Clarke ranked best batsman in world

"indisputable that he is the greatest everall rounder and probably the finest cricketer ever. " Indisputable? I think that Sobers might dispute that. As for being the finest cricketer ever, I don't think he's a contender. He wouldn't make my top 10, and perhaps not my top 20.

Pointless trying to explain Kallis's class. indisputable that he is the greatest everall rounder and probably the finest cricketer ever. Just not flamboyant. For many, many years he had to hold back as a fragile South African batting line up forced him to keep his wicket intact - many time he was the de facto opener. And then he had to bowl as a front line bowler and then he had to concentrate for hours on end as first slip. Imagine that endurance and concentration? Only in the later years did the bowling load lessen and he got some help from other batsmen. Bear in mind,too, that he had to face Warne, Mcgrath and many other great bowlers. I am an Englismen but Kallis is pure class and I doubt we shall see his equal for a very long time.

I think when it comes to punishing batting, when in form, AB De Villiers and KP (ok he is horrible at the moment), are the best to watch of the modern era. Kohli, Dilshan and Jayawardene as well.....and is it Akmal the middle order player for Pak that can be devastating...

I liked the Aust v rest of the world game when we topped the world rankings - and had Haydos, Gilly, Warne, McGrath, Ponting etc all at their peak.

And that game wasn't even considered first class so the statisticians will tell you that it was no more significant than a back yard game at your mum's at Christmas. Yet the farcical county warm up matches between seasoned county players and the kids at the university centres of excellence are considered first class.

Yeah, I like the World XI idea, Vas. I remember watching a game during WSC - Aust v World XI. The World XI had players like: Barlow, Proctor, M Khan, A Iqbal, Z Abbas, stars from the WI & a shooting star quick from SA - Garth Le Roux. Boy was that some game.

I wonder how much stock does anyone pay to the individual player rankings. While I can accept Michael Clarke being considered a benchmark performer, the truth is that he is one among many that can be considered as an elite player. And I think it is folly trying to separate them in the sense the ICC rankings attempt to do. This is simply a marketing ploy to try and increase the player's individual sponsorship value, for now Spartan Sports can now happily shout from the rooftop that they have the world's best Test batsman in their books. Rather than these inane monthly rankings, I find a better thing is to create a World XI every three months. That actually is a more accurate description of who our elite cricketers are.

Oh fair enough but he best remembered for his patience in these parts. Anyway one-eyed? Jonnybok?

How can anyone argue with the rankings? It's all done on stats, with more weight to recent matches getting lighter the further back you go. Weight is also given to whether you're at home or not and how strong the opposition is. It's a set formula and done solely on performance. Technique and style mean nothing in the end - runs scored are king. As for Kallis - sure, he can be boring at times, but sometimes you have to be. You can't argue with his performance.

Yes, I agree. He's a very stylish driver of the ball. I never understand why people think he's boring, he's technically rather beautiful to watch.

Kallis is class, and has the best cover and on drives in the game at the moment. To mock his style shows how little you one-eyed supporters know about cricket. He is also a classic outswing bowler with a heavy bouncer, and reaches 145km/h regularly at an age of 36. clarke is playing well but that Indian bowling attack is a joke without their true leader harbhajan.

And about as useful in a quick single....

Clarke also played some good knocks against SL, Sth Africa and NZ, although his overall figures in those series were in the 40s (SL, SA) and 50s (NZ). Dilshan - averaged in the 20s in 4 of his last 5 test series (a great average of 84 in 2 tests v England in 2011 breaking up that sequence, including his only century across those 5 series). You're going to have to look pretty darn amazing to be number 1 with those stats! Chanderpaul - terrific player but a purist's nightmare so you can only be judging him on results and/or grit. He's played consistently, without really dominating, since a very good series averaging 75 against Sth Africa in 2010. Not a clear case to be number 1. His real purple patch (when he was ranked 1) was a couple of years before that (a span of 6 series averaging more than 100 three times, including against Australia and England, 80 odd against Sth Africa, 60 and in the 40s). Sarwan - averaged over 100 against England in 5 tests in 2008-9, and had a good series against Australia and a very good one against SL before that. In 5 series (each only 2 tests) since then, he's averaged in single figures twice, and in the teens, twenties and thirties once each. Not too sure what he'd need to look like to get a number 1 rating based on those returns.

As you would like to think Johnno, actual runs scored on the field tends to rate higher than general appearance. And besides that, Clarke's strokeplay was essentially a season-long highlights package - it's not as if all 626 of his runs were nicked between second and third slip...

Johnno you must be thinking of the Style Council not the International Cricket Council. Some fine exponents you lauded however, Jacques Kallis is about as stylish as an old boot.

i did watch the summer Brett. Yes but brett what about the Indian and Sri Lankan batsman, where is the respect for the wristy and elegant strokemakers of the sub continent in these rankings , not enough respect to be no 1 it seems Brett. Players like Dilshan are what cricket romantics love to watch, not the rough and tumble style of our pup from west sydney, I thought the people who do these ratings would look more favourable upon the Dilishan, Chanderpual, and Sarwan type of batsmen.

Johnno, did you watch any of the Tests this summer?? Clarke had a pretty decent time at it..

That i find hard to believe Clarke is the no 1 batsmen in the world. Some said he was in danger of losing his spot before the season started let alone being the no 1 test batsmen in the world. I hope whoo ever decides these rankings has been accurate with the stats becoz i do find that hard to believe Clarke being no1 . What about Kallis, and some of the top sir lankan and Indian batsmen , very hard to believe that pup is the no 1 test batsmen in World cricket.

Siddle is up to no.4? And to think a lot of Aussies wouldn't have him in the test team. I think he and Pattinson are safe, and you've got Hilfy and Harris fighting for the 3rd quicks slot. Can there be three better all rounders than Watto? Kallis I guess, who are the others? I'll have to have a look. Al Hasan is 1, Kallis is 2 and Broad is 3.