CW's Ranking of Batsmen and Bowlers - A Discussion

[The Sean]

Adharcric is presently running the latest version of "CW Ranks the Batsmen/Bowlers" and the two lists are starting to take shape. Looking at both, what strikes me most immediately is that we seem as a group to be more romantic and nostalgic about our batsmen than our bowlers. Of the top 10 voted batsmen, more than half (Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Grace, Hammond, Hutton) all played before most of us were born, while we’d have a sizeable number on here who never saw Chappell or Richards either. It’s really only Lara and Tendulkar that every member has seen play.

Our list of bowlers, on the other hand, is dominated by men who’ve plied their trade in the modern era – only Barnes of all bowlers before the 70s/80s is considered a lock for the top 10, with O’Reilly and Trueman receiving limited but growing support. Instead we’ve voted largely for the greats of the past 30 years or less to fill the positions at the very top of the bowling tree.

Why do we think this is? Has the art of bowling continued to be refined and developed in a way that batting hasn’t? Do we judge modern batsmen too harshly, and/or overrate modern bowlers? Or is batting simply more historically romantic and as such facilitates a greater weight of nostalgic praise placed upon its practitioners?

Would be interested to hear people’s thoughts.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe in a batsman dominated era, we see bowlers as having the tougher ask and thus are rated higher. And the opposite for the batsmen. But 80s and 90s weren't really batsman dominated, so I don't know, it's an interesting question.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Maybe the fact that traditionally bowlers have shorter careers, and thus with less Test matches back in that period, players weren't able to have these "complete records" that some of the modern bowlers have. Especially those who rate performances in the subcontinent.

Also, the total number of runs made by these batsmen of previous generations, are generally much closer to the highest around these days as compared to the bowlers, where the record takers have nearly three times as many wickets as anyone before 1950. Makes comparison difficult.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe the fact that traditionally bowlers have shorter careers, and thus with less Test matches back in that period, players weren't able to have these "complete records" that some of the modern bowlers have. Especially those who rate performances in the subcontinent.

I think that's not necessarily true for most. A few people (like myself) look for incomplete or bad records by country, but it doesn't mean doing badly in SL is worse than doing badly in NZ. It just happens that a lot of non-subcontinent players struggle in subcontinent conditions, while a lot of subcontinent players struggle in places like SA because the conditions are very different, and that tells you a lot IMO. But each country still counts as one, to me.

Also, the total number of runs made by these batsmen of previous generations, are generally much closer to the highest around these days as compared to the bowlers, where the record takers have nearly three times as many wickets as anyone before 1950. Makes comparison difficult.

I think that's a very good point.

 

[stephen]

I actually think that it's probably got a lot to do with the perception of the public. Bowlers have always been perceived as less interesting than batsmen. So we never get legendary recounts of ten wicket hauls from previous generations, but instead get tales of daring and dashing test match centuries.

Relative to the batsmen of their generation though it is quite clear that bowling in the past has been just as effective, if not more so than bowling in the more modern eras.

Even so, the 80s and 90s were two eras in which the ball dominated the bat for the most part. Pretty much the peak of the West Indian cricket was based on the back of their bowlers. So many people rate the fast bowlers that were effective in those decades. Similarly the advent of two all time champion spinners just happens to have occurred some fifty years after their nearest spin bowling competition. Only a very small minority of people have seen spinners who averaged under 26 outside of Warne and Murali.

Batting is the core fascination of cricket and so it is understandable that legends of batting are more apparent in people's minds than legends of bowlers. I know my kids are probably more likely to hear of Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting than they are to hear of Wasim, Ambrose or McGrath - though all six are legends of the game.

 

[honestbharani]

First of all, I don't think anyone of us can claim to have judged things to a T... Obviously just opinions and can be wrong. With that said, I generally prefer to rate the men I have seen something of than men I haven't seen... My votings in the batting list was due to that.. I haven't participated in the bowlers' rating as I think I will be a lot more opinionated there and will probably get too involved and it has been an extremely busy week at work. So juz stuck to the batting rankings...

 

[GIMH]

Really interesting topic of discussion, even if I haven't really participated in those actual threads.

For what it's worth, my two cents would be that it seems to be generally accepted that there is less room for opinion as to who the top batsmen of all-time are (rightly or wrongly). Bradman is the undisputed champion, and then the others you mention have to be included in any all-time list by most standards. Bowling doesn't seem to have this same level of fact attached to its opinions and as such people are more willing to choose the best ones they've seen.

I could be wrong, that's just the way that I see it.

 

[silentstriker]

I think there is some truth to that. There are a lot of good bowlers very close together, and there is no Bradman of Bowling, except maybe Barnes. After deciding how you want to judge Barnes, you have everyone from Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Trueman, etc with almost no drop in quality from first to last, so I think if you ran the poll 10 times, the order might be different all 10 times. I think the same is true for the batsmen though, from 2-10. I don't know, I think people perhaps tend to have a more romatic idea of a batsman, and don't think the bowlers of yesteryear were as 'fast' or as 'skillful', but somehow the batsmen were the same. Doesn't make sense, but I think that plays a role.

Then again, there is also the spinner issue. The Warne-Murali debates have gotten so vitriolic (much more so than, for example, Tendulkar vs Lara), that some fans of one purposefully won't vote for the other causing a split in votes to the detriment of both, but which works just fine for people like me who don't think they belong in the top five-six anyway .

 

[Goughy]

IMO, the slant towards modern bowlers is the aguable concept of increasing athleticism.

People think modern seamers must be better because people are now bigger, stronger and faster.

Its a flawed but seductive mentality. Its judging a concept rather than the man.

 

[subshakerz]

Simply put, you do not have as many bowlers before the 70s who are worthy of consideration for top ten status compared to the explosion of elite quality fast-bowlers on the scene since then, along with Warne and Murali who are ahead of other spinners in history for the sheer weight of wickets if nothing else. If there are at least twice as many viable bowling choices to choose from the 70s onwards than before that, the overall list will reflect this.

 

[bagapath]

we all have grown up with the knowledge that pitches were uncovered in the old days making batting much more difficult than now and that the batting and protective equipment were comparatively poor in quality; the helmets did not even exist till 30 years ago. the overall batting averages were lower than present age and that wickets came at a much cheaper price than now.

taking all this into consideration it is possible to extrapolate that a trumper averaging 39 when the overall batting average was only 23 is as good as someone averaging 58+ in this present era. unlike some of my fellow posters here i firmly believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in any other as well. it is just that statistics need to be interpreted correctly in comparing players from different eras and we have been basically correct in giving more credit to batsmen of the yester years compared to their bowling contemporaries. (although i cannot help but wonder if a forgotten player - at least in these polls - like gilbert jessop who thrashed the ball out of the ground regularly would fit in more easily among the greats of the modern era than many others. he averaged 23 which is the 35 of today. the grounds are smaller, pitches more docile and batting equipment better. may be he would average 45 in this era and be ranked alongside gilly as one of the cleanest hitters of cricket ball)

 

[SJS]

I think there is a trend here which is understandable. Here is my 'hypothesis'.

The people are by and large influenced by career stats. In the case of batsmen it is first and foremost the batting average (subject to a good length of career) and then the number of career runs. In the case of bowlers the number of wickets seems to be almost as important as the average.

There are certain underlying assumptions which may over-ride the absolute stats.

1. The wickets have improved over time and hence the bowlers of the early years had it easy due to bowler friendly wickets and conditions.
2. Conversely things have become easier for batsmen in modern times.
3. There is a tendency to ignore those still active particularly the batsmen, maybe for reason two above.

Of the ten batsmen we have chosen so far, five ( Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Hobbs and Hutton) are amongst the top nine highest averaging batsmen of all times - minimum fifty Tests) and a sixth, Sutcliffe is fighting to get the eleventh spot.

Another two we have chosen, Tendulkar and Lara, are the two with the highest aggregate of runs in Tests and Sachin tops the ODI runs with Lara also in the top few. Sachin bucks the tendency to mark down current players due to his massive aggregate of runs and centuries.

Richards, Greg Chappell and WG are the ones who buck the trend and of these WG is the greatest surprise. I would like to believe that we have, in recent times, tried to do some justice to the good Doctor's credentials some justice on the forum and that may have helped bring about an awareness of his stature as well as the need to look at his stats differently.

Richards comes in as probably the greatest one day batsman we have ever seen (inspite of the challenge of Sachin) not fergetting his fabulous Test record and it is Chappell who, for me at least, is the greatest surprise.

The surprise exclusionfrom active consideration for me is Everton Weekes.

Amongst the bowlers, eight of the nine we have chosen so far are amongst the handful with 350 plus Test wickets. Barnes is the sole exception and one suspects his massive reputation has helped him buck the trend.

If you take the bowlers who have taken 350 plus Test wickets and rank them by bowling average you get . . .

[B]Player	CW Rank[/B]
1. Marshall	1
2. Ambrose   	4
3. McGrath    	3
4. Muralitharan	6
6. Hadlee      	5
7. Imran        9
7. Pollock	
8. Waqar	
9. Wasim	
10 Lillee       8
11 Walsh	
12 Warne       	7
13 Ntini	
14 Botham	
15 Vaas	
16 Kumble	
17 Kapil Dev

Well, well, well. . .

Waqar, Wasim and Walsh have been in active consideration. Its Pollock thats a surprise amongst those forgotten and one supposes it has to do with the fact that he has retired only recently and the latter part of his career - which is what we recall most- was not his best as a bowler.

 

[funnygirl]

First of all, I don't think anyone of us can claim to have judged things to a T... Obviously just opinions and can be wrong. With that said, I generally prefer to rate the men I have seen something of than men I haven't seen... My votings in the batting list was due to that.. I haven't participated in the bowlers' rating as I think I will be a lot more opinionated there and will probably get too involved and it has been an extremely busy week at work. So juz stuck to the batting rankings...

Exactly my thoughts .

 

[Migara]

The surprise exclusionfrom active consideration for me is Everton Weekes.

Ken Barrington?

 

[SJS]

Ken Barrington?

Yes Him too on statistics but I thought Barrington's name did come up a couple of times.