanesque 118!!
 
During the series in WI he was practically unbreakable scoring runs at will. I heard WI game planned differently for him during the WI tour of India and did not bowl short to him like the last series in WI and he didnt score any runs..

Amarnath isn't rated among the best Indian batsmen because he was not consistent. Same reasons apply for batsmen like Vishy.
 
Sunny - Not an iota of doubt.

India began to draw games more regularly with him and whenever bowlers helped, he has won the test match and the series

away tests win in 71 - WI, Eng; NZ in 75; Aus in 77,81 etc...
 
I'm not Indian obviously, but this is my opinion.

The contenders were;
Laxman- not for sheer volume of runs but sheer importance of the innings he played and the way he played them. Laxman was like a Gower, just a pleasure to watch. Arguably his Kolkotta innings is one of the most important ever played in Indian cricket. Didn't rack up huge minnow bashing numbers but really came good against the best, in the toughest situations. Also a thoroughly nice chap, I met him once at Chennai airport and he was a real gentleman.


Tendulkar
- There is no point uoting his numbers or stats, they are ATG league without discussion. So I'll share two memories that sum Tendulkar up to me.
The first is of a boy. Not a man. Playing at the WACA, which must have seemed like the moon to him. Huge Merv Hughes was charging in, all hair and bulk and hostility. And this cherub faced Indian kid just kept playing him with ease. Classic cricket shots. I think he was 18 or so at the time but to me he looked just my age and it impressed me a lot. He was actually doing what you dreamed of going to bed at night.

The next is on his last tour here. He was getting some bouncers and our boys were bowling pretty quick. Yet as he sways away from one, almost as an afterthought he plays a late cut uppercut that takes my breath away. And I think that Tendulkar has been doing that for 20 years!

but I think Sunny Gavaskar gets it. I only saw him on videos and heard stories. But my dad saw both him and tendulkar and says while maybe at times Tendulkar was better to watch (not always) Sunny was special. Look at his record against all the best, most fearsome attacks in the world. Without helmets. In an era of terrifying quicks. Away from home! It's just phenomenal.

Tendulkar took a more confident India closer to the top. Sunny gave India that confidence Tendulkar stood upon.


Nice post.

The upper cuts were truly breath taking. No one has ever executed them with more finesse.
 
If we started applying this criteria, then Bradman never played World Series Cricket. We shouldn't rate him I suppose?

Gavaskar and Richards are the same generation. And the greatest players of that generation played against one another in Packer's Supertests, and all of them describe the standard as higher than in the Tests they played before and after.

All of them. Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, the Chappells, Tony Greig, Alan Knott, Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner.

All of them.

Barry Richards played at that highest of all levels and averaged 79 while his peers were averaging in the 30s. Sunil Gavaskar did well in Tests, but was never tested at the higher Supertest level.

For those players who were active in the second half of the 1970s, the ultimate measure is not Tests, it's SuperTests.
 
Gavaskar and Richards are the same generation. And the greatest players of that generation played against one another in Packer's Supertests, and all of them describe the standard as higher than in the Tests they played before and after.

All of them. Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, the Chappells, Tony Greig, Alan Knott, Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner.

All of them.

Barry Richards played at that highest of all levels and averaged 79 while his peers were averaging in the 30s. Sunil Gavaskar did well in Tests, but was never tested at the higher Supertest level.

For those players who were active in the second half of the 1970s, the ultimate measure is not Tests, it's SuperTests.

Super Tests were a marketing gimmick of Kerry Packer and have no official sanctity and are not a measure of anyones cricketing ability.

As i said you can keep shouting but fact is that Barry Richards is not fit to tie Gavaskars shoelaces at the pinnacle of cricket that is Test Match Cricket.
 
Gavaskar and Richards are the same generation. And the greatest players of that generation played against one another in Packer's Supertests, and all of them describe the standard as higher than in the Tests they played before and after.

All of them. Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, the Chappells, Tony Greig, Alan Knott, Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner.

All of them.

Barry Richards played at that highest of all levels and averaged 79 while his peers were averaging in the 30s. Sunil Gavaskar did well in Tests, but was never tested at the higher Supertest level.

For those players who were active in the second half of the 1970s, the ultimate measure is not Tests, it's SuperTests.

Man this post tops it, I feel you are trolling as I don't think even a poster like cars would make such a post lol... If you actually believe what you are saying 4 official test matches with a few packer gimmick matches are all that is needed to prove the greatness of a batsmen then I am afraid you are not all there maybe ?
 
Man this post tops it, I feel you are trolling as I don't think even a poster like cars would make such a post lol... If you actually believe what you are saying 4 official test matches with a few packer gimmick matches are all that is needed to prove the greatness of a batsmen then I am afraid you are not all there maybe ?

I'm not trolling (for once!).

I absolutely believe the testimony of the players, and I was an avid follower of cricket at the time.

Official Tests were a joke during the Packer Era. The establishment had all the best players banned and the standard of "official" cricket was so bad that 42 year old Bob Simpson returned from many years of retirement to successfully skipper Australia against a full-strength India.

SuperTests were ferocious. There were only three teams, and they were all jam-packed with top class bowlers.

The West Indies had Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft.

Australia had Dennis Lillee, the pacey Len Pascoe, Mick Malone and big Maxie Walker.

The World Eleven had the extreme pace of the South Africans Mike Procter and Garth Le Roux combined with the all-round talents of Imran Khan and Richard Hadlee.

And the stats hold up.

The two great South Africans had almost identical SuperTest records to their Test records of a decade earlier.

Barry Richards averaged 73 in Tests and 79 in SuperTests.

Mike Procter's bowling averaged around 15 in both Tests and SuperTests.

So we know both how good they were, and how good SuperTests were.

And the only reason why SuperTests are not considered to be Tests for statistical reasons is because having lost the war with Kerry Packer, the embittered establishment exacted revenge on the players.

So Viv Richards and the Chappells are missing 1000 runs, and Dennis Lillee and Imran Khan are missing several dozen Test wickets.

They know they achieved them, but that the records are dishonest and unrepresentative.

Yet mediocrities like Graham Yallop and Rodney Hogg have records artifically inflated by devalued Test matches against decimated opponents.
 
He scored most of his runs against the mighty West indies who had 10 times fierce than current bowlers.
Hmm. Agreed but if you look deep with an eye glass, you would know the actual bowlers he faced from WI most of the times. I think sunny was phenomenal as an opener,technician and batsman but would take his performance against WI with a pinch of salt.
 
Gavaskar and Richards are the same generation. And the greatest players of that generation played against one another in Packer's Supertests, and all of them describe the standard as higher than in the Tests they played before and after.

All of them. Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, the Chappells, Tony Greig, Alan Knott, Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner.

All of them.

Barry Richards played at that highest of all levels and averaged 79 while his peers were averaging in the 30s. Sunil Gavaskar did well in Tests, but was never tested at the higher Supertest level.

For those players who were active in the second half of the 1970s, the ultimate measure is not Tests, it's SuperTests.

Barry was a great player. But on the basis of four tests and five unofficial tests he cannot be compared to Gavaskar who excelled against every team over a much longer career. It was Barry's misfortune to miss out, but there is no room for sympathy while evaluating players against each other.
 
But you are applying the wrong measuring criteria.

The SuperTests were a much higher, harder form of cricket than any Test matches ever have been and Gavaskar never even played one, while all the great players of his generation did.

So those of us who remember the 1970s would instantly reply that the player who never get tested at that higher level was Gavaskar, not Richards!

The Supertests exposed some players who had survived at Test level - Tony Greig and David Hookes spring to mind.

Some of you modern day Indians seem to assume that Packer's SuperTests equated to the ICL compared to "official" cricket's IPL.

You couldn't be more wrong. The SuperTests were the absolute pinnacle of cricket ever played.

And Barry Richards had to play his against Australia and the West Indies.

I have watched cricket in the 70's, and even though I was a kid I distinctly remember ones that I watched or ones that were talked about. SuperTests might have been (not saying they were) the absolute pinnacle of Cricket, however you must also acknowledge that Gavaskar never played in any one of those, so comparing two players one of whom never played in that series is a fallacy, isn't it?
All greats of the generation played in that because they chose to be paid mercenaries for a period of time, weakening their respective national teams. Gavaskar was always a traditionalist and would not break away from his country. Also remember the context of this discussion which is Test cricket, not an unsanctioned, unrecognized league.

Greg Chappell and Viv Richards too averaged a good 5 runs over their Test cricket averages, so what? All your reasoning is based on would have been, could have been hypotheses and MIGHT have been true had Barry Richards played Test cricket enough, but that never came to fruition. You still gotta stick to arguments with what happened and not what could have happened, right?

Please don't get me wrong. I do not wish to discredit Barry Richards at all. He might really have grown to be the best opening batsman of all time in Tests, but given his extremely short career due to unfortunate circumstances, you really cannot put him at the highest pedestal based on hypotheses and unrealized would-have-been scenarios. Fair enough?

Also an appeal to the newbies. There is no need to discredit someone recognized among the best ones out there by saying "nothing compared to xyz". You never saw them play or they never played enough of the format for you to make a reasoned impression. But it does. It mean they were crap or didn't know how to hold a bat. Barry Richards is said to be the greatest batsman we never saw bat enough in sanctioned cricket. Who knows what could have been!
 
I have watched cricket in the 70's, and even though I was a kid I distinctly remember ones that I watched or ones that were talked about. SuperTests might have been (not saying they were) the absolute pinnacle of Cricket, however you must also acknowledge that Gavaskar never played in any one of those, so comparing two players one of whom never played in that series is a fallacy, isn't it?
All greats of the generation played in that because they chose to be paid mercenaries for a period of time, weakening their respective national teams. Gavaskar was always a traditionalist and would not break away from his country. Also remember the context of this discussion which is Test cricket, not an unsanctioned, unrecognized league.

Greg Chappell and Viv Richards too averaged a good 5 runs over their Test cricket averages, so what? All your reasoning is based on would have been, could have been hypotheses and MIGHT have been true had Barry Richards played Test cricket enough, but that never came to fruition. You still gotta stick to arguments with what happened and not what could have happened, right?

Please don't get me wrong. I do not wish to discredit Barry Richards at all. He might really have grown to be the best opening batsman of all time in Tests, but given his extremely short career due to unfortunate circumstances, you really cannot put him at the highest pedestal based on hypotheses and unrealized would-have-been scenarios. Fair enough?

Also an appeal to the newbies. There is no need to discredit someone recognized among the best ones out there by saying "nothing compared to xyz". You never saw them play or they never played enough of the format for you to make a reasoned impression. But it does. It mean they were crap or didn't know how to hold a bat. Barry Richards is said to be the greatest batsman we never saw bat enough in sanctioned cricket. Who knows what could have been!

Great post!

And I'd like to repeat: Gavaskar is the best Indian batsman I've ever seen, and better than any Pakistani that I have ever seen.
 
Man this post tops it, I feel you are trolling as I don't think even a poster like cars would make such a post lol... If you actually believe what you are saying 4 official test matches with a few packer gimmick matches are all that is needed to prove the greatness of a batsmen then I am afraid you are not all there maybe ?

Yeah. By that logic no-hit sharma who averages 60+ in domestics & 100+ in his first 2-3 will be a G.O.A.T.
 
Barry Richards played at that highest of all levels and averaged 79 while his peers were averaging in the 30s.

No, you're mistaken. A lot of them were averaging well in mid-50's and late-40's, and a few of them averaged a good 5 runs over their Test career averages. Please check the WSC records. These stats don't mean much and only lend to illogical hypotheses.
 
Barry Richards played at that highest of all levels and averaged 79 while his peers were averaging in the 30s.

No, you're mistaken. A lot of them were averaging well in mid-50's and late-40's, and a few of them averaged a good 5 runs over their Test career averages. Please check the WSC records. These stats don't mean much and only lend to illogical hypotheses.
 
Man this post tops it, I feel you are trolling as I don't think even a poster like cars would make such a post lol... If you actually believe what you are saying 4 official test matches with a few packer gimmick matches are all that is needed to prove the greatness of a batsmen then I am afraid you are not all there maybe ?

Yeah. By that logic no-hit sharma who averages 60+ in domestics & 100+ in his first 2-3 will be a G.O.A.T.
 
No, you're mistaken. A lot of them were averaging well in mid-50's and late-40's, and a few of them averaged a good 5 runs over their Test career averages. Please check the WSC records. These stats don't mean much and only lend to illogical hypotheses.

He is the only one I recall averaging over 60 both seasons. Viv Richards and the Chappells had one good and one bad season, and I'm pretty sure that Javed Miandad and Zaheer Abbas averaged twenty something.

My point was simply that Barry Richards and Mike Procter had SuperTest averages so eerily similar to their brief Test career averages as to suggest both that their stellar Test averages were valid and that SuperTests were equivalent to Tests between the top two nations.
 
He is the only one I recall averaging over 60 both seasons. Viv Richards and the Chappells had one good and one bad season, and I'm pretty sure that Javed Miandad and Zaheer Abbas averaged twenty something.

My point was simply that Barry Richards and Mike Procter had SuperTest averages so eerily similar to their brief Test career averages as to suggest both that their stellar Test averages were valid and that SuperTests were equivalent to Tests between the top two nations.

I am sure B Richards and M Procter were two of the potential Test greats whose Test careers were never allowed to flourish. It was indeed a loss for the viewers.
I always wondered how Bradman would have done against the great modern bowlers armed with TV analyses and reverse swings in ODI games. Would he have been as affective? I will never know.
 
I am sure B Richards and M Procter were two of the potential Test greats whose Test careers were never allowed to flourish. It was indeed a loss for the viewers.
I always wondered how Bradman would have done against the great modern bowlers armed with TV analyses and reverse swings in ODI games. Would he have been as affective? I will never know.

I'm sure he would have excelled.

There is a reason why I always classify the greats according to how they placed within their own era - it tells you that their greatness was because they transcended the achievements of their peers because they were the best. They would surely adapt to any prevailing styles or systems through history.

That's why my personal All-Time Batting Pantheon simply lists the Top Nine in chronological order: Grace, Trumper, Hobbs, Bradman, Weekes, Sobers, Pollock, B Richards, V Richards, simply because each was miles ahead of his peers. I omit Headley, the other obvious candidate to fill out the Top Ten, simply because of doubts about the quality of the bowling he faced.

I assume that all nine of these would be magnificent in any era.
 
He scored most of his runs against the mighty West indies who had 10 times fierce than current bowlers.


I am sure, most posters know here what I meant, but probably you are new, so I am not surprised to see your point.

I have few posts in this regard (don't want to repeat as it's indecent for a great player that SG was) & I think, after first time hardly anyone, even Indians disagreed with that.

You can check at CricInfo - most of Gavasker's runs/centuries against which WI/AUS & to a certain extent PAK/ENG, where & against whom?

A great batsman & technician, but mastering the fearsome four or 5 hundreds in AUS is misleading - if anything, he was a much better spin player than pace bowling.
 
Personally, I don't like to compare players across eras because there are way too many unknowns. In the end you end up guessing what they would have done and there are way too many assumptions to scientifically determine how they would have fared in different eras, much more so if these eras are separated by a few decades.
Also, if the modern greats like Tendulkar, Lara, and Ponting played the same two or three teams all the time, on similar kind of pitches, and same kind of formats, they would have a much better record than they ended up with.

While he is one of my favorites, Richards even in his playing days was never considered to be the best batsman. He was among the most dominating ones and had a swagger to match, he was not the best, neither technically, nor statistically. He markedly had a weakness against spin and pitches that aided spin. That's why his record in India and even more so against Pakistan does not match what he did to the English and the Aussies. Good leg spin was his bane.

But I would not go and discredit your views. You are fully and rightly entitled to your views and I respect that. I have read a lot of great things about the generations many decades ago, and they must have been greats in the times they played, but I chose to draw my own conclusions based on many variables. Legends grow as decades go by.
 
Personally, I don't like to compare players across eras because there are way too many unknowns. In the end you end up guessing what they would have done and there are way too many assumptions to scientifically determine how they would have fared in different eras, much more so if these eras are separated by a few decades.
Also, if the modern greats like Tendulkar, Lara, and Ponting played the same two or three teams all the time, on similar kind of pitches, and same kind of formats, they would have a much better record than they ended up with.

While he is one of my favorites, Richards even in his playing days was never considered to be the best batsman. He was among the most dominating ones and had a swagger to match, he was not the best, neither technically, nor statistically. He markedly had a weakness against spin and pitches that aided spin. That's why his record in India and even more so against Pakistan does not match what he did to the English and the Aussies. Good leg spin was his bane.

But I would not go and discredit your views. You are fully and rightly entitled to your views and I respect that. I have read a lot of great things about the generations many decades ago, and they must have been greats in the times they played, but I chose to draw my own conclusions based on many variables. Legends grow as decades go by.
There were no "similar pitches" in England, Australia and South Africa. They were uncovered. They varied hugely.
 
He is the only one I recall averaging over 60 both seasons. Viv Richards and the Chappells had one good and one bad season, and I'm pretty sure that Javed Miandad and Zaheer Abbas averaged twenty something.

My point was simply that Barry Richards and Mike Procter had SuperTest averages so eerily similar to their brief Test career averages as to suggest both that their stellar Test averages were valid and that SuperTests were equivalent to Tests between the top two nations.

Barry's averages in WSC are a bit misleading because he played a total of five matches, while many others played up to fourteen.
Barry's scores in WSC:

57 and 48 vs Aus
207 vs Aus (this was a very high scoring match)
76 and 0 vs Aus
37 vs WI
28 and 101 no vs Aus

The 207 dominated his averages, but it was high scoring match featuring four daddy hundreds in all. Barry Richard's averages in WSC is some what misleading because players like Richards and Chappell maintained their 50+ averages over 14 tests.
 
I see lots beating about the bush...

First of all, it's not true that Gavasker wasn't picked for WSC & I am quoting from his own Book, "Idols". & it's even more misleading to say that Packer didn't understand Cricket.

What happened is, with ACB officials & ICC, Packer was upset regarding the revenue sharing & timing of the matches. That time WI & PAK were 2 of the best sides with lots of exciting talents, but neither board was Financially strong. Packer decided to launch a parallel Cricket on his own terms (night cricket, time make up - "if an exciting match is hampered by weather, why the F**K we should end in a draw depending on the weather Gods - let's play overtime or let's take the match to extended day, I am sure people 'll not mind....." . Initially, he planned to make 2 teams like 1971 when SAF was barred from touring (AUS Vs. World XI, Gavasker made the World XI along with Engineer, Zaheer & Intekhab). Later Packer got overwhelming support & he could hire entire WI team - so WSC became 3 teams affair - AUS, WI & World XI. They had a series played in WI & probably NZ as well.

Now, Anthony William (aka Tony) Greig was made responsible to hire players for World XVI - he took the ENG, WI & PAK players, Turner & Howarth (?) from NZ, few South Africans as well and contacted 2 Indian players - SM Gavasker & his brother in law GR Vishwanath. Gavasker was in dilemma, but Vishi was in Govt. service (State Bank of IND, I believe) with a great service career in front. We are talking about mid to late 70s, those days Cricketers had to think about the last 30 years of their career, because that time they used to bleed red, instead of blue.... So, Vishi declined considering that it might cost his service career (this is the reason he didn't play in County as well - he used to be in lien with his employer when playing for IND, but they didn't allow him 5 months County window, neither would have given for WSC....) & his brother in law was left alone. At that time, Madhab Mantri (SG's uncle & Vishi's uncle in Law) was an influential BCCI person & he must have his input for those 2. Besides, Col. Hemu Adhikari, a strict Military disciplinarian was Indian Team Manager/Selector (?) & he had his Military style discussion with both these 2 regarding the consequences.........at 27, Gavasker had a great career in front & he was already earning great. I have my reservations on the career stats of SM Gavasker, but in 70s, he was an ultimate run machine - Packer understood cricket more than most & patriotism had nothing to do with Gavasker's declination of WSC.

By the way, those who think that WSC was "not that tough" because Viv & Greg had better career stats in WSC than career are FOOL. People are comparing 20 years career with the best 3 years of Viv Richards & Greg Chappell. No one has any idea what Viv could have done in those 3 years in International, had he played for WI - at 25, he was a 75/75 (average/SR) player in WS "Tests" playing against some of the best ever bowlers. At 28, Greg was the most complete player of his time.

Barry Richards wasn't that great in WSC, neither his 4 Tests career tells what he actually was - but all those bowlers that played against Hampshire in 70s & 80s (In fact all of them that mattered) can tell some of that. Outstanding technician, isolation cost his career, but it cost Cricket more - probably the best ever opening batsman played his Last Test at 24..............
 
I'm sure he would have excelled.

There is a reason why I always classify the greats according to how they placed within their own era - it tells you that their greatness was because they transcended the achievements of their peers because they were the best. They would surely adapt to any prevailing styles or systems through history.

That's why my personal All-Time Batting Pantheon simply lists the Top Nine in chronological order: Grace, Trumper, Hobbs, Bradman, Weekes, Sobers, Pollock, B Richards, V Richards, simply because each was miles ahead of his peers. I omit Headley, the other obvious candidate to fill out the Top Ten, simply because of doubts about the quality of the bowling he faced.

I assume that all nine of these would be magnificent in any era.

So there has been no real great batsman worthy of being considered a ATG in your opinion since Viv ?
 
I see lots beating about the bush...

First of all, it's not true that Gavasker wasn't picked for WSC & I am quoting from his own Book, "Idols". & it's even more misleading to say that Packer didn't understand Cricket.

What happened is, with ACB officials & ICC, Packer was upset regarding the revenue sharing & timing of the matches. That time WI & PAK were 2 of the best sides with lots of exciting talents, but neither board was Financially strong. Packer decided to launch a parallel Cricket on his own terms (night cricket, time make up - "if an exciting match is hampered by weather, why the F**K we should end in a draw depending on the weather Gods - let's play overtime or let's take the match to extended day, I am sure people 'll not mind....." . Initially, he planned to make 2 teams like 1971 when SAF was barred from touring (AUS Vs. World XI, Gavasker made the World XI along with Engineer, Zaheer & Intekhab). Later Packer got overwhelming support & he could hire entire WI team - so WSC became 3 teams affair - AUS, WI & World XI. They had a series played in WI & probably NZ as well.

Now, Anthony William (aka Tony) Greig was made responsible to hire players for World XVI - he took the ENG, WI & PAK players, Turner & Howarth (?) from NZ, few South Africans as well and contacted 2 Indian players - SM Gavasker & his brother in law GR Vishwanath. Gavasker was in dilemma, but Vishi was in Govt. service (State Bank of IND, I believe) with a great service career in front. We are talking about mid to late 70s, those days Cricketers had to think about the last 30 years of their career, because that time they used to bleed red, instead of blue.... So, Vishi declined considering that it might cost his service career (this is the reason he didn't play in County as well - he used to be in lien with his employer when playing for IND, but they didn't allow him 5 months County window, neither would have given for WSC....) & his brother in law was left alone. At that time, Madhab Mantri (SG's uncle & Vishi's uncle in Law) was an influential BCCI person & he must have his input for those 2. Besides, Col. Hemu Adhikari, a strict Military disciplinarian was Indian Team Manager/Selector (?) & he had his Military style discussion with both these 2 regarding the consequences.........at 27, Gavasker had a great career in front & he was already earning great. I have my reservations on the career stats of SM Gavasker, but in 70s, he was an ultimate run machine - Packer understood cricket more than most & patriotism had nothing to do with Gavasker's declination of WSC.

By the way, those who think that WSC was "not that tough" because Viv & Greg had better career stats in WSC than career are FOOL. People are comparing 20 years career with the best 3 years of Viv Richards & Greg Chappell. No one has any idea what Viv could have done in those 3 years in International, had he played for WI - at 25, he was a 75/75 (average/SR) player in WS "Tests" playing against some of the best ever bowlers. At 28, Greg was the most complete player of his time.

Barry Richards wasn't that great in WSC, neither his 4 Tests career tells what he actually was - but all those bowlers that played against Hampshire in 70s & 80s (In fact all of them that mattered) can tell some of that. Outstanding technician, isolation cost his career, but it cost Cricket more - probably the best ever opening batsman played his Last Test at 24..............

Brilliant, brilliant post!
 
So there has been no real great batsman worthy of being considered a ATG in your opinion since Viv ?

That's what I personally believe.

Lara and Tendulkar and Kallis were incapable of rising above one another.

Neither De Villiers nor Amla has risen above the other.

Sangakkara probably would have been if he hadn't kept wicket for 70 Tests - we will never know. He's certainly making a late bid for that status, and his recent double ton against Southee and Boult while hopelessly out of form and on a greentop (for the first 2 sessions) further burnishes his credentials.
 
Why can there not be two or three ATG batsmen playing at the same time? I assume that Junaids doesn't consider either of Messi or Ronaldo an ATG soccer player since neither has risen above the other.
 
That's what I personally believe.

Lara and Tendulkar and Kallis were incapable of rising above one another.

Neither De Villiers nor Amla has risen above the other.

Sangakkara probably would have been if he hadn't kept wicket for 70 Tests - we will never know. He's certainly making a late bid for that status, and his recent double ton against Southee and Boult while hopelessly out of form and on a greentop (for the first 2 sessions) further burnishes his credentials.

when did this "rising above others" business began to decide how well a guy hits the ball from the middle of his bat and score sh!t loads of runs against the very best lot of fast bowlers in all formats all over the world ?
 
Just to add

Sometimes in late 90s, there was some senior cricket series in IND & at 52, Barry Richards made 101 in some match, when the bowlers were in their late 30s (just have retired from Internationals). Though my friends made fun of me watching grandpas, but it was my privilege, I was fortunate to go through a lifetime experience ....... If that man could bat like that at 52, hardly any practice & fitness with a big tummy halfway up through his 6'2" stature, only God knows what he was at half the age.

I haven't seen Bradman or Hobbs, but have seen a bit of Middle Chappel, then Ponting & KP........it 'll be difficult to convince me that there was a better white man ever against spin than Barry Anderson Richards - YET, yes he was an opener.
 
That's what I personally believe.

Lara and Tendulkar and Kallis were incapable of rising above one another.

Neither De Villiers nor Amla has risen above the other.

Sangakkara probably would have been if he hadn't kept wicket for 70 Tests - we will never know. He's certainly making a late bid for that status, and his recent double ton against Southee and Boult while hopelessly out of form and on a greentop (for the first 2 sessions) further burnishes his credentials.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11;template=results;type=batting

Nearly 12K Runs between Tendulkar and Lara ... you still think one didnt "rise" above the other ?
 
Just to add

Sometimes in late 90s, there was some senior cricket series in IND & at 52, Barry Richards made 101 in some match, when the bowlers were in their late 30s (just have retired from Internationals). Though my friends made fun of me watching grandpas, but it was my privilege, I was fortunate to go through a lifetime experience ....... If that man could bat like that at 52, hardly any practice & fitness with a big tummy halfway up through his 6'2" stature, only God knows what he was at half the age.

I haven't seen Bradman or Hobbs, but have seen a bit of Middle Chappel, then Ponting & KP........it 'll be difficult to convince me that there was a better white man ever against spin than Barry Anderson Richards - YET, yes he was an opener.

End of the day 4 official test is not good enough to compared with an all time great who played 125.. Vaskar >>>>>Then some more>>>>> Richards...
 
End of the day 4 official test is not good enough to compared with an all time great who played 125.. Vaskar >>>>>Then some more>>>>> Richards...

You are risking the hind side of that logic...

Sangakara>>Gavasker.......

Barry Richards couldn't play Test, we all know why, closest that we can refer is County & Shefield Shield. Once he scored 325 in a day at WACA, against Lillee & Massie.

At the time B Richards played for Hants, Gavasker played for Somerset. Playing on same country, same grounds & against same bowlers, this time the comparison 'll be exactly as per your equation, only the 2 names changing positions...................
 
You are risking the hind side of that logic...

Sangakara>>Gavasker.......

Barry Richards couldn't play Test, we all know why, closest that we can refer is County & Shefield Shield. Once he scored 325 in a day at WACA, against Lillee & Massie.

At the time B Richards played for Hants, Gavasker played for Somerset. Playing on same country, same grounds & against same bowlers, this time the comparison 'll be exactly as per your equation, only the 2 names changing positions...................

Mark Ramprakash, over 35,000 runs 100 centuries but couldnt hack it at international level. I am not saying Richards wouldnt have been an atg however you just dont have an argument as he only played 4 test matches, 125 test matches is a long time, he may have had a great start to his career to only see it fall away like a lot of players.. However Sunny has proved his worth and he is worth more than Richards no matter however way you plead as 4 international matches is just not good enough to be compared with Vaskar...
 
Mark Ramprakash, over 35,000 runs 100 centuries but couldnt hack it at international level. I am not saying Richards wouldnt have been an atg however you just dont have an argument as he only played 4 test matches, 125 test matches is a long time, he may have had a great start to his career to only see it fall away like a lot of players.. However Sunny has proved his worth and he is worth more than Richards no matter however way you plead as 4 international matches is just not good enough to be compared with Vaskar...


Why you are bringing R'praksh when I mentioned both played at County at same time.......

Let's drop it, it's never ending argument.
 
Why you are bringing R'praksh when I mentioned both played at County at same time.......

Let's drop it, it's never ending argument.

lol Its not even an argument to compare a player who has played 4 international matches to one that has played 125 at a high level.....
 
from what I have seen.

Tendu > Dravid >Sehwag...

Sehwag would've been #1 for that S/R if he weren't such a FTB.
 
I wonder why Bradman didn't pick Viv Richards in his dream team. He picked Barry Richards from that class and had Tendulkar from the 90s class.
 
I wonder why Bradman didn't pick Viv Richards in his dream team. He picked Barry Richards from that class and had Tendulkar from the 90s class.

Bradman was a nasty, unpleasant, self-centred, bitter man. That's why he was despised by Vic Richardson (grandfather of the Chappells) and Bill O'Reilly, and many others.

His respect for Tendulkar is a little overblown, given that he didn't live to witness Tendulkar's failure to develop through the last decade of his career or his endless failure to succeed in the fourth innings. I think that Bradman would have ended up disappointed by Tendulkar, and I can well imagine the race-based explanations that he would have posited for his failure to develop to the highest levels of greatness.

But Bradman's emnity for the world-beating West Indians was legendary. He liked the 1960s and early 1970s West Indians as exemplified by Garry Sobers, happy-go-lucky entertainers who weren't a threat to anyone. But he equated the Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards teams of world-beaters to Bodyline, and he despised them and the anti-colonial message their teams delivered.

My grandfather was from the same generation and he was a paternalistic racist too, like Bradman. He was baffled by the end of Empire and couldn't see why anybody imagined that non-white Africans should have the vote. And when the West Indies were beating everyone in the mid to late 1970s he didn't in any way respect them, he simply said that their tactics were a form of cricket terrorism and what did we expect when they stopped having white captains 15 years earlier.
 
Bradman was a nasty, unpleasant, self-centred, bitter man. That's why he was despised by Vic Richardson (grandfather of the Chappells) and Bill O'Reilly, and many others.

His respect for Tendulkar is a little overblown, given that he didn't live to witness Tendulkar's failure to develop through the last decade of his career or his endless failure to succeed in the fourth innings. I think that Bradman would have ended up disappointed by Tendulkar, and I can well imagine the race-based explanations that he would have posited for his failure to develop to the highest levels of greatness.

But Bradman's emnity for the world-beating West Indians was legendary. He liked the 1960s and early 1970s West Indians as exemplified by Garry Sobers, happy-go-lucky entertainers who weren't a threat to anyone. But he equated the Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards teams of world-beaters to Bodyline, and he despised them and the anti-colonial message their teams delivered.

My grandfather was from the same generation and he was a paternalistic racist too, like Bradman. He was baffled by the end of Empire and couldn't see why anybody imagined that non-white Africans should have the vote. And when the West Indies were beating everyone in the mid to late 1970s he didn't in any way respect them, he simply said that their tactics were a form of cricket terrorism and what did we expect when they stopped having white captains 15 years earlier.

I disagree with the notion that the Wi's team of the 1950's/60's were happy to lucky entertainers and "weren't a threat to anyone". A team with Worrell, Weekes, Valentine, Kallicharan, Kanhai, Sobers were pretty damn good. Arguably just as good as the Windies team of the 80's or only a slight notch below them.

They absolutely killed us in the 57/58 series were Sobers broke the highest test score record. Only a hanif mohammad triple hundred at Bridgetown gave us some respectability along with us winning a dead rubber at Port of Spain.

Thely annihilated the Indians as well IN India during their 58 and 67 tours in which they won several test matches by an innings.
 
I disagree with the notion that the Wi's team of the 1950's/60's were happy to lucky entertainers and "weren't a threat to anyone". A team with Worrell, Weekes, Valentine, Kallicharan, Kanhai, Sobers were pretty damn good. Arguably just as good as the Windies team of the 80's or only a slight notch below them.

They absolutely killed us in the 57/58 series were Sobers broke the highest test score record. Only a hanif mohammad triple hundred at Bridgetown gave us some respectability along with us winning a dead rubber at Port of Spain.

Thely annihilated the Indians as well IN India during their 58 and 67 tours in which they won several test matches by an innings.

The West Indies had some great cricketers as the nations were gaining their independence, but they weren't yet world-beaters.

They lost the "Tied Test" series in Australia 2-1 in 60-61 - when they should have won it - and then in 67-68 at Port of Spain Garry Sobers, in a fit of amateur curiosity, declared on a flat pitch, with the series balanced at 0-0, with his team's score on just 92-2, setting England 215 to win in half a day. England won.

Then in 75-76 the West Indies were crushed 5-1 by a weaker but tougher Australian team.

It was then that the line was drawn. Clive Lloyd decided to go for the same ruthless aggression that the Aussies had battered his team with. Three months later at Kingston they battered the hapless Indians so badly that Bishan Bedi closed India's second innings at 97-5 (with five men absent hurt, which meant scared) setting the West Indies just 13 to win, which they did within 11 balls.

That was really what I meant.

Bradman loved the West Indies when they played the role of "House N*****". He really didn't like them at all when they played exactly the same way that Ian Chappell's Australia did.

We will never know what drove Bradman in his hatred of the dominant West Indian team.

How much was the inherent racism of a man who was conservative even in a country which had a "White Australia" policy?

How much was because the West Indies pace attack reminded him of his own suffering by Bodyline. (Remember, Jardine invented Bodyline after he saw Bradman flinch twice at short deliveries at The Oval in 1930, which made him exclaim "I've got it! He's yellow!").

How much of it was his insecurity in the face of an all-conquering West Indies team which many were starting to say was better than his own 1948 "Invincibles"?
 
^^

Bradman had a big ego against Miller for his stardom. & he had a great grudge against Chappel I, because most rated him better Captain than great DG.

That 1948 team was a myth... AUS got a war torn English team who had no cricketer developed in 40s... all the players were either over 35 or very young. That English team had their beating to almost every team from 1946 to 1952-53..then the Truman, Statham, Laker, Tyson, Bailey & the great new generation of batsmen (Dexter, May, Barrington, Greveny, Cowdrey) emerged. Barring Bedser, Compton & Hutton, that 1948 team hardly had any name remembered. After WW 1, ENG faced similar thumping ... lost 5-0 to Armstrong's AUS.
 
^^

Bradman had a big ego against Miller for his stardom. & he had a great grudge against Chappel I, because most rated him better Captain than great DG.

That 1948 team was a myth... AUS got a war torn English team who had no cricketer developed in 40s... all the players were either over 35 or very young. That English team had their beating to almost every team from 1946 to 1952-53..then the Truman, Statham, Laker, Tyson, Bailey & the great new generation of batsmen (Dexter, May, Barrington, Greveny, Cowdrey) emerged. Barring Bedser, Compton & Hutton, that 1948 team hardly had any name remembered. After WW 1, ENG faced similar thumping ... lost 5-0 to Armstrong's AUS.

I couldn't agree more.

The 1948 Invincibles had four legendary players.

Bradman was 40 and Neil Harvey was only 19. Lindwall and Miller were 26 and 28 and at their peak.

So in effect we are looking at a one-sided series between one country decimated by war and another with several geniuses supported by very fine team-mates.

I think that the 1976-1989 West Indians would have absolutely splattered "The Invincibles". And probably also the 1999-2004 Aussies would have too, even though they weren't as good as the West Indies had been 20 years earlier.
 
I wonder why Bradman didn't pick Viv Richards in his dream team. He picked Barry Richards from that class and had Tendulkar from the 90s class.

Bradman was quite biased. He selected seven Aussies in his World XI.

But his original pool of 69 (from which he selected the XI) was good, except for the fact that Bradman did not include Imran Khan in his original listing. Bradman included Botham and Kapil in the list of all rounders, Hadlee in the list of bowlers, but omitted Imran Khan from either list! Wasim Akram was the only Pakistani player to be even considered by Bradman for his XI.

Ever since I saw Bradman's list I decided that the opinions of so called experts are often as biased as any other cricket fan.
 
Bradman was quite biased. He selected seven Aussies in his World XI.

But his original pool of 69 (from which he selected the XI) was good, except for the fact that Bradman did not include Imran Khan in his original listing. Bradman included Botham and Kapil in the list of all rounders, Hadlee in the list of bowlers, but omitted Imran Khan from either list! Wasim Akram was the only Pakistani player to be even considered by Bradman for his XI.

Ever since I saw Bradman's list I decided that the opinions of so called experts are often as biased as any other cricket fan.

That's expected.
 
India's All Time Test batting line-up looks quite phenomenal now :-

Gavaskar (Arguably the greatest opener)
Sehwag (Most destructive opener ever)
Dravid (The ever so reliable Wall)
Tendulkar (GOAT run machine)
Kohli (Clutch #5, Future legend)
Amarnath (Legendary resilience)
Dev (Legendary counter attacking player)
Dhoni (Counter attacking WK)
 
Last edited:
India's All Time Test batting line-up looks quite phenomenal now :-

Gavaskar (Arguably the greatest opener)
Sehwag (Most destructive opener ever)
Dravid (The ever so reliable Wall)
Tendulkar (GOAT run machine)
Kohli (Clutch #5, Future legend)
Amarnath (Legendary resilience)
Dev (Legendary counter attacking player)
Dhoni (Counter attacking WK)



Amarnath is sitting in a hot seat there.

Laxman, Vangasarkar, Mankad, Pataudi, Azharuddin, Ganguly, Vishwanath etc could all replace.

Not a lot of great lefties for a surprise. Maybe we need Ganguly in there.
 
I have listened to Gavaskar, Viswanath, Amarnath (very little TV coverage), Vengsarkar, watched Azarudsdin, the next crop Tendu, Dravid, Laxman, Shewag, Ganguli and now Virat Kohli, Pujara etc.

Noone can be compared to Gavaskar. He was a one man army. He falls and opposition are done. Like a Piranha all over a helpless victim.
 
India's All Time Test batting line-up looks quite phenomenal now :-

Gavaskar (Arguably the greatest opener)
Sehwag (Most destructive opener ever)
Dravid (The ever so reliable Wall)
Tendulkar (GOAT run machine)
Kohli (Clutch #5, Future legend)
Amarnath (Legendary resilience)
Dev (Legendary counter attacking player)
Dhoni (Counter attacking WK)

Dhoni underachieved in Tests.

Unfortunately, there is not another decent WK-batsman that India has established.
 
India's All Time Test batting line-up looks quite phenomenal now :-

Gavaskar (Arguably the greatest opener)
Sehwag (Most destructive opener ever)
Dravid (The ever so reliable Wall)
Tendulkar (GOAT run machine)
Kohli (Clutch #5, Future legend)
Amarnath (Legendary resilience)
Dev (Legendary counter attacking player)
Dhoni (Counter attacking WK)

Dont think you need 7 batsmen in your XI. Batting is already legendary. You should play with 5 bowlers(including Kapil Dev).
 
Back
Top