So much for the "impossible" to bat on "uncovered" pitches.

uhhhhh what about kenny barrington????????

What about him, Basim?

>> Barrington beats Border. Lawry beats Redpath
And Gavaskar beats Dravid :)

Good to see that among only Dravid and Kallis qualify to be in the 'elite' list. Hard work pays off in many respects. Hats off to these two legends.

@AB, uncovered pitches were only hard to bat on when it rained. The pitch becomes alive when huge amounts of water enter the surface. Secondly, it is impossible to bat attackingly on uncovered pitches. Note that the only 3 modern players on the list (Richardson, Dravid, Kallis) are very defence-oriented batsmen. The only aggressive batsman on the entire list is Bradman and he is an outlier everywhere so that is no suprise.

look at the scoring rates on this list. apart from bradman everyone has a strike rate less than fifty

Good to see Jacques Kallis so high up the list - more stats to go against the Kallis knockers who say he is slow & selfish - Jacques you would always be in my team.

What a nice black-and-white picture of Bradman, so poised and in control, with the fielders expectantly awaiting a scrap of something

wonderful TO SEE, THE MOST UNDERRATED BATSMAN OF THE 1990'S IN THE LIST, THE ONE WHO SHOULD ACTUALLY OPEN WITH HI FATHER HANIF IN ALL TIME PAKISTAN 11. sHOAIB mUHAMMAD SITS IN BOTH LISTS O BALLS AND STRIKE RATES.

hE IS THERE WITH MODERN GREATS OF dRAVID AND kALLIS. pLEASE SEE AGAIN.

@Gizza. Thank you for the education. Could you please also inform us why exactly it was "impossible" to "bat attackingly" on uncovered pitches?...i.e when they were dry of course

Many people talk about batting on uncovered pitches as if it is a great feat. They tend to ignore the fact that at this time, bowling was very little developed. While I cannot say, Donald Bradman and the other greats of his age were not great batsman, they did not have to face conventional swing, let alone reverse swing, off cutters, leg cutters, off breaks and leg breaks that batsmen face these days. The bouncer may just have been in the early stages of its development, but it would not have been half as lethal as it is nowadays, so it evens out when you consider the uneven pitches. So, my point is, people should not criticise batsmen these days for playing with covered pitches and other added benefits, because if you consider the lack of knowledge in the bowling area at the time, who knows, the batsman of this age might really be way better batsmen.

Hi, Putting the qualification criteria of 100 balls faced leaves out a lot of good players who were not necessarily accumulators in that sense. There are various very good test innings less than 100 balls. This is more true post 2000. In my opinion this analysis should have cut off of 50 balls, just enough to play a significant innings. Then there will be chances for those players also who have made difference in a test match in shorter time..I think the obsession with just occupying the crease in test matches has to have a limit. Might be an extreme example but Virender Sehwag is equally useful in winning test matches as compared to say Rahul Dravid..situation dependent..

Nikhil Kuchi - let's not get too carried away here. The doosra and reverse swing may be new innovations but Don Bradman's 'The Art of Cricket' first published in 1958 discusses swing bowling in considerable detail. He also discuss the leg-cutter with substantial illos of the late Sir Alec Bedser. In the 1963 edition of Wisden Neville Cardus describes the great S.F. Barnes special delivery as an in-swinging leg-cutter and quotes the Australian batsman Clem Hill describing being bowled by such a delivery - and Hill was a left-hander! By the way Barnes played his last test match in 1913.

Uncovered pitches were there but these picthes were matt over concrete picthes. These uncovered picthes only became difficult those days after rain only.

Sir Don never managed any master inning on rain affected pitches. Like Trumper was better batsman than him on these type of rain affected picthes. Also Trumper was most elegant batsman of those days unlike Sir Don.

Sir Don played cricket in two countries in Australia and in England on ten grounds in which 26 matches timeless too. Mostly matches against same team on same conditions against amatuers of England. 63 / 80 = 80% approx. innings against same team.

Hammond played cricket in five countries in four continents on twenty grounds.

Mostly matches against not same team on same conditions. Like 58 innings against Australia and 42 against S. Africa out of 140 innings.

I think Sir Don is one of the best and legend of cricket too but he is not best of the best like he played weakest attacks of ENGLAND.

Totally 148 bowlers took 100 or more in test cricket in which 56 took 200 or more and Sir Bradman faced only six of them in which three came after world war II, one died during it, one just before it and remaining one left cricket in early thirties. Five out of six bowlers from same team. Almost all bowlers were amateurs.

How we know that his 99.9 is better or Tendulkar 55.5. Tendulkar faced 57 bowlers in test cricket with 100 or more on 57 different grounds in ten countries.

Please do not say that Sir Don is best, it is just like in city ten teams are there but at initial level only two and one guy attained highest average at initial level. Can we say he is best at city level due to average. Make a common sense, without playing other eight teams how we know that he is best.

Same case Sir Bradman. He only faced one wrist spinner with 100 or more wickets that was Wright. He never faced quality leg spinners. Finger sp Laker was there but he faced him in three test matches only.

Something I've been meaning to ask. Am I correct in assuming that the NZ John Reid is actually John F Reid the left-handed middle order batsman of the 1980s - rather than John R Reid, New Zealand's original Mr Cricket?

Ric: Yes that is right!

There is no doubt that Sir Don is legend of cricket and best batsman of his era. Also very quick scorer too, concentration was also very strong. But I think if you want to analyze, you can do it like pre and post 1950 or in four quarters per century.

His average is impossible to achieve in modern era. He played seven bowlers out of 150 leading bowlers in test cricket in which I think Alec Bedser was best, medium fast seam bowler. Also Larwood (fastest) and Voce was also there. Verity was also good bowler who was slow left arm orthodox.

Sir Don faced only one bowler with 200 or more wickets in test.

Tendulkar faced 30 bowlers with 200 or more wickets in test matches in 57 different grounds.

Leading 57 bowlers took 200 or more in test matches.

Tendulkar faced
Fast + Fast Medium + Off break / Slow Left Arm Orthodox + Leg break / Slow Left Arm Chinaman
14 + 9 + 3 + 4 = 29.

As I think both are equivalent from talent point of view. Please see big picture of cricket.

Here I am not saying that either Don is better or Tendulkar. I am just putting facts. I think both are equivalent from talent point of view.

Don faced one with 200 or more that is Bedser, Medium fast bowler.

Tendulkar faced 30 bowlers with 200 or more wickets in test matches.

Leading 57 bowlers took 200 or more in test matches.

Fast + Fast Medium + Off break / SLAO + Leg break
14 + 9 + 3 + 4 = 30

For Fast Bowling, he faced 13 bowlers
Walsh, Hadlee, Wasim, Ambrose, Ntini, Waqar, Imran, Donald, Steyn, Lee, Macdermott, Gillespie, Flintoff and
Hughes

For Fast Medium bowling, he faced 9 bowlers
Mcgrath, Pollock, Vaas, Kallis, Hoggard, Caddick, Harmison, Carins and Streaks

For Off Spinner / Slow left arm orthodox, he faced 3 of them.
Murli, Vettori and Saqlain

For Leg Break / Slow left arm Chinaman, he faced four.
Warne, Kaneria, Qadir and Macgill

Tendulkar played test cricket in ten countries in 57 different grounds.

Astonishing stats - shows you how much the game has changed.
Who'd have thought Boycott scored faster than the cavilier Glenn Turner, or Hammond (whose always called 'majestic', never dull) would be slower than Barrington (who is usually just ignored).
Astonishing.

I would suggest making the strike rates out of 100 balls faced - as presented, the numbers are so evenly bunched as to make it harder to see differences, and because of ODIs, we're already familiar with that method.