Your top 10 TEST batsmen of all-time

[Perm]

yeah, but the guys we are talking about aren't ones who averaged 20 with the bat and 60 with the ball......

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"

 

[Fiery]

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.

True but that's mainly because their numbers are forever in the record books. I know what you are trying to say but people also remember how bad people were, e.g, Chatfield's batting

 

[Days of Grace]

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.

In 50 years time, I wonder if people will talk about Viv Richards more than Jacques Kallis?

Kallis currently averages 58, Richards ended at 50.

 

[Perm]

In 50 years time, I wonder if people will talk about Viv Richards more than Jacques Kallis?

Kallis currently averages 58, Richards ended at 50.

They won't talk about Richard's legacy as a run-scorer, they'll talk about how dominant he was.

 

[archie mac]

In 50 years time, I wonder if people will talk about Viv Richards more than Jacques Kallis?

Kallis currently averages 58, Richards ended at 50.

As long as people are still reading books then Richards will still be talked about.

I also have no problem with May, by all accounts a great batsman

 

[Fiery]

They won't talk about Richard's legacy as a run-scorer, they'll talk about how dominant he was.

What does "legacy" mean though?

 

[Days of Grace]

Something that people remember you by, good or bad.

 

[Fiery]

Something that people remember you by, good or bad.

I rest my case

 

[SJS]

I would have thought a purely averages based top ten would have been further off than that tbh.

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

 

[Fiery]

They won't talk about Richard's legacy as a run-scorer, they'll talk about how dominant he was.

Or if you're Richard Dickinson, how bad he was to watch

 

[pasag]

Yeah HB spot on here. Add to the fact that all runs are not equal and all wickets are not equal, using something as inflexible as statistics to determine who is a better player will never, ever be sufficient. The batsman with the higher average is not necessarily the better player nor is the one with most wickets at the lowest average, regardless of how you manipulate the statistics. This applies doubly when comparing against different eras. And it has nothing to do with how they look either or their style, which is a different topic all together.

And one last thing, the way I look at it, a batsmens job isn't simply to score runs nor is a bowlers job simply to take wickets - it's to do the greatest job for their team to win, whatever it may be. Whoever contributes the most to their side winning is the better player, not the one with the most raw output. This contribution is rarely if ever done justice to with stats and a person looking at the raw statistics may never know it even existed.

 

[Goughy]

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

Well how about Stuart Law and others like him topping the list?

 

[Goughy]

Whoever contributes the most to their side winning is the better player, not the one with the most raw output. This contribution is rarely if ever done justice to with stats and a person looking at the raw statistics may never know it even existed.

Exactly why I treat with suspicion (for want of a better word) players that score boatloads of runs on flat tracks in bore draws. They inflate output and production and make comparisions with players that played on more sporting pitches difficult.

 

[The_Bunny]

Minimum of 20 innings.

Yeah I know, but it is almost an acceptable all time list, I thought it would have been a long way off tbh.

 

[The_Bunny]

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

Yeah without a decent minimum innings it is terrible

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah HB spot on here. Add to the fact that all runs are not equal and all wickets are not equal, using something as inflexible as statistics to determine who is a better player will never, ever be sufficient. The batsman with the higher average is not necessarily the better player nor is the one with

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 Sean]

I think May took advantage of some very weak NZ teams to boost his average up a bit in the 1950s. Top 50 material, not 20 i.m.o.

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.

 

[pasag]

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.

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.

 

[pasag]

....is often overlooked by the statsguru generation...

 

[deeps]

who i've seen

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