One batsman to bat for my life? Sunny Gavaskar

True

I'm a west indian fan from Trinidad and have seen all the greats of that era at the queens park oval include boycott and the bowling gavaskar took on no doubt he's the greatest opening batsman the world seen.

What nobody mentions B.A.Richards? Bradman said he & jack Hobbs were the greatest

"Man, it don't matter where you come in to bat, the score is still zero." Viv Richards to Sunil Gavaskar at Madras 1983. Gavaskar had decided to come in at no 4 for that Test. But Malcolm Marshall got Anshuman Gaekwad and Dilip Vengsarkar for ducks. Gavaskar had to walk in at 0/2 and made 236 not out so dude he may not have opened, but had to bat pretty early on!!! I am a Gavaskar fan. I'm old enough to remember him playing and I think he was a much better test batsman than Sachin. I would in fact say that he could have played a lot more attacking cricket but was forced to cut out some of the more risky shots because of the fact that India had a really crap team at that time. With the exception of GR Vishwanath, there weren't really many top players. As for those unfortunate souls who have only seen Sachin and who just can't be bothered to read any cricket books or watch any of the old videos, all I can say is that you are a deprived lot!!! Len Hutton rated him highly and said that if he'd been an Englishman most people would have rated him a lot higher. Gary Sobers and Viv Richards said that he was the best. Sunny Gavaskar and Viv Richards remain my favourite players ever. I think a lot of Aussies and English don't like Sunny because he called a spade a spade. I can remember commentary from that time, the patronising racist crap that ppl in England especially used to come out with!! thank God those days are gone, but SMG stood up for what he believed and I admire him the more for that! The comparison with Bradman is pretty much pointless because the conditions, the bowlers etc were all completely different. If you want to look at every batsmen ever, then I think Victor Trumper would have a pretty good case. From what I have read, he could bat on any surface and score easily on really difficult wet/sticky wickets whereas Bradman was never comfortable on such surfaces. Such comparisons are pointless I think. I can say with reasonable confidence that if Sunny Gavaskar had been English, the British press would have annoited him the best batsman ever!!!

I applaud your praise of Sunil Gavaskar.Statistically he was the best of all opening batsman and above all set all the batting records against the greatset ever pace bolwing attacks.No great batsman has faced such outstanding bowling.The best innings I ever saw of this maestro was at Bangalore against Pakistan in 1987 where he reminded you a of s urgeon performing a successful operation on an incurable patient.I alos can't goget his 221 at the Oval where he almsot enabled India to gain a historic victory in arun chase.In the modern era he may have broken all the records with the wickets becoming more placid and the bolwing relatively easier.Technically Gavaskar was 2nd only to Len Hutton and no great batsmen posessed his amazing powers of concentration.Surely in the top dozen batsman of all time,edging out Greg Chappell or Alan Border. However I would still consider Jack Hobbs the best opening batsman as he negotiated the treachorous wet tracks of his time with match-winning centuries.Imagine scoring 117 centuries after the War and 98 after the age of 40 including 12 against Australia .He defoned the Golden age of Criocket.Hobbs was alos a match-wining batsman if you remember his centuries in 1926 at the Oval and 1928-29 Melbourne.Len Hutton was on par with Sunil considering his brilliance on bad pitches.Where Hutton and Sunil fell out were that they did not consistently dominate the opponents like Barry Richards or Arthur Morris. To bat for your life my ultimate batsman was Ian Chappell of Australia who outscored even brother Greg or Viv Richards in a crisis.He literally held the fort for his team and Gary Sobers rated him the bset batsman in the World in 1979.On par would be Javed MIandad ,Steve Waugh and Jacques Kallis and in a losing cause Alan Border.In his day Javed Miandad was the best when the chips were down while today Jacques Kallis is the ultimate bat for your life player-surpassing even Tendulkar.

@Still Alive @Bayman - Like most of us you are whinging and banging on about stats with blinkers on. But other than quantitative verbage you haven't proved your points with any meaningful stats. @pmitra has a strong, irrefutable case here which I'm sure even the Don would agree with.

Now the $64,000 question is: Who would I like to keep stats for my life: Mitra or Bayman?

Mitra, I, for one, am not suggesting for a minute that Kallis is better than Tendulkar. I am merely pointing out that statements relating to Tendulkar's exalted position MAY be over-stating the case a little based on a simple thing like Kallis' average over his career. A run here or there is nothing. In Bradman's case, however, it's 43 runs more than SRT. Even you might see the significance - and the context is Test cricket over a 20 years span. You answered the problem yourself with "the use of any other stats". The trouble is you want everyone to believe your stats without question. All people have done is question your conclusions and, in some cases, provide an alternate interpretation. Still waiting for the names of the "several" over 70 for a decade, by the way.

Mitra, My comment on averages? If you go back over the previous comments here I hadn't commented at all - until you dropped yours for the umpteenth time on the Roar. I was just worried you'd got lost. As for Sangakkara and Kallis I don't care either way - both good players and even great players. As for Hussey, had he retired, we would have had only conjecture. He didn't retire and now we know he's not as good as Bradman - or, indeed, Tendulkar. Of course, that's just a personal view. I'd still want Bradman batting for my life. More chance of getting a hundred, more chance of turning it into a big one. Mind you, Mitra, ten percent of Bradman's completed Test innings were ducks so, like life, nothing comes with a guarantee.

Kersi, My respect for you is such I accept your kind reproachment. This is one topic we can discuss further when we next catch up.....

Sorry, Mitra, for breaking my own "commandment" and bringing back Bradman to this interesting debate. Sheek, let me rush to Bradman's defence. He was far from being a nasty person. A nobody like me wrote to him in 1993 and I received a very pleasant hand-written reply. I am the proud possessor of his four letters. He wrote favourably of every cricketer (especially Ernie Toshack of 1940s fame) and always mentioned his beloved wife. A wonderful person was Sir Don. He not only hosted Gavaskar and Tendulkar at his home but welcomed members of my community from India. Bradman was not only a great cricketer but an equally good human being. Bill O'Reilly did not like him as a person but always said that he was the best batsman he had bowled to or had watched. Roareres are most welcome to add insights on legendary cricketers but NO STATISTICAL comparisons, P-L-E-A-S-E!

Oh, Like I mentioned to Bayman.. could we shift to the David Lord article please? And I've answered this absolute hokey about "sticky pitches" there...batsman avg. 70/80 etc for decades at a timec against the Oh-so-torrid English opposition...I would venture to think that the 20/30s were tied with the 2000s as the golden years of batting. Anyway, If you wish we may continue there.. Kersi has already gone on about this. His article is on a different topic- and we are all guilty of disgressing.

p mitra, I get the impression it must burn you with bitter frustration that no matter how hard you try, you can't dislodge Bradman from being superior to your Indian heroes Tendulkar & Gavaskar. You want context, then consider this - let's say Bradman played in a weak era of cricket in the 1930s. So weak in fact, that his average is over-valued by 25% (one quarter). So let's take his average down by one-quarter to..........74.96. Guess what? Despite lopping a massive 25% of his batting average, he's still about 13-14 batting points ahead of Graeme Pollock, George Headley & herbert Sutcliffe, who are all in the high 60s. I agree stats aren't always the final word, but when using them, we need to use them objectively & judiciously. I'll give some more context. I reckon specialist batsmen who played between about 1895 & 1914 were 10-20% better batsmen. Why? Because they played with no helmets, & had only the most rudimentary body protection, on wickets that varied wildly due to them not being covered. Pitches weren't manicured to the same extent they are today with modern technology, & the outfield grass was usually more roughly cut, thus slowing the ball up more often. And you have heard of 'sticky' wickets, haven't you? That's when the pitch has been exposed to overnight rain, & becomes virtually unplayable the next day, with no two deliveries landing in the same spot behaving the same way off the pitch. Indeed, you could argue the 10% higher batting averages right up to the beginning of WW2, in which case Bradman's average would jump to a whopping 109.93! Now, conversely, I reckon today's professional batsmen, perhaps since 1985 (even though helmets were worn in tests from about 1976/77), should have their batting averages reduced by between 10-20%. Why? The big reason is helmets. Batsmen no longer have to rely on their wits for survival. Or fear of being struck senseless in the head. Helmets, body padding, elbow padding, thigh padding, all give the batsmen a confidence & security to face the fastest bowling available. How batsmen from the old days would have loved such luxury of opportunity & peace of mind! Then there's the pitches. Science technology has improved enormously. Wickets are better prepared, & generally truer to bounce & movement. And when the ball penetrates the infield, it will generally run quickly to the boundary over short-cut, well-manicured outfields. Let's not forget bat technology. Bats have come such a long way, that a superior bat hitting the ball in exactly the same spot as as a less quality bat, will send the ball further. All these things help the modern batsmen in a way that olden day batsmen could only dream about. It's not Bradman's fault he didn't play as many tests as Tendulkar. It's not Bradman's fault he never played one day cricket. Those options weren't available to him. But based on what was available to him, Bradman performed deeds beyond anyone else before him or since. Now before you accuse me of being Australian & favouring one of my own, I don't much like Bradman the person. He was a nasty, sneaky personality who was capable of being doubled faced to his team mates, & later as an administrator. You don't get to be the most ruthlessly successful batsman in history, without possessing a mean streak. As Bradman's time melts into the vastlessness of history, & there are fewer people to speak of him firsthand, no doubt 'revisionists' will come along & try to discredit his achievements in some way. Like I said above, just lop off 25% of his batting average for no justifiable reason, & he's still the best. So whether or not anyone else likes the fact, Bradman is the greatest test cricket & 1st class batsman in history. Everyone else is jostling for 2nd place.....

Ha, Good one Kersi. I'm only afraid Bayman is going to come hollering back complaining that you should have interchanged the Don with Sachin!

Humour is the best way to diffuse a debate. Here is an e-mail joke (modified): Sir Donald, "GOD created me to entertain spectators and keep statisticians busy." Baron Boycott: "GOD created me to help spectators with insomnia." Lord Thommo, "GOD created me so that spectators can see blood on the pitch." Sachin," I DID NOT!"

Bayman, How about you leave a note here to the effect : "Guys, we are now on the David Lord article, please follow us there".. And so leave Kersi alone.

Oh, actually It was merely a reply to your comment using "averages" . Also, the other comment you have seems to be a mantra to the effect "But Kallis has a better average" And, again, I point out things such as : till just a little while back someone like Sangakarra had a better average. So, a simple question, Till a year back would that make Sangakkara a better batsman than Kallis (Kallis 15 yr career not withstanding)? Hussey had an avg. of 80 after 35 Test inn. If he retired at that point (for whatever reason) - would that make Hussey the 2nd best batsman after the Don ......and ,hence by extension, Way way way better than Tendulkar and co.? (And personally First class figures again require serious context. Lots of batsman have good or great first class figures. Hick etc....International cricket is a different ball game. What next- club figures?)

Strange, People go on harping on Bradman's (or now Kallis's) average without the remotest of context. Then that is ok. The use of any other stats which may throw a different light on the matter then becomes "lies, damn lies and statistics"? Actually, I agree too. That is the point. Most cricket stats require extensive and rigorous context. One of the most commonly used, the batting average, is just a rough ball park indicator. To keep head banging about it moaningly with lines such as "but kallis avg. is better than tendulkar's" (hence attempting to portray that kallis is the better batsman) without even the remotest hint of context is beyond belief

Amazing, I have put up clear stats for a whole DECADE. Tendulkar's and Bradman's best DECADES. Bradman "maintained" his standards over a relatively paltry 80 inn (no ODIs), with just 23 inn. in the '30s. If you could "prove that any a tail ender was the world best batsman" for a DECADE..I would love to see this.

Strange, I wasn't about to continue the Bradman-Tendukar debate (after Kersi's stern warning) But, a couple of points: 1)The point is essentially Bradman is the best of his day, Tendulkar as of his. 2)Harping on about Kallis marginally better average ad infinitum is delusional. Till just a while back Sangakarra had the best "average". 3)Tendulkar has some 10,000 international runs more than this guy- amazingly at a similar avg. 4)Tendulkar at his best , over a DECADE was 15 % better than the next guy ( this is not a "longevity" factor) 5)Kallis,Sangakarra etc have never, ever had a decade where they are that much ahead of the pack. 6)The bulk of Kallis and co.s runs/reason for high average are due to the 2000s. A much more pleasant period for batting, with Tendulkar suffering his worst run due to mid decade injuries(fact not fiction) 7)So, the point is that much the same way that inspite of scoring 10,000 runs more than Kallis , over a longer period, through injury, tougher 90s conditions etc he still avg. as good as any of his contemporaries.....That is somewhat what the Don has done....he has "maintained" his avg. over 80 inn. 8)So, in a sense that is the key. Even a batsman like Hussey avg. 80 after 35 inn. The odd thing is that inspite of being familiar with the above (hopefully)...you still cannot accept the facts. The longevity factor has come in now...when Tendulkars avg. is still as good as anyones (as mentioned inspite of it all) But "longevity" wasn't the only factor at the end of the 90s , was it?