Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond

[The Outsider]

1. Hammond did not face too many, if any, sub 25 averaging bowlers. Rameez Raja faced the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Bishop, Kapil, McGrath etc. etc. 2. Hammond did not face any super phaasht greater than 88.342 mph bowlers, even if he did - prove it. Rameez not only faced theses in tests, he used to regularly pad up against 3 super phaaashht bowlers in the nets as well. 3. Rameez Raja faced two all time great spinners in Warne and Murali. In One days he might have faced Kumble as well. Hammond did not face any of these bowlers. 4. Hammond never played a test in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Completely untested in the subcontinent. Rameez's elegance shone through specially on these kind of dust bowls. 5. Hammond never faced up to reverse swing - Rameez mastered it and also taught his teammates how to bowl it. 6. Hammond benefited from shoddy fielding standards of his time. Rameez had to contend with one of the best slip cordon in history when he played against Australia and the generally superb fielding of the modern era. 7. Rameez had to constant shuffle between ODIs and tests - Hammond could just concentrate on one format. In fact, Rameez ended up winning the world cup in the shorter format as well proving his importance in both formats. 8. Hammond had the advantage of getting accustomed to conditions being part of longer tours. Rameez had to rush into from one match to another. 9. Less hectic traveling schedule. Rameez was your modern globetrotter. 10. Hammond benefited from the friendly leg before laws. Poor Rameez had to restructure his entire batting to negate getting out leg before so often restricting his often imperious stroke play at times. 11. Rameez opened against the fearsome bowling attacks of his time, Hammond had to hide in the middle order. 12. The sledging that Hammond faced was nothing compared to what Rameez had to endure during his playing days. Huge factor in determining averages and difficulty of conditions. 13. Rameez Raja, on his 12 favorite grounds, averaged 59.05 more than Hammond's career average! 14. Rameez Raja played in an era when wins and losses meant much more than in Hammond's era. With so many handicaps for Rameez, I think in the modern era with batting so much more difficult his average of 31.83 easily surpasses Hammond's 58.45. Keep in mind, Hammond barely averaged 50 against Australia and that 58 is mainly a result of bashing minnows, which unfortunately Rameez never got the opportunity to do - poor guy never even played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/14022.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/42420.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

[zen]

Bossbhai will be proud of that :hysterical:

[Lurker]

:hysterical: I concur. Rameez "Hairy" Raza was da bomb.

[Sooda]

Yes, Im convinced too. :adore: Rameez (btw why did you pick HIM , all of the pts in the OP would hold true for dozen other batters reet :hmmm: ? not that I mind- Rameez is a legend..AND why are we doing this repeatedly..didnt Wicky do an Aggy v Wasim one already...)

[vvvslaxman]

Point 9 :hysterical:

[Serani]

Rameez also had to play in the match fixing era leading to increased pressure in the knowledge that some of his team mates were cheating and may have asked him to under perform, this mental strain must have affected rameez performance in a major way.

[vvvslaxman]

Rameez also had to play in the match fixing era leading to increased pressure in the knowledge that some of his team mates were cheating and may have asked him to under perform' date=' this mental strain must have affected rameez performance in a major way.[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

He was a smooth "operator" :haha:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Serani]

yeh but Rameez had to bat with the knowledge that he would one day become a terrible comentator distracting him from piling on the runs.

[Lurker]

12) Rameez carried 3 times the burder than Walter Hammond ever did...in terms of hair.

[zen]

Rameez also had to play in the match fixing era leading to increased pressure in the knowledge that some of his team mates were cheating and may have asked him to under perform' date=' this mental strain must have affected rameez performance in a major way.[/quote'] :hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

lol ... problem here is that unlike SRT vs DGB ... Rameez has barely a third of runs that Hammond did .... whereas SRT has almost twice as many as DGB ....

But i don't think Hammond would have scored more than ramiz in Ramiz's era because bowling is difficult :winky:

[Mr. Wicket]

*Spittake* ****ing brilliant.

[zen]

But i don't think Hammond would have scored more than ramiz in Ramiz's era because bowling is difficult :winky:

Rameez also played like 30 tests less, which is roughly 50 innings (deducted 10 innings where Rameez's high score would have insured that the opponent followed on). In 1991, when he was at the peak of his powers, he averaged 149, so taking that in to account, after 50 innings he would have got 7500 more runs. Add that to his 3000 runs so that's 10500 > Hammond's 7300 :--D

[Serani]

Rameez Raja > Bradman?

[yoda]

yeh but Rameez had to bat with the knowledge that he would one day become a terrible comentator distracting him from piling on the runs.

:hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

Great so you agree that those who scored far more than 7249 must be infinitely better than Hammond ( at the risk of offendind Janab Rameej Raja's phans here ) :--D

Nope.. I agree with the point anyone who played from 1988 and 2011 are far greater than anybody who played in the 30s.

[Ram]