Top 10 Indian Batsman Of All Time!!!(both Odis And Test)

[thevortex]

I am not good with numbers, roshanrocks. I did see that interest with all the youtube videos as well. Great job with that! I can see it called for immense patience and dedication.

[Roshanrocks]

yea... it took me 2 hours :((

[SJS50]

SJS - why did you take Amarnath off that list? I thought he would have been better than Vengsarkar' date=' dont you think? Not questioning. Just trying to understand the reasoning.[/quote'] Read the line under the list :-)

[zen]

If batting in India and England was that easy how come Amarnath averaged only 30 runs in these two countries? Pray, why couldn't the greatest Indian player of fast bowling average more than 11 runs against the WI in India during the 87/88 series when Vengsarkar averaged nearly 3 times (avg. 102) as anybody who played the entire series. Going by your logic it should have been much easier playing them in India than in WI? Btw, the only away series victory (outside the subcontinent) for India in the 80s came about in England '86 because of one man who is according to you the most over-rated batsman of all time. Remember the Leeds Test match? In conditions as alien to India as it can possibly be he scored 102 out of a team total of 237 in the 3rd inning to set up the victory for India. The point is not to malign Amarnath but considering selective performances and drawing conclusions based on that is a little stupid in my opinion.

Well guys like Veeru don't do well against teams like BD so such phenomenan (where a guy does well against tougher oppononets/tough conditions) are hard to explain but Amarnath has shown that he is one of the best players of fast bowling around and that he is better than the likes of Vensarkar, imo. Saying that Vensarkar is over-rated doesn't mean that he is bad. As I said, Vensarkar was more of a FTB imo. His away record is simply pathetic (esp considering he has played 62 tests abroad). And those performances in Eng have already been acknowledged in my post you replied too! Those performances don't change anything for someone who has played 62 tests away. He is bound to do well in 4 or 5 tests considering that he was a good player. And there is no point in bringing in 88 series against WI as Amarnath was past his best and in the last phases of his career. And Amarath is rated highly for his performances in the opposition's den :winky:

[teacup]

Well guys like Veeru don't do well against teams like BD so such phenomenan (where a guy does well against tougher oppononets/tough conditions) are hard to explain but Amarnath has shown that he is one of the best players of fast bowling around and that he is better than the likes of Vensarkar, imo. Saying that Vensarkar is over-rated doesn't mean that he is bad. As I said, Vensarkar was more of a FTB imo. His away record is simply pathetic (esp considering he has played 62 tests abroad). And those performances in Eng have already been acknowledged in my post you replied too! Those performances don't change anything for someone who has played 62 tests away. He is bound to do well in 4 or 5 tests considering that he was a good player. And there is no point in bringing in 88 series against WI as Amarnath was past his best and in the last phases of his career. And Amarath is rated highly for his performances in the opposition's den:winky:

His career average at home against the WI is not much better either - only 16. The truth of the matter is both Vengsarkar and Amarnath had lopsided home and away averages.

[Temujin Khaghan]

Laxman is a joke

...until we play a quality pace bowling attack in our next test match.

[zen]

His career average at home against the WI is not much better either - only 16. The truth of the matter is both Vengsarkar and Amarnath had lopsided home and away averages.

To make things simple, lets talk abt Amarnath and Vensarkar's performances in the tests that they have played together, i.e. 58 tests in Australia Amarnath - Avg 56, 100s 2 Vengsarkar - Avg 40, 100s 0 in Eng A - Avg 30, 100s 0 V - Avg 58, 100s 1 in Ind A - Avg 34, 100s 2 V - Avg 68, 100s 7 in NZ A - Avg 36, 100s 0 V - Avg 14, 100s 0 in Pak A - Avg 57, 100s 4 V - Avg 34, 100s 0 in SL A - Avg 72, 100s 1 V - Avg 18, 100s 0 in WI A - Avg Avg 60, 100s 2 V - Avg 28, 100s 0 In 58 tests that they have played together (means playing on same surfaces and against the same bowlers over 58 tests, which is a huge sample), Amarnath has shown that he is a better player. There is no way Vengy becomes becomes better just because he milked on flat tracks (which someone like Jaffar did as well in India) You can be all surprised at people who think Jimmy is better and come up with stale arguments for Vengy but that doesnt change anything except showing that you need to sharpen your cricket knowledge :winky:

[vvvslaxman]

Mohinder was the best player in two of the toughest series India ever played. 82/83 Pakistan where India had to counter Imran khan and their umpires and 83 series against WI in WI. Problem with AMarnath was he was not consistent. He would score lot of runs and suddenly go through a drought. Vengy on the other hand had displayed phenomenal consistency around 1986 . He played 16 tests and made 1667 runs. He became wisdent cricketer of the year. Hard to choose between them. But Mohinder lost his place very often coz of his inconsistency.

[teacup]

To make things simple, lets talk abt Amarnath and Vensarkar's performances in the tests that they have played together, i.e. 58 tests in Australia Amarnath - Avg 56, 100s 2 Vengsarkar - Avg 40, 100s 0 in Eng A - Avg 30, 100s 0 V - Avg 58, 100s 1 in Ind A - Avg 34, 100s 2 V - Avg 68, 100s 7 in NZ A - Avg 36, 100s 0 V - Avg 14, 100s 0 in Pak A - Avg 57, 100s 4 V - Avg 34, 100s 0 in SL A - Avg 72, 100s 1 V - Avg 18, 100s 0 in WI A - Avg Avg 60, 100s 2 V - Avg 28, 100s 0 In 58 tests that they have played together (means playing on same surfaces and against the same bowlers over 58 tests, which is a huge sample), Amarnath has shown that he is a better player. There is no way Vengy becomes becomes better just because he milked on flat tracks (which someone like Jaffar did as well in India) You can be all surprised at people who think Jimmy is better and come up with stale arguments for Vengy but that doesnt change anything except showing that you need to sharpen your cricket knowledge :winky:

You winky-winky is getting old. There is nothing in your post that disproves what I have said earlier. Both have lopsided home and away averages. A batsman is likely to play half of his matches in his home country and if you think an average of just 30 on those surfaces is relatively ok when compared to averaging about the same overseas, then it is just a matter of opinion and not a fact. Plus, you cannot say Vengsarkar can play only on Indian pitches when he has played better than anyone in English conditions. And kudos for the high opinion you have on Indian wickets.

[Tapioca]

in SL A - Avg 72, 100s 1 V - Avg 18, 100s 0

So Vengsarkar was much inferior to Amarnath in Sri Lanka, right ? They played one series in SL. Amarnath missed the first Test due to injury. In this match, Vengsarkar played a 7 hour, 98 not out in the second innings, out of 251 all out, that saved India from certain defeat. Given another 20 minutes, SL would have won. Amarnath's 116* in the same series came in a fairly benign wicket, with India in the lead and after Srikkanth had destroyed the Sri Lankan bowlers, and out of 325 for five. Statistics without context.

[zen]

You winky-winky is getting old. There is nothing in your post that disproves what I have said earlier. Both have lopsided home and away averages. A batsman is likely to play half of his matches in his home country and if you think an average of just 30 on those surfaces is relatively ok when compared to averaging about the same overseas' date=' then it is just a matter of opinion and not a fact. Plus, you cannot say Vengsarkar can play only on Indian pitches when he has played better than anyone in English conditions. And kudos for the high opinion you have on Indian wickets.[/quote'] Who said I am trying to disaprove you when what you said I already wrote in one of my post. The point is that both have their pros and cons but I think Amarnath is better for his performances against some of the best teams of his era in their back yards :winky: .... And more importantly, there is no need for ppl like you to get their ass worked up when someone says that Amarnath > Vengsarkar (as if he is not), when in the end you have to imply that whoever you pick is a matter of opinion (which is something you should have understood before being surprised at someone picking Amarnath over Vengsarkar)

[zen]

So Vengsarkar was much inferior to Amarnath in Sri Lanka, right ? They played one series in SL. Amarnath missed the first Test due to injury. In this match, Vengsarkar played a 7 hour, 98 not out in the second innings, out of 251 all out, that saved India from certain defeat. Given another 20 minutes, SL would have won. Amarnath's 116* in the same series came in a fairly benign wicket, with India in the lead and after Srikkanth had destroyed the Sri Lankan bowlers, and out of 325 for five. Statistics without context.

Those stats are for the games where both Jimmy and Vengy played together, i.e. playing on the same surfaces and against the same bowling attack. That was to do a direct head to head b/w them! Since Amarnath missed that game (like you said), you can't assume he would have failed

[zen]

Here is my top 10 for tests (in no particular order) - Gavaskar - Tendulkar - Dravid - Sehwag - Hazare - Merchant - Amarnath - CK Naidu - - For 9 and 10, there are quite a few options so it becomes harder to pick

[Tapioca]

Those stats are for the games where both Jimmy and Vengy played together, i.e. playing on the same surfaces and against the same bowling attack. That was to do a direct head to head b/w them! Since Amarnath missed that game (like you said), you can't assume he would have failed

That is exactly what I am pointing out. It is supposedly fair statistics, but gives an extremely skewed impression of what really happened in the ground.

[zen]

That is exactly what I am pointing out. It is supposedly fair statistics' date=' but gives an extremely skewed impression of what really happened in the ground.[/quote'] It doesn't because we have taken a huge sample of 58 tests where they played 'together'. And as I said that Amarnath missing a test doesn't imply that he would have failed. Also if Vensarkar only managed to average 18 in the remaining tests and if you are arguing that playing a 98* on a difficult wks shows that Vengy was on par/better than it only vindicates my point as to why performances in WI and Pak are rated so highly

[teacup]

Who said I am trying to disaprove you when what you said I already wrote in one of my post. The point is that both have their pros and cons but I think Amarnath is better for his performances against some of the best teams of his era in their back yards :winky: .... And more importantly' date=' there is no need for ppl like you to get their ass worked up when someone says that Amarnath > Vengsarkar (as if he is not), when in the end you have to imply that whoever you pick is a matter of opinion (which is something you should have understood before being surprised at someone picking Amarnath over Vengsarkar)[/quote'] Yeah right! Calling someone who served the country well for 15 years as an FTB just to express an opinion that Amarnath > Vengsarkar is pretty cool.

[zen]

Yeah right! Calling someone who served the country well for 15 years as an FTB just to express an opinion that Amarnath > Vengsarkar is pretty cool.

The term used was "more of an FTB" (than ....) :winky:

[Temujin Khaghan]

most of the indian cricket journos are also like the fans who are mostly after romanticising the stylish cricketers over the players who were not so stylish but played gutsy cricket when it mattered. thats the problem with the indian cricket literature. you will find a lot of articles about how silky laxman and vishwanath are and not much about players like amarnath etc...