Cricket - Best ever etc
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
Gooch was bloody good and Atherton was decent enough. Obviously they worked really well as a pair.
I’m still staggered how far up the list Wright and Franklin are.
Agreed. It must highlight just how dogshit the rest of our teams were at that time.
-
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
Gooch was bloody good and Atherton was decent enough. Obviously they worked really well as a pair.
I’m still staggered how far up the list Wright and Franklin are.
Agreed. It must highlight just how dogshit the rest of our teams were at that time.
They weren’t though. Jones, Crowe and Greatbatch ( who was excellent at the start of his career ) were next in !
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
Gooch was bloody good and Atherton was decent enough. Obviously they worked really well as a pair.
I’m still staggered how far up the list Wright and Franklin are.
Agreed. It must highlight just how dogshit the rest of our teams were at that time.
They weren’t though. Jones, Crowe and Greatbatch ( who was excellent at the start of his career ) were next in !
Not a bad top five, but did you win much?
-
Took a chance to dip into Statsguru in the area of partnerships - a pair of batsmen having had a minimum of 20 partnerships.
Top 5 averages
Javed/Shoaib (1984-93) 91.82
Hobbs/Sutcliffe (1924-30) 87.86
Bradman/Woodfull (1928-34) 84.09
Mitchell/Nourse (1935-49) 83.61
Langer/Ponting (1998-2006) 82.16Top 5 for NZ
Crowe/Jones (1987-93) 64.39
Taylor/Watling (2010-20) 60.50
Watling/Williamson (2013-21) 59.33
Taylor/Williamson (2011-21) 58.81
Nicholls/Williamson (2016-21) 55.90Worst 5 averages (qualification 20 partnerships)
Bedi/Prasanna (1967-78) 8.18
Bedi/Chandrasekhar (1966-78) 8.45
Hazlewood/Lyon (2014-19) 8.85
Anderson/Prior (2008-14) 10.75
Ambrose/Bishop (1990-98) 10.95Worst 5 averages (qualification 10 partnerships as tailenders don't bat together so often)
McGrath/Warne (1994-2007) 5.58
Gillespie/MacGill (1999-2004) 5.70
Gabriel/Roach (2017-2021) 5.73
Chandrasekhar/Prasanna (1967-78) 6.00
Adams/Donald (1995-2001) 6.16Worst for NZ
Martin/Vettori (2004-11) 8.86
Wagner/Watling (2013-2020) 9.00
D. Bracewell/Southee (2011-15) 12.10
J. Bracewell/Smith (1984-1990) 13.36
Boult/Wagner (2012-22) 14.45Also spotted this lurking further down
Pocock/Young (!) (1993-97) 18.00
Other batting pairs with awful averages (20+ partnerships)
Gatting/Gooch 17.35
Cook/Stoneman 18.75
Blewett/M Waugh 21.76
Border/Wood 23.21
Hughes/Wood 23.76Interestingly Bairstow/Broad (14.50) has a worse average than Anderson/Broad (15.34)
-
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
-
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
-
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
-
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
-
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home. Scoring runs in foreign conditions against bowlers that know exactly how to exploit them (India, spin, Aus, pace) is much harder than plundering attacks at home on pitches you are accustomed too. Only the very best batsmen have respectable records away from home.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home. Scoring runs in foreign conditions against bowlers that know exactly how to exploit them (India, spin, Aus, pace) is much harder than plundering attacks at home on pitches you are accustomed too. Only the very best batsmen have respectable records away from home.
But ( without delving too much ) even the very greatest players generally do better at home ( which is why I all of a sudden admire Sunil Gavaskar more, 50 home, 52 away as an opener )
He also didn’t have the minnows to pad the average against that guys today have.
Other Indians worth admiring are Rahul Dravid 51 vs 53. Sachin Tendulkar 52 vs 54. ( I was genuinely surprised at this )
Virat Kohli is 61 vs 41 though, not so impressive ( and he’s more style than substance compared to the other three )
Contrast that with Adam Voges and his funny old career. ( overall 61, 86 home, 49 away ) despite those numbers no one is calling him one of the greats considering he plundered a terrible Windies team at home for so many of those runs.
KW is quite rightly regarded as one of the absolute modern greats. This innings should go a way to help secure this as it’s his first double away from home ( currently 65 vs 46 )
If you’re picking an all time World XI though Paddles would be further up the list than he is.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home. Scoring runs in foreign conditions against bowlers that know exactly how to exploit them (India, spin, Aus, pace) is much harder than plundering attacks at home on pitches you are accustomed too. Only the very best batsmen have respectable records away from home.
Well all that’s pretty obvious innit? My point, is that the “very best batsmen” that you speak of, that have these away records that are notably higher, why aren’t their home averages at least on par with the next tier of mere greats?
Because they can be if their overall averages are the same can they?
I don’t feel particularly strongly about this, but I would say I’d happily have all the flat track home-plundering bullies in the world in our team if they can average 46 overall
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ v Pakistan:
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home.
Tbh that's little to do with a batsman's average.
-
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
-
I guess you could take the discussion to a West Indian board and argue that Warner is better than Gordon Greenidge.
They've played about the same number of tests as openers and Dave has a marginally higher average, but Gordon significantly better away from home.
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
-
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50's -
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50'sOh definitely not. Border is a legend. Similar to Steve Waugh and I’d also suggest Shivnarine Chanderpaul was similar too.
Here’s the thing though. I can’t find room for Border AND Waugh in my all time Australian XI assuming Keith Miller and Adam Gilchrist make it. I think there’s only room for ONE plucky, never give the wicket away grafter like those two, not both.
A VERY tough decision.
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50'sOh definitely not. Border is a legend. Similar to Steve Waugh and I’d also suggest Shivnarine Chanderpaul was similar too.
Here’s the thing though. I can’t find room for Border AND Waugh in my all time Australian XI assuming Keith Miller and Adam Gilchrist make it. I think there’s only room for ONE plucky, never give the wicket away grafter like those two, not both.
A VERY tough decision.
That is a tough one I would pick either to bat for my Life.
-
@MN5 I think Sir Viv's country cricket attitude probably slipped into test cricket a bit in the second part of his career, where he couldn't be fucked some of the time - plus he went on too long.
After 44 tests he was averaging 62, that's probably what you assess him at his peak on.
