My Top 100 Test Batsmen of all-time

[Days of Grace]

Hi all, I am new to this forum.

For the last five years I have been working on my own ratings system, constrantly chaning the formula, for test and ODI players. I have finaly settled on a formula. I thought I would firstly display my top 100 test batsmen with you, too see what you think. When I have time, I will explain the formula. Until then, see what you think:

TOP 100 TEST BATSMEN
1 Bradman 1447
2 Hobbs 944
3 Ponting 902
4 Tendulkar 874
5 Hammond 873
6 Headley 863
7 Hutton 859
8 Sobers 845
9 Lara 835
10 Sutcliffe 834
11 Gavaskar 832
12 Dravid 828
13 Pollock 824
14 Mohammad Yousuf 823
15 Barrington 818
16 Kallis 807
17 Weekes 802
18 Hayden 793
19 Chappell 787
20 Walcott 786
21 S. Waugh 774
22 Compton 772
23 Nourse 767
24 Richards 764
25 Inzamam-Ul-Haq 762
26 Javed Miandad 761
27 Border 754
28 Hussey 751
29 Jackson 740
30 Boycott 720
31 Harvey 717
32 Mitchell 699
33 Walters 691
34 Hassett 679
35 Gilchrist 671
36 Langer 670
37 Kirsten 666
38 Jayawardene 666
39 Sangakkara 666
40 Azharuddin 666
41 Flower 665
42 Lloyd 664
43 Barlow 662
44 Cowdrey 659
45 Mccartney 654
46 Kanhai 653
47 Gooch 651
48 Pietersen 650
49 Lawry 649
50 Paynter 648
51 M.E. Waugh 647
52 Chanderpaul 645
53 Younis Khan 644
54 H.W. Taylor 643
55 Gower 639
56 Saeed Anwar 639
57 Taylor 638
58 Crowe 637
59 Boon 637
60 Worrell 636
61 Sehwag 635
62 Morris 634
63 Greenidge 633
64 May 629
65 De Silva 628
66 Richardson 625
67 Martyn 625
68 Thorpe 623
69 Bardsley 620
70 Brown 619
71 Hill 617
72 Smith 614
73 Trescothick 614
74 Hardstaff 614
75 Dexter 612
76 Woodfull 608
77 Hazare 607
78 Simpson 606
79 D.M. Jones 605
80 Trumper 603
81 I.M. Chappell 602
82 Haynes 601
83 Cullinan 601
84 Vaughan 600
85 Ponsford 599
86 Saleem Malik 598
87 Ranjitsinhji 598
88 Viswanath 596
89 Slater 595
90 Amiss 593
91 Hendren 593
92 Vengsarkar 593
93 Leyland 592
94 Kallicharran 591
95 Hanif Mohammad 591
96 Gibbs 590
97 Nurse 589
98 Faulkner 588
99 J.H. Edrich 587
100 Mead 586
101 Zaheer Abbas 586

[Umpire Money]

Pretty comprehensive list. Pretty good.

Of course the question is how did you work it out.

[Days of Grace]

My Formula for test batsmen:


POINTS ALLOCATED: BATSMEN

Average: x7.5

Runs:
8000+: 70
5000-7999: 45
3000-4999: 25
2000-2999: 17
1000-1999: 10
500-999: 5

Centuries: x4
Consistency in reaching fifty (%): x4
Centuries per match (%) (CPM): x350

Less than 25 matches: -5% of rating*
Less than 20 matches: -20% of rating
Less than 15 matches: -35% of rating
Less than 10 matches: -50% of rating
Less than 5 matches: -75% of rating
* players after 1970 get 5% taken off their rating if they
played between 20 and 30 matches.

Played entire career before 1914: +20% of rating
Less than 20 matches: -5% of rating
Less than 10 matches: -20% of rating

Played part of career before 1914: +10% of rating

Career interrupted by WWI/WWII: +10% of rating

South African players: Career ended by isolation

Played first-class cricket for 5 or more years
after isolation: +10% of rating
Played first-class cricket for less than 5 more
years after isolation: +5% of rating


Batting example: Sir Clyde Walcott
Average: 56.68 x7.5 = 425.10
Runs: 3798 = 25
Centuries: 15 x4 = 60
Consistency in reaching fifty (%): 39.19 x4 = 157
Centuries per match: 0.34 x350 = 119.32
Final Rating: 786

[Umpire Money]

Why do they get a 20% extra if they played before 1914?

Why do you get more for more runs?

Its ok i think the list is ok. Eh

[Days of Grace]

Originally Posted by Umpire Money

Why do they get a 20% extra if they played before 1914?

Why do you get more for more runs?

Its ok i think the list is ok. Eh

They get an extra 20% if they played their entire careers before 1914 as there is a general consensus that pitches before the Great War were substandard and hard for batting most of the time.

I toyed with the idea of points for runs before finally settling on them, as it stops players who have played relatively little tests, but with a high average, from being too far up the list. I guess its a reward for lonegivity of career more than anything.

[Flem274*]

Sorry to sound like the diehard biased kiwi fan here but what is Crowe doing behind some of those other guys?

Also how did Ponting and Hayden get so high? I'd have thought they'd be a bit futher down.

Also which Suttcliffe are you talking about? Bert Suttcliffe or the other Suttcliffe? (His first name escapes me atm)

Good list though, would like to see one for bowlers, allrounders and maybe even fielders? (Not saying you should immediately make one just putting forward the idea)

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Sorry to sound like the diehard biased kiwi fan here but what is Crowe doing behind some of those other guys?

Also how did Ponting and Hayden get so high? I'd have thought they'd be a bit futher down.

Also which Suttcliffe are you talking about? Bert Suttcliffe or the other Suttcliffe? (His first name escapes me atm)

Good list though, would like to see one for bowlers, allrounders and maybe even fielders? (Not saying you should immediately make one just putting forward the idea)

It would be Hubert Sutcliffe Flem, very, very good English opening bat who averaged over 60

[oz_fan]

Looks like a good list except I think Viv Richards should be a bit higher and so should Greg Chappell.

The only problem I have with the formula is that it seems to over penalise people by giving them less points for scoring less runs and then also taking % off for not playing enough matches which is the reason for the lack of runs.

[Days of Grace]

If I deleted runs-scored points, then Weekes would be ahead of Sobers and Lara, and Hussey would be near the top 10. All-in-all, it would screw-up the list big time.

I have lists for everything except for wicketkeepers and fielders. I thought that I would spoon-feed you them one at a time.

That way we would have good discussion for one thread at a time.

I'll send you a new list every Friday for the next month or two.

[honestbharani]

good list...


But one thing to all guys here who want to work out formulas and stuff to rate players. One of the coolest things abt cricket is you cannot perfectly quantify and rate players and their achievements. One needs to have seen the players in question, their contemporaries and make a qualified judgement upon said players. So, no matter how comprehensive the formula seems to be, it will always end up with a number of errors. Dunno why everyone is so obsessed with finding the right formula for rating players, because the simple fact is, in cricket, such a thing doesn't exist.

[Days of Grace]

Yes, you're right. I just do it for a hobby and I have no pretensions that it is the definitive list. But I would rate my list against those of Chula's cricket ratings, and even Wisden's top 100 list that they released a few years ago (now out-of-date IMO).

[Richard]

Without wanting to be the curmadgeon I see absolutely no point trying rank exactly over such a large number. There are a million variables that can and can't be considered.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Richard

Without wanting to be the curmadgeon I see absolutely no point trying rank exactly over such a large number. There are a million variables that can and can't be considered.

No harm in it

[Richard]

Well, no, but there's no real harm in going walking in the rain either as long as you get yourself dry sharpish.

It's just not really something you get much out of, TBH.

[Pup Clarke]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well, no, but there's no real harm in going walking in the rain either as long as you get yourself dry sharpish.

. That's getting sigged.