Best Indian batsmen overseas

[Muloghonto]

In the last 20 years there hasn't been a better player overseas than Sachin. Sachin is probably the only batsman in the last 20 years or so who averages at least 40 in every country he has played in. Sachin has faced tougher bowling and pitches in the 90's than any other Indian player from the current generation. It was the poor nature of the Indian team which was the reason India could not make the most of some of Sachin's brilliant 100's in the 90's. Rahul Dravid was part of a better team in the last decade and yes he has many more match winning knocks but again the bowling attacks and pitches are nowhere near what the batsman of the 90's faced. There were only 3 batsmen who averaged in 50's in the 90's. Sachin, Lara and Waugh that tells something about the pitches and bowling attacks during that era.

This.

[Muloghonto]

Regarding Gavaskar and Sachin comparison. It is difficult to choose one, but Gavaskar's extraordinary record against the WI is a little over rated. Gavaskar piled a lot of runs against WI when the WI team did not have the best bowlers in the team. ---------- During his first series against WI in 1971, Gavaskar scored 774 at 154.80. But this WI was not a pace battery - the bowlers in the series were Boyce, Shillingford, Holder, Sobers and Gibbs. As you can note, Gibbs was an excellent spinner and the rest of the bowlers are not legendary pace bowlers. In the 74/75 home series, Gavaskar scored only 108 runs at 27 against an attack spearheaded by the young and fiery Andy Roberts. In 75/76 away series, Gavaskar did very well with 390 runs at 55. But WI attack was still not the four pronged pace attack, though Roberts and Holding were there and they did not figure together in all the matches. 78/79 home series in India saw a weak WI team due to the Packer series. No Roberts, Holding or Garner and Gavaskar plundered 732 at 91 in a very high scoring series. 82/83 series away series, 240 runs at 30.0 against a very good bowling side. Nothing extraordinary though. 83 home series Gavaskar took a heavy toll on a good WI attack, though some of the tracks were very flat and high scoring. Overall, the verdict is that Gavaskar did very well against WI, but Gavaskar did not play a strong WI side between 76 to 82. The argument that Gavaskar always faced strong bowlers is a complete myth. For me, Tendulkar edges Gavaskar, but not by a big margin.

Total nonsense. First things first: this whole '4 prong pace battery = 4 of Holding,Garner,Croft,Marshall & Roberts playing' is a total myth. Those 5 shared a pitch with any of the other 3 a grand total of less than 10 times. WI came up with a pace battery model after they got hosed by the Aussies in 75 but they went to 'two great pacers plus others' since 1971 itself. WI attack in 71 was poor, granted but a debut series with 700+ runs in foreign conditions, against a top 3 team ( WI,Eng and AUS were the end-all,be-all of cricket after the Saffies got dumped) is no joke. In 74/75, they had Roberts, Holder, Julien and Gibbs- an excellent attack, which would be a top 4 attack today. in 76, he played agianst Holding, Roberts and two competent side bowlers, who would again, quite easily be in the top 3 bowling attacks today. in 78 we saw a WI attack that was weak on paper, yet, quite easily better than any international attack of that time barring the Aussies and WI themselves: the team had Sylvester Clarke, who was a greater bowler than any ever produced by India but simply didn't get the chance and then got blackballed for Apartheid tours. He is a definite 'alltime great bowler who didnt get the chance in test cricket' candidate. It had holder, an excellent & solid bowler, a young Malcolm Marshall as well. 82 was the only time he had a terrible series against a good WI side but 82 was also the only time Gavaskar had nagging back issues bothering him. in 83, he destroyed what was possibly one of the top 3 attacks to've ever taken the field together and it didn't matter he faced them in India- that attack was harder to face in India than South Africa is going to be in South Africa this year. So this whole 'Gavaskar didnt do well against the excellent WI attack' is mostly a myth. He destroyed them at home and got bettered away when he was injured, at the very peak of the WI might. But except for 71, the WI have had a better attack than India and the rest for most of this period.

[Muloghonto]

To answer the poll, best Indian batsman overseas: 1. Tendulkar 2. Gavaskar 3. Dravid 4. Laxman 5. Merchant 6. Amarnath 7. Hazare 8. Vishwanath 9. Sehwag 10. Ganguly

[JaFanatic]

To answer the poll, best Indian batsman overseas: 1. Tendulkar 2. Gavaskar 3. Dravid 4. Laxman 5. Merchant 6. Amarnath 7. Hazare 8. Vishwanath 9. Sehwag 10. Ganguly

agree with the top 3 :nice: not sure about the remaining

[adi B]

op is not clear if its test batsmen or odi batsmen .. what about indian odi batsmen in overseas condition?

[rkt.india]

TBH, Sylvester Clark was nothing special.

[Marut]

Total nonsense. First things first: this whole '4 prong pace battery = 4 of Holding,Garner,Croft,Marshall & Roberts playing' is a total myth. Those 5 shared a pitch with any of the other 3 a grand total of less than 10 times. WI came up with a pace battery model after they got hosed by the Aussies in 75 but they went to 'two great pacers plus others' since 1971 itself. WI attack in 71 was poor, granted but a debut series with 700+ runs in foreign conditions, against a top 3 team ( WI,Eng and AUS were the end-all,be-all of cricket after the Saffies got dumped) is no joke. In 74/75, they had Roberts, Holder, Julien and Gibbs- an excellent attack, which would be a top 4 attack today.

Holder had a bowling average of 33. Julien averaged 37. Only Roberts and Gibbs were the real threats. Yeah, 33 and 37 avg medium pace bowlers of the 70s would make a top 4 attack today.

in 76, he played agianst Holding, Roberts and two competent side bowlers, who would again, quite easily be in the top 3 bowling attacks today.

But he failed during this series. That is the point.

in 78 we saw a WI attack that was weak on paper, yet, quite easily better than any international attack of that time barring the Aussies and WI themselves: the team had Sylvester Clarke, who was a greater bowler than any ever produced by India but simply didn't get the chance and then got blackballed for Apartheid tours. He is a definite 'alltime great bowler who didnt get the chance in test cricket' candidate. It had holder, an excellent & solid bowler, a young Malcolm Marshall as well.

Packer weakened WI side. That is it. Their three best bowlers weren't there. Clarke was good but wasn't one of the sub 25 bowlers of the WI side. His best bowling figures ever were 5/126, which is no where near other WI greats. The young Marshall was just finding his feet then and averaged 88 during this season. None of these bowlers including the young Marshall could have challenged a batsman of the calibre of Gavaskar.

82 was the only time he had a terrible series against a good WI side but 82 was also the only time Gavaskar had nagging back issues bothering him.

That is where if he had conquered the WI side, that would have dispelled my arguments. Against the best WI side, Gavaskar did not have too many answers though he batted really well.

in 83, he destroyed what was possibly one of the top 3 attacks to've ever taken the field together and it didn't matter he faced them in India- that attack was harder to face in India than South Africa is going to be in South Africa this year.

Yes 83 was a good performance. The myth I was talking about is "Gavaskar tearing to shreds all great attacks he faced in his career".

So this whole 'Gavaskar didnt do well against the excellent WI attack' is mostly a myth. He destroyed them at home and got bettered away when he was injured, at the very peak of the WI might. But except for 71, the WI have had a better attack than India and the rest for most of this period.

It is not. Gavaskar was the best openers of his times. He was very good against fast bowling attacks. But his superhuman average of 65+ against WI is an inflated figure because Gavaskar averaged about 40 overall (which is good) and 35 away when the real Wi quicks were operating.

[Marut]

they asked our batsmen to chase 120 odd runs to win a series essentially in WI in 1997 which should not too much to ask , but what did all the mighty batsmen with Sachin included do they got out to magnificent 80 odd runs When your batsmen collapse to 66 all out you don't give bowlers much chance. Bowling was not that better in 2000s it is just batting showed some spine.

Well, Dravid is my most favourite Indian player because he led India to many memorable wins that Sachin did not. But Sachin was quite unlucky in that during most part of 90s, when he was unbeleivably good ( only one of the three batsmen of the 90s to average 55, but 2000s had a dozen of them, showing Sachin was damn good against a superior bowling), he was completely let down by other Indian players. I cannot even describe how many times I had switched off the TV in disgust once Sachin got out as I knew India were lost. Sachin at his best was better than Dravid at his best, both in scoring rates and the way he scored them, but Dravid made more of his runs count for the team because during the 2000s we were better as a team.

[sivanand]

Missing name is The Lord of the Lords in the poll.

[CSK Fan]

Well, Dravid is my most favourite Indian player because he led India to many memorable wins that Sachin did not. But Sachin was quite unlucky in that during most part of 90s, when he was unbeleivably good ( only one of the three batsmen of the 90s to average 55, but 2000s had a dozen of them, showing Sachin was damn good against a superior bowling), he was completely let down by other Indian players. I cannot even describe how many times I had switched off the TV in disgust once Sachin got out as I knew India were lost. Sachin at his best was better than Dravid at his best, both in scoring rates and the way he scored them, but Dravid made more of his runs count for the team because during the 2000s we were better as a team.

I think you summed it up very well. I will also add the fact that when India rose to no 1 in tests, for that period, Sachin had the highest average in wins. this was when he was in his last years, imagine if he had the same team at his peak1

[Muloghonto]

TBH' date=' Sylvester Clark was nothing special.[/quote'] Tell that to Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, etc. who were terrorized by Clarke in the rebel tours. Sylvester Clarke, much like Rajinder Goel, would've been an alltime great, easily making the playing XI of any side in the world, had he not been born in the era of greatest talent & depth in the WI system of fast bowlers. Quite easily an alltime great and the consensus is unanimous amongst those who've faced him.

[rkt.india]

Tell that to Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, etc. who were terrorized by Clarke in the rebel tours. Sylvester Clarke, much like Rajinder Goel, would've been an alltime great, easily making the playing XI of any side in the world, had he not been born in the era of greatest talent & depth in the WI system of fast bowlers. Quite easily an alltime great and the consensus is unanimous amongst those who've faced him.

have seen a video of him, did not look anything special, poor bowling action. Another example players from the past glorified to a new level. He was not as quick as people make him to be. Intimidation was what made a lot of bowlers good on those days but it does not work now. You need to have exceptional skills to be successful as a fast bowler nowadays because pace alone does not bother batsmen much.

[Muloghonto]

Holder had a bowling average of 33. Julien averaged 37. Only Roberts and Gibbs were the real threats. Yeah, 33 and 37 avg medium pace bowlers of the 70s would make a top 4 attack today.

As usual, you are a number analyst who has very limited concept of the game. Holder would quite easily walk into any attack of his time bar Australia. Certainly would've played for India, Pakiland, New Zealand and even England for i cannot think of an English bowler better than Holder, bar Botham version 1 and Willis.

But he failed during this series. That is the point.

So what ? When your back seizes up and you got to play against 4 bowlers who will bounce it to your throat all the time, not even God himself could do much. You number analysts have very little clue or idea of the context of the game.

Packer weakened WI side. That is it. Their three best bowlers weren't there. Clarke was good but wasn't one of the sub 25 bowlers of the WI side. His best bowling figures ever were 5/126, which is no where near other WI greats. The young Marshall was just finding his feet then and averaged 88 during this season. None of these bowlers including the young Marshall could have challenged a batsman of the calibre of Gavaskar.

Clarke was not just good. he was an alltime great who didnt get the proper breaks, ala Rajinder Goel. No lesser authority than Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards have said so. His bowling average is far worse than it should be, but then again, lets see how anyone does when they are in and out of the lineup over a 5 year period, playing less than a dozen matches. Clarke, IMO, ranks along with Garth LeRoux and van der Bjil as one of the alltime great fast bowlers not to get sufficient exposure in test cricket. Again, this is consistent with virtually all professionals who've played against them.

That is where if he had conquered the WI side, that would have dispelled my arguments. Against the best WI side, Gavaskar did not have too many answers though he batted really well.

Against the best west indies side, at home, Gavaskar demolished them. He remains the ONLY batsman in test cricket to've scored a run-a-ball century against the four prong. If he'd conquered WI in that tour, despite his back issues, i'd have rated Gavaskar as clealy the #2 batsman ever after the Don. That he did't do it, only makes him mortal and still the most enviable record against the best fast bowling attack.

Yes 83 was a good performance. The myth I was talking about is "Gavaskar tearing to shreds all great attacks he faced in his career".

It is no myth, he did tear them to shreds in 83. He remains the only batsman to've scored a run-a-ball test century against the four prong. He also happens to've done better against the WI pace battery over his whole career, than any other batsman. That is sufficient.

It is not. Gavaskar was the best openers of his times. He was very good against fast bowling attacks. But his superhuman average of 65+ against WI is an inflated figure because Gavaskar averaged about 40 overall (which is good) and 35 away when the real Wi quicks were operating.

You know nothing, as usual. His superhuman average is boosted by his record in 1971, which idiots dismiss by reading the scorecard as 'against a weak attack', which is more than made up by the fact that it was his debut series and anytime a debutant is smashing a top 3 attack around the park, it is a hall of fame achievement. The 'real' WI quicks were operational from 1975 onwards and Gavskar remains the only batsman to've utterly demolished them over a series and looking mortal against them only when injured. Quite easily the most dominant of batsmen against extreme fast bowling

[Muloghonto]

have seen a video of him' date=' did not look anything special, poor bowling action. Another example players from the past glorified to a new level. He was not as quick as people make him to be.[/quote'] He was quicker than Imran at his peak, so says Graeme Pollock. As for poor action, LOL. he had one of the most economical actions i've ever seen- not sightly but brutally efficient on the body, ala Courtney Walsh's action (not similar, but extremely efficient on the body as well). Bowling action is not about looking pretty. One of the most devastating fast bowlers of all time ( Mike Proctor) delivered off the wrong foot. Goes to show you how much the whole 'correct action' is worth. He utterly dominated a Saffie lineup including Pollock, Richards, Rice and considering the consensus that the saffies of the 70s-80s would've been a close competitor to the WI for champion status and clear #2 if not banned, makes his achievement quite exemplary. FYI, the only bowlers with a 'near perfect action', as defined by the classical books, that ive seen succeed at the very top level, are Alan Donald, Dale Steyn and Dennis Lillee. Everyone else had some weird or unconventional thing about their action. Of the post 90s era, give me pitches of the 70s and early 80s and everyone barring Tendu, Lara and Ponting would've been doing the chicken dance. Fast bowling back then was a lot more intimidatory, but no less skilled.

[rkt.india]

As usual, you are a number analyst who has very limited concept of the game. Holder would quite easily walk into any attack of his time bar Australia. Certainly would've played for India, Pakiland, New Zealand and even England for i cannot think of an English bowler better than Holder, bar Botham version 1 and Willis. g

Numbers tell you a lot especially for a bowler. He might have been a good bowler, but the stats suggest that he was not a real wicket taking bowler. He might have threatened a few batsmen but without wickets, he was not going to make much of difference.

[rkt.india]

He was quicker than Imran at his peak, so says Graeme Pollock. As for poor action, LOL. he had one of the most economical actions i've ever seen- not sightly but brutally efficient on the body, ala Courtney Walsh's action (not similar, but extremely efficient on the body as well). Bowling action is not about looking pretty. One of the most devastating fast bowlers of all time ( Mike Proctor) delivered off the wrong foot. Goes to show you how much the whole 'correct action' is worth. He utterly dominated a Saffie lineup including Pollock, Richards, Rice and considering the consensus that the saffies of the 70s-80s would've been a close competitor to the WI for champion status and clear #2 if not banned, makes his achievement quite exemplary. FYI, the only bowlers with a 'near perfect action', as defined by the classical books, that ive seen succeed at the very top level, are Alan Donald, Dale Steyn and Dennis Lillee. Everyone else had some weird or unconventional thing about their action.

There were no speed guns so you cannot be sure who was quicker who was not. Regarding action, his left arm used to fall too early which leads to loss of pace. I will never go what people or ex-players says. I have seen that they usually exaggerate things a lot. Regarding Proctor, it was his bowling action which made it difficult for batsmen to face him. Proctor had an unusual action like Malinga an Tanvir have, but nowadays with all the video analysis available batsmen can get hold of that which was not the case back then.

[Muloghonto]

Numbers tell you a lot especially for a bowler.

Numbers dont tell you much in most sports. Which is why in most sports, coaching and players go by completely different parameters than your average fans. As i said, if your career was 10 matches spread over 5 years, ie, averaging 2 matches/year, lets see how good your numbers are. Chances are you are comming in on short notice, filling in for injuries and have not been afforded any chance to integrate into the bowling unit and then you are gone for the rest of the year. You cannot discount the 'playing one or two tests a year' factor. Its not like Clarke was given 10 matches in a trot, he didnt do too well and got discarded.

He might have been a good bowler, but the stats suggest that he was not a real wicket taking bowler. He might have threatened a few batsmen but without wickets, he was not going to make much of difference.

Stats, as i say, are solely used only by fools who do not understand the game or the venture, for stats in every sense is a very limited encapsulation of reality. What about the bowler who bowls excellently but the guy on the other end picks up a wicket through half volley ? Who is the greater bowler ? And if you are so enamoured by stats, then please look at the rebel WI series South Africa and explain to us how does an ordinary bowler pick up 4 five wicket hauls in 5 'unofficial tests' against a lineup featuring two of the greatest batsmen ever by expert opinion? You have your stats. I have seen Clarke. I also happen to know that virtually every batsman who's faced him rates him in the top 5 they've ever faced. It doesnt take a genius to figure out which is more likely: that the limited scope of statistics does not encapsulate Sylvester Clarke or that virtually all who have played the sport professionally know less about a cricketer's worth than kids like you looking at stats.

[Muloghonto]

There were no speed guns so you cannot be sure who was quicker who was not.

Speed guns are largely irrelevant, since quickest delivery and being consistently quicker are two different things. Regardless, i will go by what the batsmen say- if they say he was bloody fast, its obvious that he was faster than Kapil Dev.

Regarding action, his left arm used to fall too early which leads to loss of pace.

Big deal. Guy had shoulder the size of a buffalo, so who cares. Even Malcolm Marshall had a left arm that fell away too early and too chest on, yet the fact that he was barrel chested, with a very quick action and shoulders stronger than a gorillas' means he was one of the fastest ever.

I will never go what people or ex-players says. I have seen that they usually exaggerate things a lot.

The folly of youth. You would rather trust a limited set of numbers and your inexpertese at the game over the opinion of those who have played the sport for a living and are experts in the field compard to you. 'Expert opinion' can be dismissed if they are a one-off, but not when they tend to be unanimous. But they cannot be dismissed by someone like you, who has no expertese in the field. I will take an unanimous expert opinion over those of the unrelated statistician's analysis of a set of limited numbers any day of the week and not just in cricket but in virtualy everything. Its called having enough maturity to know that people who do something for a living know more about it than you do. But don't worry, maybe you will come to your senses when someone trashes your life's hardwork while being a schoolboy.

Regarding Proctor, it was his bowling action which made it difficult for batsmen to face him. Proctor had an unusual action like Malinga an Tanvir have, but nowadays with all the video analysis available batsmen can get hold of that which was not the case back then.

Proctor was also brutally quick, had an inne and an outie and bowled a beautiful off cutter. All the while sustaining extreme speeds even deep in his spells. Quite easily one of the best fast bowlers ever.

[rkt.india]

Speed guns are largely irrelevant, since quickest delivery and being consistently quicker are two different things. Regardless, i will go by what the batsmen say- if they say he was bloody fast, its obvious that he was faster than Kapil Dev. Big deal. Guy had shoulder the size of a buffalo, so who cares. Even Malcolm Marshall had a left arm that fell away too early and too chest on, yet the fact that he was barrel chested, with a very quick action and shoulders stronger than a gorillas' means he was one of the fastest ever. The folly of youth. You would rather trust a limited set of numbers and your inexpertese at the game over the opinion of those who have played the sport for a living and are experts in the field compard to you. 'Expert opinion' can be dismissed if they are a one-off, but not when they tend to be unanimous. But they cannot be dismissed by someone like you, who has no expertese in the field. I will take an unanimous expert opinion over those of the unrelated statistician's analysis of a set of limited numbers any day of the week and not just in cricket but in virtualy everything. Its called having enough maturity to know that people who do something for a living know more about it than you do. But don't worry, maybe you will come to your senses when someone trashes your life's hardwork while being a schoolboy. Proctor was also brutally quick, had an inne and an outie and bowled a beautiful off cutter. All the while sustaining extreme speeds even deep in his spells. Quite easily one of the best fast bowlers ever.

Kapil Dev was never quick. Marshall for me was like Dale Steyn, a complete bowler but not the quickest ever. Holding was quicker than Marshall for me, same is Ian Bishop in his early years. Proctor deceived batsmen with his action. With that action, any ball will look quick to the batsmen when he does not read it. Sometimes, you can assess the pace of a bowler by looking at slips and wk standing. In fast bowling the worst thing is when people talk about, he is so big, he has so big shoulders, he must be quick. I dont think size of ones shoulder is related to being fast. Otherwise, likes of Jacod Oram, Daryl Tuffey would have been one of the fastest bowler in the world and not Brett Lee and Shoiab Akhtar. Pace has nothing to do with how big one is built.

[SLICKR392]

Can mods please make the poll public?