First, to support our claims of the game not having become easier for batsman, as is widely suggested.

For one, there are more result-oriented pitches now. In the 1980s, just 40% matches played by India had a result, compared to 66% in the 2000s (in the 1950s and 1960s, the percentage was in the fifties but that is also because India tended to inevitably lose then, even on flat pitches).

Secondly, in terms of averages, the parameters for evaluating how good or great batsmen are has remained universally unchanged across decades - between 50 and 60 for great batsmen (40-45 for good batsmen), between 20 and 25 for great bowlers (27-32 for good bowlers).

The game has become more positive - so more runs are scored. While batsmen have it somewhat easier because of the limitation to bouncers per over and the front foot no-ball rule, it is also important to remember how much better the fitness levels are today, both with fielders and bowlers. Fielding particularly is a big difference - far more runs are saved now on the field than ever before.

Surprisingly, runs per over haven't increased phenomenally; in the 1960s, India made 2.5 an over, it became 3 in the 1980s and is 3.2 now. ODI cricket has had a positive affect and T20 will affect it even more. Average team scores therefore have predictably increased - from 261 in the 1960s, 282 in the 1980s to 304 in the 2000s. Also, an Indian batsman averaged 30 in the 1960s, 35 in the 1980s and 37 in the 2000s. To us, this is a sign of more positive play, and not proof that batting has become easier. The individual averages staying within the parameters mentioned earlier makes that clear anyway.

Dravid scores on every parameter. 50-plus overall average (despite the last two years, which have been terrible), 50-plus away average. Highest average amongst Indians in winning matches (and amongst the highest in the world). MoM awards in matches won is a good indicator of match-wining propensity - Dravid's 5, each in a different country, is a clincher really (Sehwag has 4, Tendulkar 2, Laxman 2). He is also the only batsman on the list (besides Viswanath) whose top 5 performances are all in winning matches. Also, 53% of his fifties and centuries have come whilst rectifying a poor start and avoid a possible collapse, in some cases resulting in memorable victories - a good indicator of his ability to perform under pressure (27% of Tendulkar's fifties and hundreds have come in similar circumstances).

Gavaskar's era has to be kept in mind whilst evaluating his stature. Indian teams of his time hardly won abroad - the bowlers rarely did the job fully, so the team was usually struggling to save matches. His overall average and away average are 50-plus. Performance against West Indies - the top team of his era is outstanding (65 in 27 matches). The significance of solidifying the opening slot and thereafter setting up games for India is immense. Delivered repeatedly under pressure.

In Sehwag's case though, his match-winning ability is impossible to ignore. His unbelievable strike rate without compromising his consistency, the numerous examples of him turning a match upside down just on his individual steam, is hard to set aside. Another very important fact that disproves theories that Sehwag is unpredictable/ inconsistent is his failure rate. Astonishingly, Sehwag's failure rate is very similar to Tendulkar's - scores of 25 and below - 47% Sehwag, 46% Tendulkar. Astonishing, in the face of his strike rate and match-winning propensity.

Meanwhile, Tendulkar's consistency spread over almost 2 decades, both home and away, cannot be underestimated. Nor can his consistent support role in winning matches (his winning average is higher than everyone's except Dravid, even though Bangladesh pads it considerably).
Sehwag's sample size of just 66 matches seems inadequate to place him above Tendulkar but then again, should he be penalized for that? Still, to put things in perspective, after 66 matches, Tendulkar averaged 54 while Sehwag is at 51, but with many more innings that have completely turned the game and led to victory for India, and as an opener.

Tendulkar's superhuman consistency has several dimensions. Sehwag manages 12 points more than the team's average in matches won even in a star-studded batting line-up as compared to Tendulkar's 17 points in his first 66 matches and 27 during the period that overlaps with Sehwag's span (which does include 8 not outs overall and 3 centuries and a double century vs Bangladesh).

But Sehwag clearly won more matches on his steam than Tendulkar despite playing less than half. Sehwag has 4 MoMs vs Tendulkar's 2 MoMs in winning Tests. What about Sehwag's acceptance of the challenge of opening the innings and making such a huge success of it, and Tendulkar's reluctance to do the same? Speculation, some might say, but then there is the simple fact that Sehwag opens and Tendulkar comes at no. 4. What's a tougher job? There's no contest.

Tendulkar hit 15 centuries in Tests India won, which is remarkable. In these innings, on an average he contributed 30% of the team's score. Dravid contributed 32% with his 10 centuries. Gavaskar contributed 30% with his 6. And Sehwag 46% with his 3 centuries. In many ways, the Chennai Test in December 2008 where Sehwag's 83 won the MoM over Tendulkar's 103* tells the story of their comparison. Sehwag will never make as many runs than Tendulkar in his career, but he will win more matches, without being, on current form, much below on runs and averages. On this count, Sehwag has to score over Tendulkar.

Things can change either way. Sehwag could be on a decline soon, if we're to believe that a hand-eye coordination player like him can slow down with advancing age - he is close to 30.
But we still believe Tendulkar's place in world cricket as a Test cricketer is over-stated primarily because of the hangover of his ODI batting exploits, and the statistical monuments he has built in both forms of the game. He is perhaps the only great cricketer of any nationality to have impacted his country's results with his level of consistency in such an indirect way, but with so few instances of having a direct influence. Averages and total run tallies are not what it is about. Or at least should not be.

Here's another example of what we mean. Only 31% of Tendulkar's 50-plus scores (including 6 innings against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) have come in winning causes (Dravid's at 37% with 6 innings against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe while Sehwag's at 39% with just 1 innings against Zimbabwe).

Kapil Dev's team-mate from the same era - Gavaskar - fought under pressure much more regularly and with much greater success.

Kapil Dev missed only one Test in his whole career, when he was dropped in 1984 at home against England due to an irresponsible shot that had cost him his wicket and subsequently India the game. He had played 66 consecutive Tests before that and he played 65 consecutive Tests after the one Test he missed (Azharuddin made his debut because of Kapil's absence and established himself, so it wasn't all bad). Kapil was "punished" publicly in this manner for his cavalier approach only this one time, but he was guilty of it many times. Maybe "guilty" is a hard word to use here - after all, this was his batting style, sometimes it brought him runs, more often, it didn't.

Bedi-Chandra-Prasanna at 6 as one bowling unit. Together, they were the most significant reason why India won consistently in 1971-73 and competed right through the decade to make India more competitive as a team. They took 625 wickets playing together which was 63% of wickets India took in that period, which is 13 of every 20 wickets, at a combined average of 28 as compared to India's 33. They made spin synonymous with India.

GR Viswanath is the greatest match-winning batsman for India along with Dravid. Unlike Dravid, or the batsmen above him, his overall consistency was much lower (overall average in early 40s; overseas average a mediocre 36). If he had Gavaskar's consistency, he would be no. 1 or 2 on this list, and India would have reached higher levels of supremacy in the 1970s.

Vinoo Mankad was a great individual talent with some astounding feats with both bat and ball. A sample size of just 44 Tests but the talent that shines through here is too extraordinary to not propel him in the Top 10. His contribution to Indian victories were huge in that period (just 3 matches but brilliant with bat and ball in all of them). Sensational performances in some lost or drawn matches too.

VVS Laxman's talent is not best represented by his results on a consistent basis. He never touched the heights of that epoch-defining 281 in Kolkata again, but then neither has anyone else. Over the years, he has played some wonderful innings, but most of his efforts seem like cameos somehow - never the substantial solo match-winning efforts that have come from Dravid or Sehwag. But he goes over Azhar, Vengsarkar and his old captain Ganguly simply because of being a better all-round player and having a better away average. Also, Laxman's excellent performance against the best team of his era - Australia, at least suggests that he has played to potential on that score.

In fact, both have poor averages against every team abroad - except England for Vengsarkar. Azhar played a few superb innings in every country (which suggests that it may not have been talent that was lacking) but was very inconsistent overall. Ganguly, for all his purported weakness against the short ball, has an away average of 42, which is significant. He produced innings of courage and substance in Australia, South Africa and England in Tests whose results impacted the side. Here, we also bring his captaincy into the picture - which takes him above Azhar and Vengsarkar straightaway. We deliberated about Ganguly over Laxman, but the latter is such a superior player, with the results to show for it, that it seemed excessive. We'd already brought Ganguly over Azhar and Vengsarkar because of his captaincy, it seemed too much to do it over Laxman.

To analyse the relative strengths of the above 4 on fast, short-pitched bowling, we made the following observations, which show Laxman and Ganguly (in that order) towering over Azhar and Vengsarkar. Against West Indies and Australia, Vengsarkar averaged 25 and 29; Azharuddin averaged 20 and 28 (he also averaged 23 against South Africa). Against Australia and South Africa, Ganguly averaged 35 and 36; Laxman averages 54 and 41. When it comes to 30-plus scores in these countries, Laxman managed that 46% of the time in Aus and SA, Ganguly 45%. Vengsarkar managed it 39% of the time against WI and Aus, while Azharuddin managed it 24% of the time against WI, Aus and SA.

Mohinder Amarnath comes next. One of the strangest careers in Indian cricket, perhaps the strangest. A span of 19 years, missing 64 Tests in between, numerous come-backs. His performance against Pakistan and West Indies in back-to-back away series clinch his place here - he was almost indisputably the best batsman in the world for a few months - not something a lot of Indians have been. No one has ever played fast bowling better than him either, and those two series are not just the only example of that. His winning average of 43 includes the sheet-anchoring 85 in the classic 406 chase in the West Indies.

Vijay Hazare's sample size of Tests is sadly not enough for his ranking to befit the stature he had - that of the finest Indian batsman before Sunil Gavaskar. His average of 48 cannot be sneezed at still, nor his winning average of 121, even though in just 3 Tests. He began playing Test cricket after the War, probably just after his prime - a bit of a tragedy. That he still makes it on this list is a testament to his indisputable talent. As mentioned in the profile, while his average was 48, the Indian team's batting average at that time was 28. Hazare's away average of 36 does take away the sheen a bit, but the sample size there is just 17 Tests after all.

Subhash Gupte's inclusion was hotly debated. Harbhajan Singh, on the strength of his overall figures, should have been a shoo-in. Harbhajan has truly been a match-winner, but only in India. His performances abroad have been very poor - an average of 40, much worse than the man they love to pillory for away performances - Anil Kumble. Overall, Harbhajan has been very inconsistent - a handful when tuned-in, very mediocre when not. And he has oscillated quite a lot between the two. An overall average of 31 is not bad at all, and his wickets tally of 300-plus (India's 3rd highest wicket-taker) is significant but we went for Gupte because of his brilliant away performances. Averaging 29 abroad, and 30 overall. 18 in winning Tests. Sample size of just 36 Tests - difficult to make a judgement on that, but then these 36 Tests were spread over 10 years (sadly the frequency of international cricket then), so consistency is clearly established. Yes, he didn't play in Australia, but he did trouble the famous West Indian batting line-up (with the 3 Ws) in their backyard. Given the bowling resources available around him, his consistency and heart are hugely impressive.

Srinath breaks into our ranking list mainly because of his match-winning ability despite seeming like a support act. He has 4 MoMs in winning games; only Kumble, Dravid and Sehwag are above him on that count in the modern era. His 108 wickets in India at 27 is very impressive, given that conditions rarely favoured him. An overall average of 31 and a wickets tally of 236 in 67 Tests is impressive, given the lack of pace support he had at the other end. His away performance is also notable - Srinath has taken 3 plus wickets in 36% of the away innings in his career - in comparison, Kapil Dev has done so in 31% of his away innings, Zaheer Khan 32%, Harbhajan Singh 28%...Kumble interestingly 41%.

Phew. This is as far as we can go when it comes to convincing you with logic. For many of us, cricket has more to do with the heart than the head. Till someone devises a ranking for that...

POST-SCRIPT: In response to the emails and comments that have been thrown our way, we felt perhaps a little more clarification was in order, and we have done so here.