My Top 10 Batsmen Of All Time

1. Don Bradman.
6996 test runs at 99.94, 29 100s, highest score 334
28067 f/c runs at 95.14, 117 100s, highest score 452*
The Don is head and shoulders the greatest. it's not even close. He played on uncovered wickets with toothpicks against some

of the best bowlers of all time. He didn't have helmets. Even in his worst series, Bodyline, he averaged 57. A true genius of

the game and in my mind, the BEST sportsman (not athlete) of all time.

2. Wally Hammond
7249 test runs at 58.45, 22 100s, highest score 336*
50551 f/c runs at 56.1, 167 100s, highest score 336*
A near contemporary of the Don, and the fact his average is 40 runs less shows just how amazing the Don was. Wally played on

tough pitches against some of the best bowlers of all time. Unlike the Don, he was notorious for hammering sixes and held the

test record with 10 in his 336* for a long time. Considering the bats of the time, that'd be like hitting 25 nowadays.

3. Jack Hobbs
5410 test runs at 56.94, 15 100s, highest score 211
61760 f/c runs at 50.7, 199!!! 100s, highest score 316*
Hobbs played on even worse pitches than BRadman and Hammond. he was also notorious for giving deserving bowlers a wicket once

he got to 100 - the last of the true gentlemen. He lost four productive years to WW1 and without that break would have had

well over 200 first class centuries and likely 70000 f/c runs.

4. Herbert Sutcliffe
4555 test runs at 60.73, 16 100s, highest score 194
50670 f/c runs at 52.02, 151 100s, highest score 313
Herbert is known as the only batsman to never have his average dip below 60 throughout his entire career. Not even the Don managed that. Sutcliffe and Hobbs were easily the greatest opening partnership of all time - think about it - that's 350 first class hundreds between them!!

5. George Headley
2190 test runs at 60.83, 10 100s, highest score 270*
9921 f/c runs at 69.86, 33 100s, highest score 344*
George Headley was known as the black Bradman. He played for a shitty team against much higher quality opposition and still murdered them - a test 100 every 4 innings, a first class ton every 5. An average over 60 in tests and touching 70 in first class.

6. Geoff Boycott
8114 test runs at 47.72, 22 100s, highest score 246*
48426 f/c runs at 56.83, 151 100s, highest score 261*
Boycs doesn't have the average of the others - but he may well have faced the best bowling attacks of all. He started against the deadly West Indians of the mid-60s, the brilliant Aussies of the late 60s, the Indian spin quartet of the 70s, and the resurgent fearsome foursome of the Windies in the second half of the 1970s. He never took a backward step.

7. Graeme Pollock
2256 test runs at 60.97, 7 100s, highest score 274
20940 f/c runs at 54.67, 64 100s, highest score 274
A genius destroyed by apartheid. The Aussies who saw him feared him; the greatest of the time he could have been. Him and Barry Richards would have brought back memories of May, Compton, and Cowdrey, only even better. A left handed brute with ridiculous power and technique.

8. Denis Compton
5807 test runs at 50.06, 17 100s, highest score 278
38942 f/c runs at 51.85, 123 100s, highest score 300
Only the Don - and perhaps not even him - had more natural talent than Compton. A double international who also played soccer for England, Compton was a genius. Technique he had, but he was also prone to developing his own shots; many said given the same ball three times in a row, he would come up with four different shots. His average would have been higher had he had a modicum of Boycott's application and determination.

9. Sunil Gavaskar
10122 test runs at 51.12, 34 100s, highest score 236*
25834 f/c runs at 51.46, 81 100s, highest score 340
Alongside Boycott he faced perhaps the very best attacks. A brute against the West Indies, he was just as effective against the other top quality teams. He propped up a weak Indian batting lineup for years and only near the end of his career could he relax and play the shots he always had, but had to keep hidden.

10. Allan Border
11174 test runs at 50.56, 27 100s, highest score 205
27131 f/c runs at 51.38, 70 100s, highest score 205
Alongside Boycott and Gavaskar he completes our triumvirate of cast iron grit. He propped up a weak Aussie team for years, scoring runs that the others couldn't even imagine. He was a great back foot player and solid against spin; his duels with the Windies quicks were legendary. His only flaw: an inability to score the really big one.

anybody that debuted in the 90s? or are they all shit?

Yes. They're the degenerate remnants of a proud race... brought to their knees by pudding pitches and railway sleepers for bats.

so if life is so easy for batsman nowadays, then you probably rate today's bowlers pretty highly?

Some, but even accounting for batting improvements in pitches etc, their averages are degenerate
Steyn is quality. <25 average

You know, I often think I drive the safest when I haven't yet got around to re-registering my car; I don't want to get caught so I scrupulous in my attention to detail when out driving.

I wonder if the same principle could be applied to the amount of armour batsmen wear these days. Some of them look like they wouldn't be out of place in the front rank of Henry V's men-at-arms at Agincourt. Batsman prior to the late 1980's HAD to be scrupulous in their attention to the bowler, because all they had was a set of pads and box to protect them. If you missed, you got sconed.

P.S. No Tendulkar???

Who would Tendulkar replace?

Tendulkar isn't in my top 15... just missed out included Viv Richards, Greg Chappell, Barry Richards, Clive Walcott...

Sobers?

Yeah, Sobers just missed out too.
Again... who would he replace?

You make pretty convincing agruements, except I have a problem with the black bradmand and Pollock. 2000 runs isnt very many and to be "the greatest" I think you need to have succeeded for longer

You doubt the greatness of pollock? WTF maestro? He would have dominated attacks for far longer if only south africa were allowed to play international cricket. Still scored 20k first class runs

So he COULD have been great? Youre probably right, but its not certain. Perhaps bowlers might have worked him out a little and/he suffered a form slump over the course of a long career. I think longevity is more important that vadz's list has allowed, and he is favouring talent slightly over achievement

why does he need to play test cricket for him to be great?

Because that is how we determine how great a player is. Dometic cricket can't be compared with the level of international cricket.

However in saying that Pollock played during a period where SA has some great great players so his dometic record def says something about how great he was.

Maestro has no real clue when it comes to cricket anyway, certainly not when it comes to picking a list of great players from the past.

Because its the highest form of the game? Not sure if you are levelling me..

Im not doubting he was a "great" player, just questioning his status as "greatest of all time" . May as well say Shane Bond is one of the greatest ODI bolwers of all time

Not really, Shane Bond was given all the time in the world to prove it on international stage and he didn't. He broke down like a little bitch ...

well maestro, not everyone can play test cricket. And that has nothing to do with ability.

Try this hypothetical on for size.

Batsman from Kenya. Plays first class against great attacks in South Africa, Australia, England, India etc etc
Scores huge runs with epic class. Lets say he averages 100 in f/c

Never plays test cricket (being Kenyan that's not an option).

You're saying that by definition this batsman wouldn't be able to be "a great" simply because he's Kenyan? Seems a little unfair.

facepalm yourself neil_a!

why? surely, when judging greatness you should judge the batsman

....and what they have achieved. Your Kenyan isnt great because he never got the chance to prove it. Whats "fair" is pretty irrelevant

surely he proved his greatness with his f/c record?

Probablity indicates he was quite likely to be have been great, but that is not grounds to say he proved anything

Facing local players on local pitches that you are used to is so different to when you face international bowlers from other countries on their home turf its not even funny. I fail to see how you can't see this ...

The only reason I support Pollock is because he was great and he showed that in his limited time in International cricket. He also played 20 odd games wit break-away/rebel teams where he dominated the world.

Back in the old days, FC cricket in England and Australia (especially Aus cos fewer teams) was as tough as test cricket vs. minnows like SA (for a while), India, Pakistan, even WI for a while.

Think about it... uncovered pitches. May they're damp and seaming/swinging, you get a month to make hay then they dry out and the fifty million left arm spinners in England are turning it two feet.

I think if you'd asked Australia in 1924 if they'd rather play Yorkshire or South Africa, the answer would have been South Africa

Longevity would mean the top 10 are all contemporary batsmen, because we play a whole lot more cricket now
As one of my favourite websites, coldhardfootballfacts.com puts it, EFFICIENCY wins championships, VOLUME STATS wins fantasy football

*facepalm* great job reading the hypothetical

vadz....all the other batsmen on your list have an least twice as many runs as Pollock/Headley. Im not saying longevity is key... but its certainly a component, and I dont think you need 10,000 runs to qualify, but about ~3500 seems right. 2000 isnt a significant sample and means their average could be flattering

again....is Shane Bond one of the greatest ODI bowlers of all time?

No Lara?

sure, why not.

p.s. I would have thought that Pollock was a relatively uncontroversial selection.

Why would I put him in?
Richards, Headley, Walcott, Weekes all WI batsmen better than Lara.

Depends if you only count test runs or include F/C runs !

And Shane Bond was, but he played a couple seasons too long.

Depends if you only count test runs or include F/C runs !

And Shane Bond was, but he played a couple seasons too long.

Better? What criteria are you using?

Not saying you are wrong but what criteria are you going on? Just averages?

I did too, Id read all about him and knew he was brilliant. But then I saw vadz's stats and realised he just didnt play enough cricket to be worthy

I know you two are looking at this puzzle in a pure literal sense as in "who had the best skill set/who performwedat the highest level" ....but that does not define how players are viewed historically, and for a very good reason. If Mike Hussey had a major injury and retired after he scored his 1st 2000 runs.... would he have made your list?

......I think its obvious you would have selected Hussey. Using your criteria ..why woudnt you? He scored 2000 runs, he was almost impossible to get out, he averaged close to 30 more than his next non-Bradman peer. 30! Thats it...Hussey gets number 2 in the rankings

However....Hussey didnt retire after 2000 runs and has since been dragged back to the averages of just very good players. This could of happened to both Headly and Pollock and thus the example of M.Hussey shows why your selection system is slightly flawed.

Of course...Hussey may now get a 2nd wind and end up averaging 80odd to reclaim his position among the "greats"..therein lies the power in stats when they reach critical mass. As the sample size gets larger and larger they get more and more irrefutable

Of course we would have chosen Hussey
And based on the knowledge at the time, it would have been the RIGHT DECISION
you can only base it on what we know. we can't predict. maybe chris martin would have been the best batsman ever if somebody had coached him at age 6

and neither headley nor pollock were selected solely on average!

Era they played in
Pitch quality
Quality of bowlers
Bat technology
Protective technology
Runs, averages, clutch knocks

No it WOULDNT. Because as the Hussey example demonstrates, your selection criteria needs adjusting. You are not giving the subjcets enough time to revel their true worth. Your example of Chris Martin just underlines this. Is Rodney Redmond New Zealands greatest ever batsman?

One test isn't enough

However Headley played as MANY TESTS AS HE COULD

Brian Lara

Test Runs: 11 953 averaging 52.88 High Score 400*
ODI Runs: 10 405 averaging 40.48 High Score 169
First Class runs: 22 156 averaging 51.88 High Score 501*

Holds multiple batting/high score records - just scan Cricinfo and/or Wiki

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Lara#Statistics

* Features in Wisden Top 10 Best Individual Batting Performances ever four times


Seems hard to ignore, where would you place him then?

Vadz wouldn't rate him because the malaria rates had been greatly reduced by Lara's time, so he didn't have to overcome anywhere near as much as the others on his list.

The problem I have with this list is that pundits from most sports know that trying to compare players from vastly different eras is foolish. You talk the quality of bowling yet there was no way of accurate measuring how fast the bowlers during many of these batsmen's career, so a lot of the accounts are merely subjective views - a fierce lightning fast bowler might have only been bowling at 120ks.

Fine vadz...have your list born from a criterea that is so FLAWED that it would have rated Mike Hussey as the 2nd greatest batsman of all time.

Your bias againgst the modern player is so obvious that its impossible to take it seriously anyway. Not 100% sure what you are trying to prove... but I expect its your many hours spent poring over ancient journy musings

btw...Allan Border is out of place as well

Border > Lara/Tendulker?

Hussey wouldn't be 2nd best cos he plays on covered pitches with modern bats against modern shitty bowling!!

HAMMOND is #2 for all time.

Yep. Border was more important than either of them and played much better bowling - WI at their peak, Hadlee at his peak, the very good English attack until 1989 (when it went shit)

WRONG.
Jeff Thomson was speed radared at 160... players who faced both Tyson and Thomson said Tyson was faster... and players who faced both Tyson and Larwood said Larwood was just as quick.

And you CAN compare across eras... using the idea of Value Over Replacement Player i.e. how much better was X ovr Y at that time?

Anytime you resort to subjective values to make a comparison. The comparison is ultimately flawed.

It's not subjective
Let's say the mean batting average of all top 6 players in the 2000s was 35
And someone average 55
his VORP is 20

However let's say the mean batting average of all top 6 players in the 1930s was 28
And someone averages 49
His VORP is 21

etc etc

Hey I can torture numbers to come up with any old statistic as well. It's totally subjective.

Unless you got the two players side by side, there is never going to be a way to end this argument satisfactorily.

Nobody's saying it's absolutely perfect
But I could also say you can't compare two players of the same era as they're facing different bowlers with different supporting casts all the time.

It's more scientific than your Kanye West love