Who were the best Number 4 batsmen in Test cricket?

[Harsh Thakor]

Best batsmen ever in test cricket who consistently batted at no 4 position or 2 down ranked in order of merit.Only considered the performances at no 4 in this rating.

1.Sachin Tendulkar/Brian Lara
3.Graeme Pollock
4.Everton Weekes
5.Greg Chappell
6.Javed Miandad
7.Alan Border.
8.Virat Kohli
9.Peter May
10.Kevin Pieterson
11.Younis Khan/Inzamam Ul Haq
13.Jacques Kallis
14.Steve Smith
15.Aravinda De'Silva
16.Mahela Jayewardene
17.Mark Waugh
18.Gundappa Vishwanath
19.Salim Malik
20.Vijay Manjrekar



Virtually cannot seperate Tendulkar or Lara with Sachin performing better in aggregate and average but Lara overshadowing his compatriot in a crisis or in turning games.I will make that choice some other day.Tendulkar was the most complete batsmen while Lara posessed the greatest creative genius.


Graeme Pollock dominated bowling like Viv Richards taking strokeplay to regions of the sublime.


Everton Weekes batted more like Bradman than anyone and was the closest to batting machine.


Greg Chappell blended technical skill ,agression and elegance like nonone else at no 4 .Would taer an attack apart with the impact of a thunderstorm but still posess the skill of a weaver or the grammar of an English professor.Included hius greats stats in WSC cricket,particularly in WEst Indise when he had the leading aggregate of 1416 runs .Averaging 69 runs in West Indies itself in supertests was an incredible feat.


Javed Miandad niggled oponents more than any batsmen posessing a genius of his own type.Placed Miandad ahead of Border as he amassed a far greater percentage of his run aggregate and centuries at no 4 position than Border ,who scored many run sat no 5 and no 3.

Alan Border was the ultimate batsmen to bat for your life,the epitome of consistency.


Virat Kohli has influnced the modern era more than anyone being able to perform outstandingly in all types of conditions.Not placed Kohli at the top as I have considered the flatter pitches and weaker bowling in the modern era.



Peter May was the equivalent of Greg Chappell in his day ,close to the perfect batsmen with his great composure.


Kevin Pieterson arguably batted more like Viv Richards than any batsmen of his day who at his best could create the impact of a dynamite exploding.


Younis Khan and Inzamam were 2 of the greatest of match winners who even in a crisis revealed nerves of an iceberg and turned many a game from the depthsof despair.Inzy had more flair while Younis was the gutsier.

Kallis was not an entertainer but a champion in batting for your life Statistically he was close to the very top but not ranked there as he often did not step the gas sufficiently to win matches .He also had an advantae of playing against minnows against whom he ammased a lot of runs and not at his best in Australia or England

Steve Smith had to be counted because of his incredible statistical record but could not place him close to the top as he did not prove himself on the seaming English tracks or the turning pitches on the sub-continent.On Australian tracks took batting to Bradmanesque heights and could join the greatest of batsmen.



Aravind De'Siva was master technician and craftsmen who shaped the destiny of his nation more than anyone in his era.

Jayewaradene took batting grace to regions of the sublime.

Mark Waugh posessed talent in the realm of Sachin or Lara and on his day was as good as anyone.


Vishwanath at his best could join the league of a Viv Richards taking batting artistry and creativity to boundaries rarely ever traversed.


Salim Malik was master in a crisis and on bad wickets and could overshadow the great Miandad at his best .

Vijay Manjrekar was elegance and technical perfection personified

 

[Srtfan]

Sachin
Lara
Kallis
Chappell
Smith/ kohli

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Sachin
Lara
Kallis
Chappell
Smith/ kohli

Why Kalilis ahead of Greg Chappell and Grame Pollock or even Weekes?All 3. Considerably more attacking and better match winners.Kallis has great stats but would often not accelerate.Kohli ahead of Border and Miandad having not equaled Border overseas or equalled Miandad's. Consistency.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Appreciate a response from Junaid,Robert MMHS ,Last Monetarist ,Bilal etc. Please come back to this thread viewers here.

 

[Robert]

Appreciate a response from Junaid,Robert MMHS ,Last Monetarist ,Bilal etc. Please come back to this thread viewers here.

Best I saw was Viv Richards but he was often #3 or #5.

Lara was usually #3, IIRC.

So I’ll say Tendulkar.

 

[Sachin136]

Best I saw was Viv Richards but he was often #3 or #5.

Lara was usually #3, IIRC.

So I’ll say Tendulkar.

Lara mostly played at #4, though he did come one-down a lot of times.

 

[Ab Fan]

Tendulkar

 

[Mute Witness]

Kallis is so incredibly underrated it's not even funny. The man had a 9 year period where he averaged 65! If you wanna understand what that truly means, it's like take Steve Smiths mind boggling last 4 years, and stretch that to 9! Truly astonishing numbers there. And this is apart from another 3 year period towards the fag end of his career where he scored at an even better 68, with another 14 hundreds(kohli has 13 in the last 3, and he's been in complete beast mode). Kallis' greatest quality was that he was so incredibly difficult to dismiss. Bowlers would absolutely dread bowling to him. And I'm talking about world class bowlers. In contrast bowling to someone like KP would be exciting because you would always be in with a chance. And you have to remember Kallis made his debut in 1995, back when Strike Rates weren't the be all end all to determine "impact". And since when is a test hundred no longer considered impact worthy? It's a pretty big deal considering he's only six short of Sachin's count in 34 less tests.

In every metric Kallis matches the absolute best. And this is excluding the value of nearly 300 test wickets, and 200 catches. You want impact? Kallis has the highest man of the match awards in test history, 23 and second highest man of the series behind Murli.

In most batting considerations Kallis is often overlooked. But in a best at 4 competition it would be criminal to do so. Averages 7.5 more than Tendulkar at 4. Averages a full 10 more than Lara. Your top 2. I love Lara, and i admire Sachin greatly, but Kallis at 4 deserves to be near the very top let alone outside the top 10. My two cents.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

[MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] and [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] please participate here

 

[bujhee kom]

In Test Cricket Lara v Sachin isn't so close. Lara was just better. He is the greatest #4 ever.

ODIs - sure, Sachin was superior but this thread has a clear focus.

 

[austerlitz]

Sachin for me.Both reserved their best for australia.Both were below their own par in 4rth innings.Both dominated the best bowlers of their time and scored runs everywhere.Tendu just lasted longer,his last comeback burst from 2008-2010 after tennis elbow and 2 back injuries when he was considered finished is what puts him slightly ahead imo.

 

[TheNeutralist]

Lara all the way. Sachin comes next.

 

[ManFan]

Sachin followed by daylight and then Kallis.

 

[MMHS]

I'll go with Lara & SRT, Greg joint 2nd, Jaques just a little behind. GPollock, didn't play enough to be considered - he left Test cricket at 29, at his best, so we haven't seen his decline either. In lden days, WR Hammond must be something special - he averaged over 60 for long time, but had to come back to lead a war torn England in his mid 40s, otherwise arguably the best ever No. 4, in a timeless world.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Purely as a number 4:

Sachin
Kallis
Lara
Chappell
Miandad

By the time their careers are done I expect Kohli and Smith to be in the top 5, one of them might even threaten pole position.

 

[Buffet]

Lara and SRT were in the same league, but SRT simply takes it here. In their home conditions they performed equally well. I judge equal caliber players how well they do when playing outside of home.


SRT at #4 when playing outside of home

Avg 57.6 and 24 tons


Lara at #4 when playing outside of home

Avg 50.1 and 13 tons


One player has roughly double tons with far superior average. Imagine if Lara is getting compared to some one with away average of 43 with 6 tons.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Purely as a number 4:

Sachin
Kallis
Lara
Chappell
Miandad

By the time their careers are done I expect Kohli and Smith to be in the top 5, one of them might even threaten pole position.

In order of merit?Sachin above Lara ?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Sachin and Lara.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Lara and SRT were in the same league, but SRT simply takes it here. In their home conditions they performed equally well. I judge equal caliber players how well they do when playing outside of home.


SRT at #4 when playing outside of home

Avg 57.6 and 24 tons


Lara at #4 when playing outside of home

Avg 50.1 and 13 tons


One player has roughly double tons with far superior average. Imagine if Lara is getting compared to some one with away average of 43 with 6 tons.

Was not Lara better in a crisis and carried the mantle of a weak team more than Sachin?Lara at his best won or turned more games.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Kallis is so incredibly underrated it's not even funny. The man had a 9 year period where he averaged 65! If you wanna understand what that truly means, it's like take Steve Smiths mind boggling last 4 years, and stretch that to 9! Truly astonishing numbers there. And this is apart from another 3 year period towards the fag end of his career where he scored at an even better 68, with another 14 hundreds(kohli has 13 in the last 3, and he's been in complete beast mode). Kallis' greatest quality was that he was so incredibly difficult to dismiss. Bowlers would absolutely dread bowling to him. And I'm talking about world class bowlers. In contrast bowling to someone like KP would be exciting because you would always be in with a chance. And you have to remember Kallis made his debut in 1995, back when Strike Rates weren't the be all end all to determine "impact". And since when is a test hundred no longer considered impact worthy? It's a pretty big deal considering he's only six short of Sachin's count in 34 less tests.

In every metric Kallis matches the absolute best. And this is excluding the value of nearly 300 test wickets, and 200 catches. You want impact? Kallis has the highest man of the match awards in test history, 23 and second highest man of the series behind Murli.

In most batting considerations Kallis is often overlooked. But in a best at 4 competition it would be criminal to do so. Averages 7.5 more than Tendulkar at 4. Averages a full 10 more than Lara. Your top 2. I love Lara, and i admire Sachin greatly, but Kallis at 4 deserves to be near the very top let alone outside the top 10. My two cents.

No doubt a true great and statistically a champion in the Lara league.However he lacked the essential ingredient of turning or winning games like Viv or Sobers.He also amassed lot of runs against the Minniows like Bangladesh and was not at his best in England or Australia.Against great bowling not the equal of Sachin,Lara or even Greg Chappell.A great one to bat for your life but still rank him a notch below Alan Border or Javed Miandad.

 

[WengerOut]

Was not Lara better in a crisis and carried the mantle of a weak team more than Sachin?Lara at his best won or turned more games.

There are certain myths here

1) Lara had a good team until 2000

2) Which all games he turned? I mean do you have a number?

 

[Buffet]

Was not Lara better in a crisis and carried the mantle of a weak team more than Sachin?Lara at his best won or turned more games.

At #4, Lara has 3 tons in win against non-minnows ( 2 home and 1 away)
At #4, SRT has 14 tons in win against non-minnows (9 home and 5 away )

I don't know where this notion comes that Lara at his best won more.

 

[Swashbuckler]

In order of merit?Sachin above Lara ?

Yes.

More consistent, more balanced record, greater longevity under immense public pressure, technically among the greatest batsmen. Lara too is great but his superiority is mainly limited to big 100s and match winning ability (almost on his own). But I am among the few who feel that his match winning attributes are a tad over rated, still better than most but not as outstanding as it is portrayed in cricket circles.

Lara's away record isn't as good as Sachin's and his inconsistency is a big negative, most of his big scores came in dull draws while he was below par in live rubbers. Sachin may not have been ATG in the 4th innings but neither was Lara if you take his whole career, 153* was an outlier like Laxman's 281 at number 3.

But at the end of the day it is still too close to call (always is in these comparisons unless Bradman is in the picture), even Sachin had some flaws but Sachin>Lara by the tiniest margin IMO. Had you asked this question in 2007 it would have been Lara. But the way Sachin came back from the dead when everyone had written him off and had a second wind in 2007-10 elevates him to another level. He was expected to retire but he took back the number 1 ranking at the age of 35-36 after 2 decades of wear and tear and was a major contributor in India's rise to number 1 spot in test cricket.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Yes.

More consistent, more balanced record, greater longevity under immense public pressure, technically among the greatest batsmen. Lara too is great but his superiority is mainly limited to big 100s and match winning ability (almost on his own). But I am among the few who feel that his match winning attributes are a tad over rated, still better than most but not as outstanding as it is portrayed in cricket circles.

Lara's away record isn't as good as Sachin's and his inconsistency is a big negative, most of his big scores came in dull draws while he was below par in live rubbers. Sachin may not have been ATG in the 4th innings but neither was Lara if you take his whole career, 153* was an outlier like Laxman's 281 at number 3.

But at the end of the day it is still too close to call (always is in these comparisons unless Bradman is in the picture), even Sachin had some flaws but Sachin>Lara by the tiniest margin IMO. Had you asked this question in 2007 it would have been Lara. But the way Sachin came back from the dead when everyone had written him off and had a second wind in 2007-10 elevates him to another level. He was expected to retire but he took back the number 1 ranking at the age of 35-36 after 2 decades of wear and tear and was a major contributor in India's rise to number 1 spot in test cricket.

Very good ,sound and fair evaluation .I may rank Lara ahead by a whisker but very analytical judgment of yours that there is hardly anything separating them.

 

[Buffet]

Was not Lara better in a crisis and carried the mantle of a weak team more than Sachin?

WI was comfortably among the top teams in entire 90s. That's 10 years of his career. WI decline started in 00s.

At end of each year,

1990 - WI rank 1
1991 - WI rank 1
1992 - WI Rank 3
1993 - WI rank 1
1994 - WI rank 1
1995 - WI rank 4
1996 - WI rank 4
1996 - WI rank 5
1997 - WI rank 4
1998 - WI rank 4
1999 - WI rank 4

 

[Swashbuckler]

[MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION] Sachin was ICC number 1 test batsman in 1994 and also 2011, spread 17 years apart which is as long as Lara's international career. Hope you can appreciate the magnitude of such a feat. Most cricketers don't last for 17 years, in a physical sport (exclude Garry Kasparov) it is almost unheard of for a person to top the rankings 17 years apart, an epoch spanning from the likes of Gooch/Miandad/Kapil/Border to Kohli/Williamson/Smith/Warner who all witnessed the feat during their live careers, 2 generations apart.

 

[Buffet]

WI was comfortably among the top teams in entire 90s. That's 10 years of his career. WI decline started in 00s.

At end of each year,

1990 - WI rank 1
1991 - WI rank 1
1992 - WI Rank 3
1993 - WI rank 1
1994 - WI rank 1
1995 - WI rank 4
1996 - WI rank 4
1996 - WI rank 5
1997 - WI rank 4
1998 - WI rank 4
1999 - WI rank 4

Given that WI was among the top ranked teams for 10 years and Lara was among the top 3 batsmen in the same period, and yet Lara has only handful of tons in wins against non-minnows. Fact is simply opposite of the notion that Lara won lots of games.

 

[Hasan123]

Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Ab Fan]

Sachin was more all-round, more balanced and more consistent over his career. So, I have him ahead of anyone at 4.

 

[Ab Fan]

Best I saw was Viv Richards but he was often #3 or #5.

Lara was usually #3, IIRC.

So I’ll say Tendulkar.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], would like to know your view on how would you rank the following players as batsmen:-

Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting
Kallis
Dravid
Sangakkara

 

[MP2011]

[MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION] Sachin was ICC number 1 test batsman in 1994 and also 2011, spread 17 years apart which is as long as Lara's international career. Hope you can appreciate the magnitude of such a feat. Most cricketers don't last for 17 years, in a physical sport (exclude Garry Kasparov) it is almost unheard of for a person to top the rankings 17 years apart, an epoch spanning from the likes of Gooch/Miandad/Kapil/Border to Kohli/Williamson/Smith/Warner who all witnessed the feat during their live careers, 2 generations apart.

Great point this!

Longevity is so criminally underrated here.

 

[MP2011]

WI was comfortably among the top teams in entire 90s. That's 10 years of his career. WI decline started in 00s.

At end of each year,

1990 - WI rank 1
1991 - WI rank 1
1992 - WI Rank 3
1993 - WI rank 1
1994 - WI rank 1
1995 - WI rank 4
1996 - WI rank 4
1996 - WI rank 5
1997 - WI rank 4
1998 - WI rank 4
1999 - WI rank 4

Great stats! Lara had ATGs like Ambrose & Walsh playing in his team till '00. Don't know from where did this notion come that he played for a weak team. And even more hilarious assumption is that he was more clutch than Tendulkar!

 

[happydavy]

Both Lara and SRT massively overrated in test cricket. There were better match winners who played during their eras such as Steve Waugh and Graeme Smith.

 

[Rahul1]

Was not Lara better in a crisis and carried the mantle of a weak team more than Sachin?Lara at his best won or turned more games.

A grand total of 8 centuries in winning cause including two against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Next argument.

 

[as-95]

Lara is the unanimous number 1 test batsman who came in at 2 wickets down. Tendulkar was simply an accumulator who played for stats and failed to influence matches for India. Due to Lara’s match winning ability for the poor West Indian team, I place him in first position.

Despite a much shorter career, Kohli has also proved to be a bigger match winner than the selfish Tendulkar. As a result, my ranking is

1)Lara
2)Kohli
3)Tendulkar