Best Indian batsmen overseas

[Muloghonto]

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.

Holding was a freak. Practically the smoothest runup and power transfer ever. As for Marshall, except for Waqar and Donald, nobody was as consistently quick as Marshall. As for looking at slips and wicket keeper standing, i fail to see how you are guaging their distance from the stumps from a 2d picture from a single perspective focus. Size of shoulders is not the instrumental determinant of being fast. But a large shoulder + fast action = garantee express speed. Didnt matter if your action was different- Marshall, Clarke, Akram were all primarily generators of pace from the shoulder due to their strong shoulders AND a quick action. As for Proctor not being read very well, he played county cricket for 15 years and averaged under 20. In an era when except for Gavaskar and the Aussies, all great batsmen played county cricket. You'd think that if his success was based on deception only, his performance would've declined over the years as batsmen would've figured him out. Yet, from most batsmen who've played him, he ranks as one of the best ever. Thats good enough for me but clearly, you know more about cricket than those who have excelled at the game on the basis of your interpretation of a set of limited numbers.

[FischerTal]

Can mods please make the poll public?

only admins can

[panther]

Amarnath best overseas, sidhu India best batsman of all time.

[rkt.india]

Holding was a freak. Practically the smoothest runup and power transfer ever. As for Marshall, except for Waqar and Donald, nobody was as consistently quick as Marshall. As for looking at slips and wicket keeper standing, i fail to see how you are guaging their distance from the stumps from a 2d picture from a single perspective focus. Size of shoulders is not the instrumental determinant of being fast. But a large shoulder + fast action = garantee express speed. Didnt matter if your action was different- Marshall, Clarke, Akram were all primarily generators of pace from the shoulder due to their strong shoulders AND a quick action. As for Proctor not being read very well, he played county cricket for 15 years and averaged under 20. In an era when except for Gavaskar and the Aussies, all great batsmen played county cricket. You'd think that if his success was based on deception only, his performance would've declined over the years as batsmen would've figured him out. Yet, from most batsmen who've played him, he ranks as one of the best ever. Thats good enough for me but clearly, you know more about cricket than those who have excelled at the game on the basis of your interpretation of a set of limited numbers.

Lee, Akhtar, Thomson are three quickest bowlers of all time. Waqar was sharp like Steyn but not anywhere close to Akhtar or Lee at their peaks. Check the Proctor videos and see how close the slips and keepers are which tells you he was not as quick a bowler.

Yet, from most batsmen who've played him, he ranks as one of the best ever. Thats good enough for me but clearly, you know more about cricket than those who have excelled at the game on the basis of your interpretation of a set of limited numbers.

Regarding this part, I watch videos and my conclusion is based on them and I think cricket has evolved a lot from those days and is not as simple as it used to be. Intimidation used to be a big weapon on those days, which does not work now. Even if you are decently quick, you could intimidate a lot of batsmen, not everyone but still you could as not every one was a great player. Pace was a big deal then not now. Intimidation used to result in wickets. Now, one needs to have a whole lot of skills to be successful as a fast bowler. Batsmen on those days were not as good as they are now with regards to facing pure pace. Batsmen now find movement more difficult. I don't go by purely based on what they say rather would like to see to believe because I have seen on several instances how what those ex-players say does not come out right and we all have our eyes to see and believe it. I am not saying they are 100% exaggeration, but a lot of things are exaggerated to glorify the past. Bossbhai has burst a lot of such myths on this forum in the past.

[Raghav_12]

Your criteria of average and success looks a little amusing. You call Dravid as being average in England when his scores were 95, 84 and 8, a series avg of 60+. Similarly for SA 96, you say Sachin was a success, had scores of 16, 4, 169, 9, 35, 9 at best an average series slightly better than Dada who had scores of 16, 0, 23, 30, 8, 73, 60. 241 runs in the series vs 202 runs..but one is a success, other an average performer! In any case, the point was Sachin wasn't a lone ranger in the 90s away from home, there were others who were contributing as well. A 169 vs SA had Azhar hitting a 100, if Saurav failed in WI in 97, Sidhu stepped up. I am not counting the away series in early part of Sachin's career as that was definitely not his peak. The peak started from 95-96 till around 2002. As I said, Aus 99 was the only series where everyone else but Sachin failed

Putting Dravid as average for Eng series was deliberate as I looked at the overall contribution of him in that series. He scored some 200+ runs which is around half of the runs Sachin scored in that series. Not his fault as he played just 2 tests not all 3, but you were looking here if any substantial support provided to Sachin or not.For that you can't just look at average if player has not played complete series. Key differential is that you would be hard pressed to find away tours where Sachin was a failure, until last 2 tours. But there are enough for Dravid where he failed miserably. Dravid's last flourish in England can't hide the fact that he was mediocre against good oppositions berween 2006 to Eng tour of 11.

[Muloghonto]

Lee, Akhtar, Thomson are three quickest bowlers of all time. Waqar was sharp like Steyn but not anywhere close to Akhtar or Lee at their peaks. Check the Proctor videos and see how close the slips and keepers are which tells you he was not as quick a bowler.

Waqar at his peak was consistently faster than Lee. Lee and Akhtar were 'fastest delivery' specialists, who's speed dropped significantly after bowling 5 overs in a row. Waqar prior to his back injury in 92/93, pretty much bowled 90+mph for 50-60 balls in a row. As for watching the video, again, tell us how you are inferring how far the wicketkeeper is from the stumps from a 2d image and a single reference angle that is not orthogonal or parallel to the plane of sight (the ground). That is practically impossible to do mathematically, so i wonder what your brain is actually seeing.

Regarding this part, I watch videos and my conclusion is based on them and I think cricket has evolved a lot from those days and is not as simple as it used to be. Intimidation used to be a big weapon on those days, which does not work now. Even if you are decently quick, you could intimidate a lot of batsmen, not everyone but still you could as not every one was a great player. Pace was a big deal then not now. Intimidation used to result in wickets.

BS. Yes, intimidation was a bigger factor back then, but very few batsmen got out playing the hook shot or so, the bulk of fast bowling dismissals now or 30 years ago were from edges or bowled or lbw. Takes just about the same amount of skill to do it today as 30 years ago.

Now, one needs to have a whole lot of skills to be successful as a fast bowler. Batsmen on those days were not as good as they are now with regards to facing pure pace. Batsmen now find movement more difficult.

Only in super-flat pitches of the post 2000 era do you see 'pure pace'. Prior to 2000s, virtually every pacy wicket had a bit of grass on it, so everyone who bowled fast moved the ball. Some, like Imran, Wasim, Marshall, Hadlee and Kapil moved the ball prodigiously, which would be comparable to the amount of deviation Ashwin is getting. Something this generation of batsmen would be utterly clueless to face.

I don't go by purely based on what they say rather would like to see to believe because I have seen on several instances how what those ex-players say does not come out right and we all have our eyes to see and believe it. I am not saying they are 100% exaggeration, but a lot of things are exaggerated to glorify the past. Bossbhai has burst a lot of such myths on this forum in the past.

As i said, a one-off opinion can be dismissed, but when people who are 100 times more qualified than you are unanimous about the credibility of a player, one has to realize that perhaps this player's career went a certain way that doesnt reflect accurately based on a limited set of data ( the statistics). And if we are to go by statistics, there is no way a Tendulkar in South Africa in the apartheid era would be considered as good as Toffee Kumar and that is where the assininity of completely basing opinions on statistics are. Take for example, Garth Le Roux, Vince Van der Bjil and Sylvester Clarke. Batsmen of the callibre of Barry Richards, Viv Richards, Ian Chappell, Greg Chappell, Geoff Boycott have said that had they gotten a chance, they would've had 300+ wickets (which in those days is equivalent to 500+ wickets now because they didnt play 10-12 tests every year) at a world class average. if so, then who the heck are you to question that, based on a limited set of numbers ? Unless you have re-invented cricket statistics that encapsulate EVERY SINGLE aspect of playing cricket via a mathematical formula- something that differentiates runs scored in trying to save the game with 1 wicket left vs runs scored with 40 min and 5 wickets left (definite meandering to a draw), you have no case, except a bunch of incomplete set of data. As for Bossbhai, spare me. Any 2nd year university student can take a bunch of stats and make virtually limitless number of cases with statistics. Stats are a guideline, not the meat of the matter. It wouldnt matter one iota if on statistics Kallis finishes ahead of Tendy in runs/average/centuries. The fact that virtually all the greats and pros who've played against them rank Tendy and lara ahead of Kallis comprehensively supercedes a set of limited data.

[Texan]

amarnath avgs 30.44(1370 runs in 50 inn) at home and 51.86(3008 in 63 inn) in away matches!

Looks like Amarnath didn't get along with pitch curators here :cantstop:

[Texan]

Tough to decide between Dravid and Gavaskar. I would pick Dravid slightly ahead of the rest.

[Raghav_12]

only admins can

But a good number of names can be guessed for all the options. It would be a good game (guess the poll..?) if different posters guess their names for votes that each option got and later on admin opens vote to see which poster was most successful with his/her guesses.

[Raghav_12]

Looks like Amarnath didn't get along with pitch curators here :cantstop:

he used to call selectors as "bunch of jokers" openly. So I guess whole set up was against him, including curators.

[StatsRock]

Marut wrote: In the 74/75 home series, Gavaskar scored only 108 runs at 27 against an attack spearheaded by the young and fiery Andy Roberts. I absolutely don't hold this against Gavaskar since he was recovering from injury and played Test 1 and then Test 5, scoring 86 on comeback. Nothing to conclude from that series. Instead I will pick his performance in England few months earlier against an all-mighty bowling attack. Test 1: 101 & 58 at Old Trafford, the famous test where you could not make out the pitch from the outfield, it was that green! SMG was the lone Indian batsman to stay long enough in the middle. Moreover this was only 3 years into his debut and it was the first time he was seeing such a swinging wicket, and against a 5-pronged attack(Willis, Hendrick, Deadly, Old, Greig). Sunil himself called it his most difficult hundred and equated that 57 to a century as well. Marut wrote: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. 390 runs @ 56, 2 100s and 1 50. Why is this not considered a very good series? This is after all the Bloodbath Jamaica series. His 2nd 100 laid the foundation for the victory chase of 406-4 in the fourth innings. He made 66 in the Jamaica Test when Holding was bowling 5 bouncers an over with the crowd shouting 'Kill him'. I personally rate it an epic series for him, even if he had 2 hundreds at Port of Spain which is not all that pacy. Are there any 4th innings hundreds in a victory chase by SRT/Dravid/VVS that ICFers would happily dismiss against the world's No.2 team as trivial? Some more great away series by Gavaskar: 1977: 450@50.00, 3 100s vs Packerized australia. They still had Thomson and Clarke who were quite pacy. Clarke you can cut some slack but personally I think this Aussie attack was comparable to the 2003 attack where Dravid, Sachin, VVS came to the party. 1979: 542@77; 61, 68, 42, 59, 78, 13, 221 in 6 innings vs England. Check out how Willis, Botham, Hendrick overran several batting lineups in those conditions between 1977 and 1979. I personally consider that attack equivalent to Walsh/Ambrose/Rose in WI 1997 Marut wrote: For me, Tendulkar edges Gavaskar, but not by a big margin. I'd conclude the same too, but for 2 things - I only consider Tendulkar upto 2008, secondly the margin is a lot more, as I'd give extra points to Tendulkar for all his one day achievements and still continuing to do decently in Tests. SachinLara wrote: 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. Clarke was a demon bowler. I was rolling on the floor laughing reading rkt.india's comment that he was overrated. Check this list: http://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/140119.html Yeah...I suppose somebody who shows up on a list that includes Gilchrist(Roy), Croft, Griffith, Larwood, Thommo, Holding, Ambi, Snow (skip Sarf and Walsh) was trivial to face...hahaha! But having said all that SachinLara, I will reservce judgement as I find it pointless to deduce anything from Clarke or Norbert Philip bowling on Indian pitches.(Just like I am indifferent to evaluating Lillee's 0 for 115 at Faislabad). Perhaps we might want to check how Gavaskar fared for Somerset in 1980 against Clarke in county cricket. Now moving to Amarnath: He would fight with Dravid for places 3 and 4 in my book. I'd put Amarnath as the better player of pace and Dravid for swing. Amarnath has very good figures against WI in 1975-76 and against Thommo's Australia in 1977 including a 100 and 90 at Perth. His all-time-greatest was of course the 598 runs in Windies in 83-84. However, I still feel Gavaskar was the better bat in Pakistan in the Imran series(82-83). Gavaskar had 434 to Amarnath's 584 but the last 2 tests were drawn and before they started, Gavaskar was ahead, Amarnath went on to hammer a lot in the resultless 2 tests to take it to 584. Of course I cut some slack for Jimmy's injury in 83-84 series against WI and for being forced to play by selectors. The proof of his quality comes from the fact that even though he had a string of zeroes against Windies, for the tour of Pak, Gavaskar wanted him in. When his 0,0,0,1,0,0 was pointed out, Gavaskar said, "Let him smell the land where 584 runs came and he will start scoring". Result: 1st Test 2nd innings, Amarnath prevents the ball hitting his pad, scores a match-saving 101 in the Lahore Test 2nd innings. As far Dravid, I constantly observed that he was yet to have a mega series against a powerful 4-pronged attack(Flopped in Aus 1999-00, vs Aus 2004-05). I was happy to see him do well against Eng 2011 and set his record straight.

[StatsRock]

TBH' date=' Sylvester Clark was nothing special.[/quote'] :hysterical: You should share what you're smoking with the fellows at Wisden who published this article with Clarke at top of the list http://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/140119.html

[panther]

Zahid was the fastest ever. 7OLuTfR226Y u-kt-ryfIyU EXRQQRG2bos Even after 2 back surgeries he was bowling 140+ sd_xIcRE8DM

[rkt.india]

:hysterical: You should share what you're smoking with the fellows at Wisden who published this article with Clarke at top of the list http://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/140119.html

You see when bowler like Sarfaraz Nawaz is there, you can doubt their words. Look at his bowling first. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV9rVihKbgg]Sarfraz Nawaz 9/86 vs Australia 1st test 1978/79 MCG PART ONE - YouTube[/ame]

[rkt.india]

here is you Sylvester Clark. He was a deceptive bowler, but he was not in the league of Thommo, Holding, Lee, Akhtar in terms of pace. I would be happy even if he was as quick as Tino best and Shannon Gabriel now. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA1L_cDJEEI]SYLVESTER CLARKE - Forgotten West Indies fast bowler..... - YouTube[/ame]

[panther]

You see when bowler like Sarfaraz Nawaz is there, you can doubt their words. Look at his bowling first.

:hysterical: How did this guy reverse the ball at his trundling pace

[putrevus]

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.

If Sylvester Clarke was born now he would be main bowler for WI, it is just he was not on par with those main bowlers but notch below but he would be spearhead for any other country. You are quite mistaken if you think pace was the main reason for WI bowlers success.It is pace plus bounce they achieved from short of good length which left batsmen do nothing but fend off the balls. It does not matter what protection batsmen have these days when ball is thudding onto your body, head and gloves ball after ball with no respite from any bowler batsmen get ginger feet. Whether it was Roberts was bowling his two pace bouncers or Garner spearing his yorkers from ten feet height or getting unbelievable bounce which batsmen had to play or Marshall doing his magic with his variety or Holding bowling his pacy incoming deliveries.They just were relentless. Those bowlers would knock over today's batsmen just for fun majority of whom have never learned how to keep eye on ball other than just plonking their front foot and swishing. Ask any Australian great why they rate Dennis Lillee over Glen Mcgrath , He had everything Mcgrath had plus he could bowl at pace which Mcgrath could never bowl.

[rkt.india]

Those bowlers would knock over today's batsmen just for fun majority of whom have never learned how to keep eye on ball other than just plonking their front foot and swishing. Ask any Australian great why they rate Dennis Lillee over Glen Mcgrath , He had everything Mcgrath had plus he could bowl at pace which Mcgrath could never bowl.

That is objective. They all are products of their generation. Because of the guards available, batsmen can play freely and fearlessly and that has lead to pace being rendered less effective than what it was back then.Now you need to be seriously quick in excess 155K to trouble batsmen with pace. I dont think there have been too many bowlers in the history of cricket who could bowl 155K. Batsmen today can play like that because they have no fear of being seriously injured with all those safety guards. There have been several batsmen in the past who's career got ended due to such injuries. You cannot not even think how those bowlers would have bowled today in the era of T20s and big bats and batsmen getting better at facing genuine pace. PS: Did you see Clark live? Another thing, I dont take words of experts because if experts like Chappel to be believed Rohit should have been India's best batsman and Unmukt Chand should have already been playing tests for India. Even today experts, coaches, media, exaggerate cricketers a lot. Recent example being Sandeep Warrier, according Tarak Sinha, one of the most experienced coaches in India, he has not seen a bowler like Warrier in India for a long time, people who saw him touting to be bowling 140+ and an exceptional talent as he had great start to his FC career too, and once we saw him live under the speed guns, he turned out to be another Abhimanyu Mithun, more hype less substance.

[Raghav_12]

That is objective. They all are products of their generation. Because of the guards available, batsmen can play freely and fearlessly and that has lead to pace being rendered less effective than what it was back then.Now you need to be seriously quick in excess 155K to trouble batsmen with pace. I dont think there have been to many bowlers in the history of cricket who could bowl 155K. Batsmen today can play like that because they have no fear of being seriously injured with all those safety guards. There have been several batsmen in the past who's career got ended due to such injuries. You cannot not even think how those bowlers would have bowled today in the era of T20s and big bats and batsmen getting better at facing genuine pace.

+1 It is laughable to suggest bowlers are getting slower in cricket while thinngs are getting faster/better in all other sports.

[putrevus]

That is objective. They all are products of their generation. Because of the guards available, batsmen can play freely and fearlessly and that has lead to pace being rendered less effective than what it was back then.Now you need to be seriously quick in excess 155K to trouble batsmen with pace. I dont think there have been to many bowlers in the history of cricket who could bowl 155K. Batsmen today can play like that because they have no fear of being seriously injured with all those safety guards. There have been several batsmen in the past who's career got ended due to such injuries. You cannot not even think how those bowlers would have bowled today in the era of T20s and big bats and batsmen getting better at facing genuine pace.

Who said batsmen today have no fear or don't get happy feet, did you see Phil Hughes in last test, once he got hit he was totally different player. Watch how Virat Kohli looked in WI tour after he was tested with few short pitch balls delivered by Edwards and Rampaul or look at how Indians batted in world T-20 against Australia in Bridgetown in 2010 and they were facing Nannes and Tait who could bowl fast but they never are in class of WI bowlers. If you get that awkward bounce and are pacy while being deadly accurate you will be lethal That is the formula those WI bowlers had, they did not have one or two they had four and four waiting in the wings. There was simply no respite for the batsmen from them if they got pitch with some bounce you bet it was over. Rules were changed (especially by Aussies and Pommies) to combat them like one bouncer per over and over rates so they could not be bombarded by them all day and they had to bowl spinners. Now a days you have one or two fast bowlers max per team they had four, they had all other tricks in their bag in addition to being fast. Look at bounce Garner was getting that from short of good length how do you play those.This guy bowled meanest yorkers to boot with those bouncy deliveries. ytNOth31K60