Cricket's 3 best batsmen

[Sultan of spin]

There are 3 standout batsman in the world today: Hayden, Lara & Tendulkar. I think you could mount a very strong argument for all of them being number 1. Personally I would say Lara from Tendulkar and Hayden. But like I said you could make a strong case for any one of the 3. Maybe the current series they are playing in will give us more info on which to judge them. Lara leading his side in SA and Tendulkar and Hayden against each other down under. All 3 are crucial to their sides chances in those series.

[commonwombat]

Sensible analysis, Sultan.

[Donny]

Fellas. Fellas !!

Sensible, you say, wombat ?! Sorry, just not correct to say all 3 are crucial to their teams chances.

Tendulkar didn't score in Brisbane and India outscored Australia by 80 odd runs. When India had that fantastic win against Australia in India, it was Laxman and Dravid who did the damage.

When the Windies beat Australia, recently, in the fourth Test, it was Chanderpaul and Ganga who hit centuries. Not Lara.

It wasn't just in the World Cup final that Hayden didn't get runs and Australia still ran up that mammoth score. We do remember Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Waugh, Gilchrist & Co. don't we ?

So often it's trotted out that Tendulkar is vital to their success. What success !!?? Please tell me. He isn't rated in the bottom half of the top 10 for nothing.

Aren't you blokes forgetting a couple of reasonably talented batsmen ? One R Ponting and one A Gilchrist ?

It's no surprise they're rated right up there with Lara, and second only to the obvious number 1, Matthew Hayden.

And one more thing. You won't see Tendulkar or Lara blast their way through the 80s and 90s and past 100 like Hayden or Gilchrist do. Or get out for 99 because their team goals come first.

[Sultan of spin]

You are talking about one off matches, I am talking about form over a whole season or even longer. I agree that Hayden may not be as crucial to Australia winning as Tendulkar and Lara are to their teams. But can you see India or West Indies winning a test series against top oppistion without Lara and Tendulkar dominating? I know I can't

Oh and I thought Lara was a very close second in the rankings, not behind Ponting or Gilchrist.

[Donny]

That's what I was trying to say, SoS. India and West Indies have not been winning Test series.

India did win against Australia but it was Harbhajan Singh who dominated, not Sacred Sach.

[Donny]

OK, let's look at a whole season from a batsman you didn't even mention.

Ponting has hit a century every 3 innings over the last 12 months. He has 10 centuries from his last 22 Tests at an average of 80.

Sure, Tendulkar is a very fine batsman and few looks better than Lara, on his day, but let's get real. 3 standout batsmen in the world today and one of them isn't Ponting !??

[London Dave]

I'd go with you on Ponting there Donny....he has had his dancin boots on for a while now, Hayden still strikes me as a bit of a cowboy (though a bloody good one!)

[Donny]

Yes, agree about the cowboy bit. Apart from a beautiful cover drive, he does bludgeon the ball to the boundary.

When rating players, there are two distinct ways of looking at the question. 1/Style 2/Effectiveness.

Players like Stephen Fleming, Mark Waugh and David Gower are/were great stylists with silky smooth skills but average/d under 45 in Tests.

Lara, Ponting, Sach, Martyn, Dravid, etc. are all very stylish batsmen with averages in the fifties and then there's Gilchrist and Hayden with better averages than all of them.

They're also great team players who keep the 'pedal to the metal' when needed. I know which type of player I'd rather have in my team.

The contrast was stark as, last night, I watched Graeme Smith power to 90 then stop as if shot as he took singles from balls he was hitting to the boundary, earlier. The bowling didn't suddenly get better, he simply had his mind on the century.

Of course, there are times when batsmen have to dig in and guts it out (Hayden and Gilly can also do this when the situation demands it) but this was not the case with Smith.

He and Gibbs had put on 150 for the opening partnership and the undermanned Windies attack were struggling on a batsman friendly wicket on a very hot day.

[commonwombat]

Donny,

If I were an uncouth individual, sorely tempted would I be to tender you advise to stick a sock in it.

My response to Sultan's post was to his observation that any of those mentioned have legitimate claims to being labelled numero uno whereas others for their various reason's are pushing barrows for their particular man.



Those Australian chauvenists amongst us are pushing Hayden and dare I say it we would need a gag to stop CC when in full flight about the Prince.
Will grant some credence to yr contention re Ponting, he is certainly making a credible case for a Gang of 4, uncertain starter as he can tend to be.

Gilly, his destructive capabilities are undisputable but would be loath to put him in this elite category. My reasoning is that he is batting at 6-7, whereas the others in the frame are in the consistent pressure of top order batting (ie top 4). Could he bat here?? Quite probably, but the fact is that he does not.

You may note that I have NOT ventured an opinion on a number 1. Nor will I. This is always going to be totally subjective and coloured by whatever biases the person may have be they patriotic frenzy, aesthetic judgements or whatever.

You fall upon statistics but therein lies another question does it not. To what extent do take our analysis. Career long?? Recent form, and correspondingly how long do we define as recent?? Do we analyse the relevant and subjective quality of oppositions?? Home and away form???

Indeed Tendulkar may be said to have had greatest consistency career long, whereas Lara was for better or worse an inconsistent performer and participant for much of the later 90's-2002. Hayden has only cemented a test place over the last 2-3 years. Ponting has had his awkward periods.

[Donny]

I've resisted responding to the above post for over an hour so I didn't sink to the same level of personal insult evident in the first sentence.

If I had answered earlier I would've been tempted to point out the almost incomprehensible second paragraph.

Hell, if I was as uncouth as a wombat, I probably would have pointed out spelling mistakes like 'advise' and 'chauvenist'

I could also have explained the correct meaning of 'chauvinist/ism' and told the story of Nicholas Chauvin, one of Napoleon's soldiers who had a fanatical belief in all things French being better than anything else.

Armed with such knowledge, even a wombat could see that my assessment of Ponting (and other Australian batsmen) was based on facts and figures and not because they are Australian.

Having read through the usual wombatisms, I was still looking for some reasonable debate on this subject when the post abruptly stopped !

And, in any case, who bloody cares who's considered the best at anything ? I simply injected a bit of rationale (noun: an explanation of the fundamental reasons) into the discussion.

Yes, I possibly would've said a few of those things if I'd replied earlier but I'm glad I resisted. Otherwise I might've written something as uncouth as what the wombat wrote in the opening line while pretending not to say it.

After all (in the wombat's own words) - he's an animal, what can u expect!!!

[commonwombat]

Donny,

Had I chose to insult or personally attack you, please be assured that it would have couched in far more explicit terms than those expressed. May I draw your attention to the fact that YOU have chosen to throws darts in my direction, both in this thread and others.

Or is it the case that you are self-declared immune from return fire. Yes, I have noticed previously such a reaction when I have chosen to return your barbs in kind. This may not be the case, but it does create such a perception of someone chosing to be a protagonist then upon receiving return fire, putting on a referees cap and crying foul.

I don't particularly mind having darts thrown at me as firstly I'm rather capable of getting myself into strife and secondly if you engage in debate you have to expect and accept opposing argument. What DOES rankle is being patronised. Again I am willing to accept this is not yr intention but the nature of some of yr correspondence does create that perception.

To the topic at hand.

Firstly I stand guilty as charged on the score of incorrect spelling, mea culpa. One tries one's best but one is not always on the top of one's form after finishing work at 6.30am. I was called away so I did stop my earlier post abruptly.

I did NOT accuse YOU of national chauvinism (BTW I was familiar with M.Chauvin) however there are others on this site and in the general population with that outlook. I am by no means critical of CC and his Lara adulation, good on him.

I DO bring yr attention to the topic heading. Does it not refer to Hayden being the best?? My view stated was simply that I am not keen on making such judgements. People find whatever criteria they chose to make their subjective judgements be they aesthetic, statistical or indeed coloured by nationality.

With regards to yr points, I thoroughly agree with yr criteria of style and/or effectiveness. Also Ponting has claims for being judged amongst this top bracket. What, we agree, has hell frozen over. Yr statistical point has the cautions that I mentioned previously as to how you chose to look at them. Surely such concerns as period of reference, opposition quality, number of games, where they've played have some merits.

To close, if you were offended by my little stick it up yr jumper crack, then I certainly apologise. It was not intended as a personal insult rather as a little go jump rejoinder to what I found a snide crack on yr behalf. If you do have a problem, feel free to PM me.

[Donny]

Here's an example of the sort of stuff that journos write which has cricket followers thoughtlessly repeating the line/s about Tendulkar and Lara.

Under headlines of "Brilliant Lara" and "Lara stands Alone" we read - well I do and it seems lots only read the headlines - quite a different story.

Amongst descriptions of his, at times. wonderful batting we find these:

"... when he was struck several painful blows and at a time he was being worked over by Andre Nel"

"... The turning point of the day came after an hour when Lara had scored 15. Makhaya Ntini, in the middle of a hostile opening spell, worried him with a vicious bouncer and then, two deliveries later, induced an edge off an overpitched awayswinger. The ball flew to first slip, where Shaun Pollock palmed it, juggled it four times while he contorted and dived, before finally spilling what was a bread-and-butter chance"

"Lara, his early nervousness revealed by his jittery footwork, gradually begun to show glimpses of his vintage self ..."

"... generally he was largely subdued, and offering only one half-chance to a full-stretch Peterson in the gully when he was in his sixties"

"His duel with Lara in the final session was absorbing, and for three overs Lara barely survived, ducking, being struck twice ... "

"Lara, pinned down for almost an hour by Nel and Ntini ..."

Credit where it's due and Lara's effort has kept the Windies in this Test but can we please keep things in perspective.

If Pollock had held that "bread-and-butter chance", he would have made 15.

[Sultan of spin]

If Ponting had of been given out LBWwhen he should have been early in his innings and then not been dropped he wouldn't have made it to 20 and If Ponting had not have dropped Laxman he would not have made a ton. You can't talk down Lara for giving a chance at the same time as talking up Ponting when he did the same.

The reason Ponting isn't in the same class as the other 3 was shown today, his continual failure when placed under pressure which is usually in the 2nd Innings. When Australia have lost test matches recently Ponting has always failed in the second Innings. When he can prove himself in that pressure he might earn the right to be placed in the same class as the others.

[Donny]

SoS, I'm quite happy to address the points you brought up.

1. Ponting. I was not 'talking up' this batsman. There are few big innings in Tests when a batsman doesn't get a bit of luck.

You said, "You are talking about one off matches, I am talking about form over a whole season or even longer" so I replied with, "Ponting has hit a century every 3 innings over the last 12 months. He has 10 centuries from his last 22 Tests at an average of 80.

Sure, Tendulkar is a very fine batsman and few looks better than Lara, on his day, but let's get real. 3 standout batsmen in the world today and one of them isn't Ponting !??"

2. I suggest you look at second innings scores for Lara and Tendulkar and give us a few examples of either one batting their team to Test wins in second innings.

Perhaps when Lara and Tendulkar can achieve the consistency to score a Test century every 3 innings and average 80 over a two year period, they may earn the right to be placed in the same class as Ponting.

[Sultan of spin]

Australia Vs West Indies in Barbados March 26-30 1999. West Indies are set 308 to win in the final innings and slump to 5/105 but manage to win by 1 wicket due to a brillant 153 not out by Lara.

West Indies Vs Ski Lanka in Jamica 27-29 June 2003. West Indies set 212 to Win are 2-50 when Lara comes in but win by 7 wickets with Lara 80 not out

Lara's record in 4th innings of a test
1182 runs @ 39.4

Lara's record in his team's second innings of a test
2997 runs @ 42.5

Ponting's record in the 4th Innings of a test
353 runs @ 32.1

Ponting's record in his team's second innings of a test
1052 runs @ 32.8

Tendulkar's record in his team's second innings of a test match
2576 runs @ 46.8

I Will give his 4th Innings record at the conclusion of his innings today