Best in each batting position

[Red]

On batting averages- min 10 innings in position for qualification.

Australia

1. Sid Barnes (avg 71.38)
2. Bill Brown (59.11)
3. Guess Who (103.63)
4. Dean Jones (71.61)
5. Victor Trumper (69.37)
6. Brian Booth (64.22)
7. Warwrick Armstrong (51.71)
8. Adam Gilchrist (48.10)
9. Bert Oldfield (48.50)
10. Ian Johnson (25.80)
11. Max Walker (31.00)

 

[Debris]

Think you have chosen a few players out of position there. Gilchrist would only ever have batted at 8 if Australia had sent in a night watchman, for instance.

 

[Dan]

Think you have chosen a few players out of position there. Gilchrist would only ever have batted at 8 if Australia had sent in a night watchman, for instance.

I think he's just selected whoever has the highest average at that position, regardless of where they normally bat.

Minimum 10 Innings in the position:

1. Sid Barnes (71.38)
2. Sunil Gavaskar (78.28)
3. Sir Donald Bradman (103.63)
4. Frank Worrell (76.22)
5. Eddie Paynter (74.50)
6. Shiv Chanderpaul (67.05)
7. Sir Garfield Sobers (67.77)
8. MS Dhoni (70.00)
9. Bert Oldfield (48.50)
10. David Allen (39.60)
11. John Snow (31.66)

So:
Chanderpaul is best at 6.
Sobers was third on the number 3 list as well. Put him at 3 or 7.
Don't let Gavaskar face the first ball.
If England didn't screw Eddie Paynter around so much, he would have been an ATG.
Frank Worrell was too nice a guy; should have batted at 4 more often than Weekes or Walcott.

 

[Jager]

Paynter is an ATG in my eyes. I think AB de Villiers is pretty close to him at number five, too

 

[Debris]

I think he's just selected whoever has the highest average at that position, regardless of where they normally bat.

Minimum 10 Innings in the position:

1. Sid Barnes (71.38)
2. Sunil Gavaskar (78.28)
3. Sir Donald Bradman (103.63)
4. Frank Worrell (76.22)
5. Eddie Paynter (74.50)
6. Shiv Chanderpaul (67.05)
7. Sir Garfield Sobers (67.77)
8. MS Dhoni (70.00)
9. Bert Oldfield (48.50)
10. David Allen (39.60)
11. John Snow (31.66)

So:
Chanderpaul is best at 6.
Sobers was third on the number 3 list as well. Put him at 3 or 7.
Don't let Gavaskar face the first ball.
If England didn't screw Eddie Paynter around so much, he would have been an ATG.
Frank Worrell was too nice a guy; should have batted at 4 more often than Weekes or Walcott.

Hmmm, I guess you can choose whatever criteria you like. I would have maybe gone with a percentage of innings in the position as well to get rid of the nightwatchman factor.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You can't choose someone for a position on the basis of them playing five games out of 80 there and happening to average 120 imo. Vettori for the number 8 spot easily.

 

[amanuensis]

England's top six would be:

CAG Russell (10 innings precisely!)
H Sutcliffe
KF Barrington
KF Barrington
E Paynter
IR Bell

with only Barrington (at four) averaging less than 60, though he did manage over 70 at three.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Surely we've gotta be looking at more than 10 innings here?

You can't say someone has made themselves the best in a position on the back of 10 innings. Needs to be 30 at least imo.

Someone who averages 55 at number 3 over 50 tests is better than someone who averages 70 for 10 innings.

 

[Red]

Surely we've gotta be looking at more than 10 innings here?

You can't say someone has made themselves the best in a position on the back of 10 innings. Needs to be 30 at least imo.

Someone who averages 55 at number 3 over 50 tests is better than someone who averages 70 for 10 innings.

Some early era guys only played 20 tests, and may have batted in a few spots. It's not a flawless method, but 10 innings means you batted there for a series at least.

 

[BackFootPunch]

New Zealand:

1. Mark Richardson (45.38)
2. John Wright (43.19)
3. Stephen Fleming (47.25)
4. Martin Crowe (49.39)
5. Nathan Astle (37.86)
6. Jeremy Coney (45.43)
7. Chris Cairns (44.02)
8. Daniel Vettori (39.76)
9. Ian Smith (28.46)
10. Danny Morrison (13.05)
11. Ewen Chatfield (8.38)

(based on 30 innings in the position)

Actually not a bad team really. Certainly wouldn't disgrace themselves.

 

[watson]

Let's not get carried away with the accuracy of the stats here. After all, the overall average is just as meaningful as the individual stat for a position in the batting order. Hence, we are working with a general principle only.

That is, if an average is significantly lower when batting at 1 or 2 or 3 then don't select that player in the top order as a general rule because they probably don't like the extra bounce and movement of the new ball. Their technique and/or style and/or temperment isn't suited.

I don't think that it's any more complicated than that!

 

[BackFootPunch]

Some early era guys only played 20 tests, and may have batted in a few spots. It's not a flawless method, but 10 innings means you batted there for a series at least.

Yeah that's fair enough, perhaps if one of those early era guys played 75% of their innings in that position it'd be fair to include them I reckon.

Batting there for a series isn't really enough I don't think, to be the best you should have to have shown that your success was more than just a period of good form. But certainly for those guys who played 15 tests over 5 years or something I'd have no problem considering them.

 

[bagapath]

with 30 innnings at a position as the minimum criteria....

jack hobbs 58
herbert sutcliffe 63
donald bradman 103
jacques kallis 64
ab de villiers 70
shiv chanderpaul 67
adam gilchrist 46
daniel vettori 39
chaminda vaas 28
dennis lillee 19
bill johnston 14

 

[Debris]

with 30 innnings at a position as the minimum criteria....

jack hobbs 58
herbert sutcliffe 63
donald bradman 103
jacques kallis 64
ab de villiers 70
shiv chanderpaul 67
adam gilchrist 46
daniel vettori 39
chaminda vaas 28
dennis lillee 19
bill johnston 14

Given players tendency to fade at the end of their careers, I think you should also exclude active players.