Your top 10 TEST batsmen of all-time

[silentstriker]

Obviously there's alot you can do with stats but mainly regarding interesting observations one can make and when used right can be quite informative, to a degree (like using Goughy's method). But nothing more, they don't tell you too much on their own, just like a scorecard on its own doesn't reveal the whole story, so too stats, which are based on the scorecard never will.

Also for mine, the whole mucking around with stats like in the Murali Warne, Lara Tendulkar thing is the biggest load of garbage ever (if you take it seriously to determine which player is better. If you're just doing it as a statistical analysis I have no issue with it at all). Anyways, don't want to hijack or dominate this thread so I'll leave it at that.

A single scorecard tells you very little. A hundred of them combined gives you a very very good picture of a player.

 

[The Sean]

If you say that, then you had better include Clem Hill in that list too. He averaged about the same as Trumper and was more consistent.

And put Ranjit above both of them i.m.o.

Why?

Given your criteria and the fact that you've spoken out against the appearance of the likes of Grace, Pollock and Headley in these lists, I find it difficult to fathom why you would then go and place Ranji - he of only 15 Tests and less than 1000 runs – ahead of Trumper.

 

[Richard]

I've always found May's case an interesting one, and it's come up in discussion on here before. There are plenty of good judges who watched May bat who would argue that he is the finest batsman England have produced for nigh-on 60 years. His relatively low Test average means that he is often overlooked by the statsguru generation but the reputation he holds among so many of those he played with and against, or who saw him first hand, is nothing short of glowing.

I don't personally rank him among my top 20 batsmen of all time, but I have no problem with him being there.

Don't forget, May's reputation among those contemporaries of his has a lot to do with his domestic record, which was outstanding - he averaged over 50 for Surrey, over 60 for Cambridge University and almost 60 for MCC, all of whom he played plenty for.

In his day, domestic cricket often counted for almost as much as international when ranking someone purely as a batsman. However, when Test batsmen only are considered, rather than batsmen as a whole, May is excellent but not truly remarkable.

 

[Richard]

Also for mine, the whole mucking around with stats like in the Murali Warne, Lara Tendulkar thing is the biggest load of garbage ever (if you take it seriously to determine which player is better. If you're just doing it as a statistical analysis I have no issue with it at all).

Depends what you mean by mucking about TBH, you'll get far more by looking beyond the surface than you will by saying "Lara averaged 53, Tendulkar averaged 54" (or whatever it is, I've long since ceased to care much about overall career averages for anyone with a decent length career).

Obviously, some will get too into "Warne vs India averaged X and Murali in Australia averaged X" as even that needs to be looked at deeper. But an overall career average tells you very little about a player.

 

[Richard]

How about this then

Ganteaume, Andrew	112
Bradman, Donald	         99.94
Nawaz, Mohamed 	         99
Stollmeyer, Victor 	96
Lewis, Desmond 	        86.33
Redmond, Rodney 	81.5
Hussey, Michael 	79.85
Richards, Barry 	72.57
Wood, Henry	        68
Dempster, Charles       65.73

Have wanted that list for aaaaaaaaages, hate this "20-innings cut-off" lark. 20 is way too few - do it properly or just give us the un-cut-off list.

 

[The Sean]

And the crazy thing is, Hussey is actually going UP that list the more innings he plays...

 

[shortpitched713]

Better than the "me dad told me so and so was the best" generation.

 

[FRAZ]

who i've seen

Steve Waugh
Jacques Kallis
Brian Lara
Rahul Dravid
Allan Border
Gary Kirsten
Ricky Ponting
Michael Hussey
Dean Jones
Sachin Tendulkar

Dean Jones ?

 

[bond21]

dean jones was awesome

 

[JBMAC]

You guys arguing the merits of Peter May amuse me. Did any of you ever see the man play? Judging by your responses here to his ability, I think not. May was a class batsman who could glide/guide the ball to any part of the field he wanted to. He had style and guile and was a good leader of men.To not include him in this top 10 is a definite misnomer.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Ah, but having seen a player counts for very little... very little indeed when you can slice and dice the statistics in to a lovely 3 dimensional matrix that proves that Brendan Julian was the best batsman of all time.

 

[Flem274*]

Ah, but having seen a player counts for very little... very little indeed when you can slice and dice the statistics in to a lovely 3 dimensional matrix that proves that Brendan Julian was the best batsman of all time.

Or that Geoff Allot and Shayne O'Connor were the best bowlers.

My top six (cbf doing ten):

Stephen Fleming (well duh)
Michael Hussey
Michael Vaughan
Kevin Pietersen
Peter Fulton
Martin Crowe

Obviously not the best, just the ones I like to watch the most.

 

[honestbharani]

I was referring to their legacies though, as those that score more heavily will generally be remember more than those who aren't as good, even if they look better.

not really... A lot of people's opinion on old players is formed mostly based on pundit's opinions and I don't think those guys will give weightage to numbers more than style and other stuff.... At least based on pundits' have tended to rate the past players in my time of watching......

 

[honestbharani]

No, they aren't. The principle still applies IMO, and so does the old saying "It's what you score, not how you score them"

It is not always that way... And any cricketer who has ever played at any decent level will tell you that.... Sachin and Laxman scored only 55 and 69 at Mumbai, respectively... But it was HOW they did it that demoralized Australia and to an extent, contributed to whatever lead India took after that, even encouraging guys like Kaif and Dravid to bat THAT bit more positively than they normally do... There are a million intangibles in cricket and that is precisely the reason why you don't rate people off the scorecard....

 

[honestbharani]

You can compare them to the contemporaries, if everyone is averaging 50 and your guy averages 55, it's one thing. But if everyone is averaging 40 and your guy averages 55, it's quite another. You can also do things like only take runs in wins and losses (to remove the flat pitches on draws, or take draws into account with a lower weight, etc). It's all possible with stats, if you're willing to do it. You obviously can't compare directly by a single number - but then thats not what stats are about.

The point is, you can use stats to a certain extent to determine stuff... But to actually rate A Vs B Vs C, you need more than just stats, simply because without having some kind of a background to base those stats on, you are always skating on thin ice.

The recent Delhi test is an example... The pitch was not horrible to bat on.. Survival, at least, was rather easy compared to some of the other test pitches we have seen and yet, looking at the scores, one would conclude it was a reasonably difficult wicket to bat on, given the first innings scores of both sides.... Comparing across the same era and normalizing the data might give you a better picture but even then, it just WILL NOT give you the complete picture... For that, you always need to go beyond just the numbers......

 

[honestbharani]

Better than the "me dad told me so and so was the best" generation.

Well, when your dad says "so and so" was a great batsman, mostly it is often true.... But when you start saying X was a greater batsman than Y simply because my dad told me so... That is when it starts getting as ridiculous as "X averaged more than Y in the 5 years between so and so" comparisons...


But mostly, only great batsmen are called great by most cricket lovers... Ranking someone as a great is easy and mostly you get decent uniformity of opinion there... It is when we start COMPARING those greats that the trouble starts.. Esp. when they are blokes who finished their careers before we were even born and all we have to go by are statsguru and others' opinions... Neither are accurate and that is why I simply hate doing that...

 

[SJS]

Ranking someone as a great is easy and mostly you get decent uniformity of opinion there... It is when we start COMPARING those greats that the trouble starts.. Esp. when they are blokes who finished their careers before we were even born

Exactly.

Hence my preference to put them in alphabetical order

 

[Anil]

my list:

1. don bradman
2. garfield sobers
3. jack hobbs
4. viv richards
5. brian lara
6. greg chappell
7. sachin tendulkar
8. walter hammond
9. george headley
10. graeme pollock

of players i've seen:

1. viv richards
2. brian lara
3. greg chappell
4. sachin tendulkar
5. sunil gavaskar
6. allan border
7. steve waugh
8. javed miandad
9. martin crowe
10. rahul dravid

 

[FRAZ]

dean jones was awesome

Matin Crowe ?

 

[Fiery]

dean jones was awesome

At eating Richard Hadlee's cabbages?