Greatest left hand bat since Sobers - AB or BCL?

i forgot about gilly. group 3 then

waugh for me was better than the third group, considering the bowling he faced, but not quite as good as the first two

Best bats in the last 20 years-

All time (immortal) greats-

Lara
Tendulkar

Greats-

S.Waugh
Dravid
Kallis
Chanderpaul
Ponting
Pietersen
Sehwag
De Silva



Very good-

Sangakkara
Yousuf
Inzamam
Hayden
Jayawardene
M.Waugh
Laxman
Crowe
Boon
Gilchrist
Thorpe
Ganguly

Too early to assess Pietersen.

A little too high for Chanderpaul, taking his career as a whole, and probably also for de Silva.

peterg wrote:Too early to assess Pietersen.

A little too high for Chanderpaul, taking his career as a whole, and probably also for de Silva.

Yep, far too soon for Pietersen.

peterg wrote:Too early to assess Pietersen.

A little too high for Chanderpaul, taking his career as a whole, and probably also for de Silva.

Yeah, you're probably right about Pietersen. Hussey would probably be in that category as well.

I think Shiv is a great for different reasons other than just weight of runs- The almost entirely self coached technique, consistently shining in a poor side etc...

Henry wrote:

peterg wrote:Too early to assess Pietersen.

A little too high for Chanderpaul, taking his career as a whole, and probably also for de Silva.

Yeah, you're probably right about Pietersen. Hussey would probably be in that category as well.

I think Shiv is a great for different reasons other than just weight of runs- The almost entirely self coached technique, consistently shining in a poor side etc...

Gilly should be up with the greats for such non - weight-of-runs reasons too.

Gilly was 'just' an icing on the cake player though, Shiv has to be the cake and the icing.

How many genuine, backs to the wall match winning test innings did Gilchrist play? Hobart 1999, Mumbai 2001....Can't really think of any others off the top of my head. Maybe there was one in Sri Lanka in 2004?

bangladesh, india 2004

Very good-

Sangakkara
Yousuf
Inzamam
Hayden
Jayawardene
M.Waugh
Laxman
Crowe
Boon
Gilchrist
Thorpe
Ganguly

Hayden belongs in the group above. Sanga might get there too. Ganguly belongs in the group below.

Henry wrote:How many genuine, backs to the wall match winning test innings did Gilchrist play? Hobart 1999, Mumbai 2001....Can't really think of any others off the top of my head. Maybe there was one in Sri Lanka in 2004?

Let's face it - Aust haven't really had their backs to the wall that often in the last decade. But Gilly did go through a patch in 2004-5 where he was consistently turning a 50/50 match position into a strong position for Aust - often with just a session's batting.

Another little example might be the most recent SCG match v Saf. Aust were in trouble at the end of the first innings following a big Saffie first innings. Gilly made a quick fire 80 odd from memory which turned what could have been a 100+ first innings deficit into something far more manageable and which , given Jackie's slow batting, compelled Smiffy to make a generous declaration.

Besides, I know you love to complain like a petulant four year old, but if you'd actually taken the time to read the thread, you'd see that I haven't said that Richards was better than Border. The discussion arose because a couple of Australians rated Border "a few rungs" above Richards. I disagreed with this and said so. I also said why I disagreed based on concrete facts. The sooner you give up your sad little vendetta against me, the better, Gloop.

Vendetta? I've nothing against anybody on here. You and I have probably disagreed on 3 or 4 things in approximately a year. Seeing as you're one of the few regulars on here who discusses cricket, it's almost invariably the case that I'll disagree on some issues. In this instance, I'm happy to admit that I was wrong with my second post, but that does not in any way substantiate a number of opinions that you have out-lined as fact. For one, nobody knows either Viv Richards or Allan Border's strike-rates (in Test Matches), though you can say roughly in both cases (excluding around 20 matches each, so maybe as many as 40 innings, I note, on cricinfo's evidence). To compare cricketing opinion to science on that basis is pathetic - science is black and white, cricket is a sport watched from numerous angles with multiple statistics that can never be clear-cut. If a scientist told me the Earth's orbit is elliptical, I could prove that with my own eyes (in theory), whereas if he told me Brian Lara was better than Sachin Tendulkar, I could not.

Knowledge is a collection of irrefutable facts as opposed to a conglomerate of common opinion. See "The Big Bang Theory". I believe in this case it's conjecture. I would agree that Viv Richards scored more quickly than Border, but in my preliminary perusal of the web for factual evidence to prove that, I've found nothing. I make Viv's s/r to be 68.96 with omissions.

Henry wrote:Best bats in the last 20 years-

All time (immortal) greats-

Lara
Tendulkar

Greats-

S.Waugh
Dravid
Kallis
Chanderpaul
Ponting
Pietersen
Sehwag
De Silva



Very good-

Sangakkara
Yousuf
Inzamam
Hayden
Jayawardene
M.Waugh
Laxman
Crowe
Boon
Gilchrist
Thorpe
Ganguly

Gooch reached his peak after 1988. Gower was still thereabouts.

Henry wrote:Best bats in the last 20 years-

All time (immortal) greats-

Lara
Tendulkar

Greats-

S.Waugh
Dravid
Kallis
Chanderpaul
Ponting
Pietersen
Sehwag
De Silva



Very good-

Sangakkara
Yousuf
Inzamam
Hayden
Jayawardene
M.Waugh
Laxman
Crowe
Boon
Gilchrist
Thorpe
Ganguly

Sehwag and Pietersen above Hayden? You must be having a laugh.

PearlJ wrote:
Sehwag and Pietersen above Hayden? You must be having a laugh.

Agreed.

Henry wrote:Best bats in the last 20 years-

All time (immortal) greats-

Lara
Tendulkar

Greats-

S.Waugh
Dravid
Kallis
Chanderpaul
Ponting
Pietersen
Sehwag
De Silva



Very good-

Sangakkara
Yousuf
Inzamam
Hayden
Jayawardene
M.Waugh
Laxman
Crowe
Boon
Gilchrist
Thorpe
Ganguly

Saeed Anwar was as good a bat as a few of those in the second paragraph.

Anwar was certainly better than Sehwag.

So why does Ponting not make the all-time greats? He scores hundreds with greater regularity, has a better average, bats higher up the order and is less guilty of minnow-bashing than either Lara or Tendulkar. He'll probably take every record possible in terms of batting when he retires. He's every bit as good if not better than Lara and Tendulkar. He mightn't be orgasmic in the same way, but he's the man I'd want in my team if choosing between the three. As long as we weren't touring India.

LLL (I think) asked above about Dravid v Ponting. IMHO:

Dravid > Ponting > Kallis

But I'm sure, as he says, most Australians would disagree.

Augustus wrote:So why does Ponting not make the all-time greats? He scores hundreds with greater regularity, has a better average, bats higher up the order and is less guilty of minnow-bashing than either Lara or Tendulkar. He'll probably take every record possible in terms of batting when he retires. He's every bit as good if not better than Lara and Tendulkar. He mightn't be orgasmic in the same way, but he's the man I'd want in my team if choosing between the three. As long as we weren't touring India.

I totally agree with you. But Ponting seems to be universally disliked so it clouds peoples judgements.....

PearlJ wrote:I totally agree with you. But Ponting seems to be universally disliked so it clouds peoples judgements.....

I f*cking hate Ponting. But there's no doubts to me he's a high calibre batsman that ranks with Waugh, Lara and Tendy. However, he has had to play a lot worse opposition, the W's were on the wane, AD was, CELA and CAW were too. Some of the only times he's faced decent bowling, relatively he's failed - who am I on about in particular? Ind in Ind and Eng in Eng. Lara and Tendulkar have been through the whole period of quality and invariably came out on top.

Brass Monkey wrote:

PearlJ wrote:I totally agree with you. But Ponting seems to be universally disliked so it clouds peoples judgements.....

I f*cking hate Ponting. But there's no doubts to me he's a high calibre batsman that ranks with Waugh, Lara and Tendy. However, he has had to play a lot worse opposition, the W's were on the wane, AD was, CELA and CAW were too. Some of the only times he's faced decent bowling, relatively he's failed - who am I on about in particular? Ind in Ind and Eng in Eng. Lara and Tendulkar have been through the whole period of quality and invariably came out on top.

He didn't fail in India because of the quality bowling (That Indian attack in 2001 wasn't actually that good). He has faced it in Aus no problem and he has often faced Murali with no problems. He was just a complete drunk on the first tour and was coming back from injury in the 2nd.

And his average in England isn't the best (43 IIRC) but he has still played some very good innings there. And he's played since 1996 and averaged 45 in the 90s. And even in an era of flat pitchs in the 00s he has stood out above all the big numbers.

I think to say that he is not in the same league as Lara and SRT is a little silly.... because he quite clearly is.

PearlJ wrote:
He didn't fail in India because of the quality bowling (That Indian attack in 2001 wasn't actually that good). He has faced it in Aus no problem and he has often faced Murali with no problems. He was just a complete drunk on the first tour and was coming back from injury in the 2nd.

And his average in England isn't the best (43 IIRC) but he has still played some very good innings there. And he's played since 1996 and averaged 45 in the 90s. And even in an era of flat pitchs in the 00s he has stood out above all the big numbers.

I think to say that he is not in the same league as Lara and SRT is a little silly.... because he quite clearly is.

Like, TBH I'd debate it with most people - but not you mate. There aren't as many one-eyed people around as you it's not because you're putting Riggy Ponning in the same class as the others - he's there or thereabouts. It's more that you concede nothing - you actually use this place as more of an Aus rattle-waving sounding board. Your bias is unerring.

The likes of Waugh, Lara, Tendulkar averaged over 50 in that period and they faced the best at the best times. It's all well and good saying "yeah, buh-buh-but d-d-drunk... he's p-p-played some good innings.... n-n-96' But look it up if you like - there was an analysis done of who he played and when and most of the innings he played against the best bowlers(Murali excepted - Ponting is a quality player of spin) you'll find they were beyond their best, coming back from injury or simply not playing.

PearlJ wrote:He didn't fail in India because of the quality bowling (That Indian attack in 2001 wasn't actually that good). He has faced it in Aus no problem and he has often faced Murali with no problems. He was just a complete drunk on the first tour and was coming back from injury in the 2nd.

Brass Monkey wrote:

PearlJ wrote:
He didn't fail in India because of the quality bowling (That Indian attack in 2001 wasn't actually that good). He has faced it in Aus no problem and he has often faced Murali with no problems. He was just a complete drunk on the first tour and was coming back from injury in the 2nd.

And his average in England isn't the best (43 IIRC) but he has still played some very good innings there. And he's played since 1996 and averaged 45 in the 90s. And even in an era of flat pitchs in the 00s he has stood out above all the big numbers.

I think to say that he is not in the same league as Lara and SRT is a little silly.... because he quite clearly is.

Like, TBH I'd debate it with most people - but not you mate. There aren't as many one-eyed people around as you it's not because you're putting Riggy Ponning in the same class as the others - he's there or thereabouts. It's more that you concede nothing - you actually use this place as more of an Aus rattle-waving sounding board. Your bias is unerring.

The likes of Waugh, Lara, Tendulkar averaged over 50 in that period and they faced the best at the best times. It's all well and good saying "yeah, buh-buh-but d-d-drunk... he's p-p-played some good innings.... n-n-96' But look it up if you like - there was an analysis done of who he played and when and most of the innings he played against the best bowlers(Murali excepted - Ponting is a quality player of spin) you'll find they were beyond their best, coming back from injury or simply not playing.

And you're not bias at all. You must look at everything from a completely neutral persepctive. Well done you.

And I see you are an advocate of the 'Warnie had a sore toe that day' argument which basically means sweet FA. If you are going to do that to Ponting then at least be consistent and do it to everyone else.

And yes they averaged 50 over that time, but did they ever average 64 over a period of 8 years?