All time batting ratings (statistical analysis by Silentstriker)

[Matt79]

Maybe I'm thinking of "average in matches lost" stat. I'm thinking instances of Australia or 1980s Windies winning when Ponting or Richards failed would be much more common than the Windies of recent years, or the Zimbabwe of Flower's time...

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe I'm thinking of "average in matches lost" stat. I'm thinking instances of Australia or 1980s Windies winning when Ponting or Richards failed would be much more common than the Windies of recent years, or the Zimbabwe of Flower's time...

I am not counting 'average in matches lost' stat because then it would definitely punish good players on bad teams.

 

[Matt79]

Yep - I think that's what I was getting at, but I expressed it all backwards. And as you say, you've already taken that decision.

 

[PhoenixFire]

In 'The Wisden Cricketer March 2006', there was an article by Lawrence Booth and Travis Basevi, named 'Truly the best'. It was basically like your ranking system SS, except it used different criteria. They were as follows

i) Score ratio (Player's batting average divided by that of all his contemporaries - Bradman scored 3.39, next highest JH Kallis with 1.9058)

ii) Failure rate (% of completed innings under 20 - Bradman 27.50, next highest ML Hayden with 32.00)

iii) Conversion rate (% of innings of 20 or more converted into 100s - Bradman 53.7, next highest Ijaz Ahmed 44.44)

iv) % of match Centuries (% of all centuries in matches that he played in that were made by that individual - Bradman 24.80, next highest DJ Cullinan 17.57)

v) % of Batsman's runs (% of overall runs scored in matched he played made by that individual - Bradman 12.20, next highest BC Lara 9.76)

vi) % of own team's runs (Highest BC Lara 20.20)

vii) Strike rate (minimum 1000 runs, Bradman N/A, highest AC Gilchrist 82.20)

viii) Top Scorer (% of matches in which he was the top scorer, highest DJ Cullinan 21.15)

ix) Conventional averages (Between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2005, highest SR Tendulkar 58.51)

x) % of centuries in victories (minimum of five centuries - Bradman 79.31, highest KC Sangakkara 87.50)

They rate 20 players with the highest score for each catergory, and then see where each player was in the tables, and found the score, and put them in a top 20, it goes like this:

1) ML Hayden (AUS)
2) SR Tendulkar (IND)
3) Inzamam-Ul-Haq (PAK)
4) RT Ponting (AUS)
5) BC Lara (WI)
6) V Sehwag (IND)
7) PA de Silva (SL)
8) GC Smith (SA)
9) Saeed Anwar (PAK)
10) DJ Cullinan (SA)
11) RS Dravid (IND)
12) JH Kallis (SA)
13) ME Trescothick (ENG)
14) ST Jayasuriya (SL)
15) SR Waugh (AUS)
16) JL Langer (AUS)
17) DMPD Jayawardene (SL)
18) KC Sangakkara (SL)
19) Younis Khan (PAK)
20) Andy Flower (ZIM)


Now I don't really agree whole heartedly with these rankings, they do have flaws, but it's an interesting way of looking at it.

 

[The Sean]

Ok I'm probably about to contradict my post about Miandad, but SS stats don't mean EVERYTHING. They play an essential part obviously, but they can't tell the WHOLE story. There are numerous intangibles that can't be measured by stats. Look at King Viv for example. If u went by stats alone, there are many batsmen in history that can claim better numbers across the board. However anyone that actually watched him bat would know how dominant and awe inspiring he was and few (maybe just The Don) can match him. So my dear friend, it's ok to have Tendy or Gavaskar in your all time XI, even though stats may not support you. And I know I'm about to incur your anger with this statement, but that's why it's also ok for me to think that Akram > McGrath. You simply can't go by stats ALONE, specially as it relates to all time greats.

Superb post - couldn't agree more.