That seems somewhere reasonable.

Does tier 1 have only one player? It really should.

Yeah definitely a flat track bully

I was thinking he is separate category. Give me 24 hours and I’ll go into the lab on it

OK...I did it quickly (minimum 50 innings)

All Universe: Bradman

All time Great

Hobbs
Hammond
Hutton
Sobers
Sachin
Lara

Truly Great

Sutcliffe
Barrington
Weekes
Walcott
G Chappell
Gavaskar
Miandad
Richards
Dravid
Kallis
Kumar
Ponting

(S Smith and Kohli probably in here but careers not over)

'Great'

M Yusuf
Younis Khan
S Waugh
Hayden
Compton
Border
Jayawardena
Worrell
Sehwag
Flower
Clarke
Neil Harvey
Inzy
++Prolly 10-15 others from pre 80s when

not sure what I think of Hussey, Shiv?
Boycott prolly deserves to go in tier 3 but I just can't do it.

thoughts?

Controversial but I reckon Pietersen deserves to be in list number 3.

Batted in England in tougher conditions, and actually batted at a rate that allowed England to move matches forward in ways they otherwise wouldn't (so often they would be 220 runs in a full days play, but with him they would be ~300). Also a big factor to their first Ashes win in donkeys in 2005.

Yes, I’d agree with that. Not that this matters in the context of history, but IMO he’s been the best English batsman of my cricket watching lifetime...and I’m almost fiddy. Root probably averages more, but I’d take KP any day. (Just not to have a beer with)

To be honest, I didn’t put much work into tier 3 - I’d lost momentum by that point. If I have the heart I may think it through in more detail this evening

I wouldn't call Sehwag a great. What was his record like outside of India?

Ave 44.6

For comparison Hayden was 42.7 away from
Aus

I guess it was more non-subcontinent matches I'm interested in - there is an article in 2012 where he had played 99 test matches at that point (he played 104 in total) and averaged 36.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/v...ntinent-592283

No Sangakarra?

"Kumar" in truly great. Weird that OP went from last names to just first name for him but he probably couldn't be arsed to spell it lol.

i can mainly cope with all the vowels in Sri Lankan names but I knew I'd get the consonants wrong!

did I incorrectly omit anyone from the top two groups? eg should Viv be in the higher group?

I'm guessing if I did, it's more likely to be from pre modern times, which few of us have any visibility on....or from players I may have omitted due to the 50 innings qualifier

eg George Headley was by all accounts incredible and averaged 60. Graeme Pollock too.

and maybe there was a Victor Trumper, CB Fry type player from very early on who played on uncovered pitches in horrific conditions who'd have averaged 55+ with massive bats and perfect outfields and going off for bad light? but it's too big a projection

so I did a little research after your initial question and came up with this...tables with the best/worst test batsmen in terms of their relative average of their 'away' and 'home' batting performances

https://www.cricketcountry.com/artic...cricket-332592

on the above lists...

Wally Hammond, Ken Barrington and Allan Border appear in the 'best' list (along with my all time hero Dennis Amiss)

Walcott, Compton, Clarke, Jayawardena, Weekes, Yousuf all appear on the 'worst' (along with Mike Hussey who almost made the cut)

Bookmarked. Appreciate the effort. I'll get back to this this week.

Without thinking properly, the lowest "great" tier is probably going to have loads of alternative players. + there's a dearth of Saffas and Kiwis anywhere in those lists. Which could be reasonable ..

sorry, this is just me rambling. Let me try to grab some time in the next couple of days to attempt a coherent response.

[edit] Yeah. Headley should appear somewhere here if you are including pre-war English players, I suppose. There are probably Aussies who should as well if Sutcliffe is in the 2nd (non-Bradman) tier. Barrington seems a tier too high, but I don't really know much about his career.

Yeah Yusuf and Clarke aren't all time "greats" of the game. Just very good players.

maybe the third tier should be called something else?

hard to argue with Sutcliffe averaging over 60 as an opener in an era of uncovered pitches. (albeit...lbw law was different I guess?). also...WW1 meant he didn't play 1st class cricket til he was 24.

re Saffas - I think Pollock needs to be on a list. Only 41 innings but by all reports he was incredible.
I think Graeme Smith might squeeze onto the third list...AB de Villiers too?

there's a guy called AD Nourse who averaged 53 from 35-51 who I literally know nothing about...anyone?

Does anyone listen to the grade cricketer podcast? Is there a better cricket podcast out there if I'm to listen to 1 per week?

I listen every week, I love it. Don’t listen to any other cricket podcasts so can’t give any recommendations, sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The book was amazing. I'm not a big podcast guy but it would be my sense of humour.

-----

Pakistan 101/7 vs a 4th string England lol

That list needs Williamson in the 2nd or 3rd tier...

Love the Grade Cricketers tweets and will be buying his book at some stage

yes. I haven't included the current players, but he's at least in the third group and potentially in the second if he finishes his career well

As far as New Zealand goes, I'd have Martin Crowe in tier 3.
Loved watching him bat.

For the list:

Chanderpaul?
G Smith?
Amla?