> harish shah says...
> >> >I'd like to take a look at the list, in any case. I wonder how many
> >> >batsmen with an average of over 50 or 55 *don't* have their names on that
> >> >list. I wonder if SMG, the only Indian to be a very likely candidate in an
> >> >all-time world XI, appears on the list.
> >> Here are those batsmen with 50+ averages (great?) who missed out on the list.
> >Thanks a heap. Very interesting list. There's no doubt in my mind that the
> >likes of Sutcliffe, Barrington, Weekes, Hobbs, Walcott, Compton and
> >Miandad qualify as great. So, Tendulkar is in very good company.
> Tendulkar and Barrington seem to be in the same mould, workmanlike consistency.
> BTW, just checking records of Weekes and Walcott. Walcott home average 70 away
> average 40. Is that Great? And Weekes has to be the biggest weak attack bully in
> history, he scored a century almost every innings he played in India and NZ,
> easily the weakest attacks in late 40s early 50s (something like todays Zim and
> BD), but fared extremely poorly in Eng (avg 30) and Australia (avg 25). Miandad
> has a poor record in WI, Australia, SL and also Zim, I would stop short of
> calling him great.
Thanks. I had not really looked up the stats, just gone by what I read and
heard abt Weekes, Walcott and Miandad. Perhaps they don't belong in the
"great" category, as you say, but my point is made even without them -
surely, Hobbs, Compton, Sutcliffe and Barrington still constitute very
> >I am surprised not one of Gilchrist's 3 test 100s has found a place in the
> >top 100. I don't claim to know everything abt all the innings ever played,
> >but I think Gilchrist should count himself even more unlucky than
> >Tendulkar to not be on the list.
> I am surprised by your comment. Gilchrist with only 3 test centuries in some 20
> tests unluckier than SRT? Gilchrist's centuries came in the company of another
> batsman/men getting runs, so that worked against him.
Yes, I guess that is one minus-point in Gilly's 100s. But considering the
situation of the game when these 100s came and the *way* they were made
(unbelievable counter-attacking hitting from a not too advantageous
position), surely this minus-point is offset.
By saying Gilchrist is a shade unluckier than Tendulkar, I'm not trying to
imply he's a better batsman or anything. I'm only saying that he has as
many, or perhaps more candidate 100s than Tendulkar to be on that list. I
rate Tendulkar's 136 at Madras and the 169 at Capetown as his best 2 100s.
And I think Gilchrist's first 2 100s were at least as good as these two.
IMHO, of course.
Of course, Tendulkar has 20-something other 100s while Gilchrist only has
1 other, but the list only rates the innings themselves, not what else the
player in question has done.
> >I have heard a lot about Sir Jack Hobbs' 100 vs Australia at Headingley in
> >1926, BTW, so I'm also surprised that innings doesn't figure in the list.
> >I would assume thus that not having played one of the great knocks of all
> >time doesn't preclude one from being one of the greatest batsmen of all
> >time. Otherwise, The Master himself wouldn't qualify, what to say of
> >> H Sutcliffe
> >> E Paynter
> >> KF Barrington
> >> ED Weekes
> >> SR Tendulkar
> >> JB Hobbs
> >> CL Walcott
> >> GE Tyldesley
> >> CL Davis
> >> Vinod Ganpat Kambli
> >> AC Gilchrist
> >> J Miandad
> >> A Flower
> >> MS Sinclair
> >> DCS Compton
> >> >Clearly, because VVS Laxman appears on the list, it doesn't make him a
> >> >great batsman. But does the fact that Tendulkar *not* appear on the list
> >> >make him any less great than he would otherwise be, considering his record
> >> >otherwise, his 55+ average, the dozens of very good though not great
> >> >innigns he's played, etc.?
> >> >-Samarth.
> >> >I certainly hope you haven't quoted Frith
> >> >> selectively in order to create a sensationalist headline: the material you
> >> >> have quoted gives the impression he doesn't understand the difference
> >> >> either, which I can't imagine is the case.
> >> >> Andrew