Im sure many of you have read this already, but I have not seen it mentioned.
This was originally from the UK Wisden Cricketer and I read it in South African Sports Illustrated.
I thought it was relevant given the votes currently going on.
The theory was that averages, emotions and memories are not the best ways to subjectively rationalize who was the best batsmen.
They set 10 criteria that players were ranked in and then the list was produced.
The 10 Criteria (each of equal weighting)
- Score Ratio- Batting Average divided by that of their contemporaries
- Failure Rate- % of Innings under 20
- Conversion Rate- % of innings greater than 20 converted into 100s
- % of Match Centuries- % of all centuries in matches he played that were made by that individual
- % of Batsmens Runs- % of total runs scored in a game that were made by that individual
- % of Own Teams Runs
- Strike Rate
- Top Scorer- % of games in which he was top scorer
- Conventional Averages
- % of Centuries in Victories
There was one guy that topped the list by a mile and that was......Matthew Hayden. It was not even close.
7 de Silva
8 G. Smith
THe most amazing thing about seeing the broken down figures is what a successful career Cullinan had and the number of times he scored runs when no-one else was capable. He has become a bit of a joke figure but looking at his career breakdown all I can say is "Wow". I was surprised.
EDIT- Before people ask, Dravid and Kallis were 11th and 12th respectively