DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[Furball]

3 great innings

 

[Garson007]

Of course, what you really need to do is vary the functions and weights to maximize Kallis' score and then see where everyone else falls. Solver will help.

 

[Spikey]

I'm not 100% sold on that too. Take for example Clarke's 151 vs SA, now that was an excellent knock (I'm sure everyone would agree) but Australia end up getting easily beaten by 8 wickets, In the Kallis game you look at the team scores: 439, 374, 309. It was a pretty decent wicket to bat on and there were 6 scores above 65. There wasn't a single point in his innings where we were watching a great knock. He was on 29* (85) when the team were 8 down - he didn't give up, he started to bat a bit more aggressively and boosted his career record in his partnership with Ntini, but I don't know it just wasn't anything special which I think it should be to be called great. This isn't an attack on Kallis, I think Chanderpaul may have had one too.

On second thought, for fourth innings I definitely agree with you. Great knocks should only be wins, close draws or close losses. I'm not sure about third innings though.. Again brilliant work mate.

Yeah I definitely think you should target 3rd/4th innings (3rd innings that happen to be the last innings of the match/end up only leaving the other team chasing 30.)

 

[The Sean]

The entire West Indies ATG team middle order, thats amazing.

Is it? You are always saying that they are four of the top ten batsmen of all time, and a great many people agree with that assessment. It's not the least bit surprising to me to see those four in the top ten, and I would have thought it even less surprising to you.

 

[The Sean]

And then there were ten. How I’d rank them personally:

1. Don Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Sachin Tendulkar
4. Garry Sobers
5. Viv Richards
6. Brian Lara
7. Walter Hammond
8. Len Hutton
9. George Headley
10. Kumar Sangakkarra

How I think they’ll finish:

1. Don Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Garry Sobers
4. Len Hutton
5. Viv Richards
6. George Headley
7. Sachin Tendulkar
8. Brian Lara
9. Walter Hammond
10. Kumar Sangakkarra

For what it’s worth, my own top 10 (looking just at Test cricket and so excluding The Doctor) would have eight of these same ten players – the only changes being that I would replace Headley and Sangakkarra with Gavaskar and Chappell.

Stupendous effort DoG - this continues to fascinate.

 

[Flem274*]

Just as pure batsmen I'd rank the remainder

Bradman
Hobbs
Tendulkar
Sobers
Hammond
Lara
Richards
Hutton
Sangakkarra
Headley

Many in that order would change daily though. The above is pure stream of consciousness.

 

[Days of Grace]

It will take me a week or so to make the changes that I have in mind based on the last few pages' discussion.

Then I will present the top 10 with those amendments.

 

[centurymaker]

How I think they’ll finish:

1. Don Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Garry Sobers
4. Len Hutton
5. Viv Richards
6. George Headley
7. Sachin Tendulkar
8. Brian Lara
9. Walter Hammond
10. Kumar Sangakkarra

I reckon you have nailed it here!
Maybe swap Tendulkar and Lara around since Tendulkar's avg has dropped a fair bit in the past year.

 

[kyear2]

It will take me a week or so to make the changes that I have in mind based on the last few pages' discussion.

Then I will present the top 10 with those amendments.

Noooooooo.

List is good as is I believe. Another week is so long to wait. The suspense!

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It will take me a week or so to make the changes that I have in mind based on the last few pages' discussion.

Then I will present the top 10 with those amendments.

Wot? It's your list. If you want to present some alternative theories, do so at the end - not after we've sat through 90 other pretenders waiting for the inevitable denouement.

 

[The Sean]

It will take me a week or so to make the changes that I have in mind based on the last few pages' discussion.

Then I will present the top 10 with those amendments.

Ha ha, I've heard of building the suspense but that's taking it to extremes!

Does it look like the modifications to the system will have a significant impact on the order?

 

[Coronis]

As pure batsmen, I would rank them like this:

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Headley
Hammond
Hutton
Lara
Richards
Tendulkar
Sangakkara

Sobers and Hobbs are interchangeable, as are Richards, Lara and Tendulkar

 

[The Sean]

As pure batsmen, I would rank them like this:

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Headley
Hammond
Hutton
Lara
Richards
Tendulkar
Sangakkara

Sobers and Hobbs are interchangeable, as are Richards, Lara and Tendulkar

Coronis, what's your rationale behind ranking Headley ahead of Hammond as a batsman but picking Hammond over Headley in your All Time XI? Is it a case of considering Hammond adaptable enough to bat down the order but that Headley was a pure no.3, or something else?

 

[kyear2]

Is it? You are always saying that they are four of the top ten batsmen of all time, and a great many people agree with that assessment. It's not the least bit surprising to me to see those four in the top ten, and I would have thought it even less surprising to you.

For three of them yes, to have Headley vindicated via such a statistical exercise is quite pleasing.. Thats all. Lots of great batsmen didn't make the final cut.

 

[NUFAN]

It will take me a week or so to make the changes that I have in mind based on the last few pages' discussion.

Then I will present the top 10 with those amendments.

DoG mate. You don't have to change it, the list is awesome and we don't want you having to do mindless extra work for such a small difference. ****s like me should just create their own list and include our minor recommendations, or you can always update your ratings at a later point. Its your list, do whatever you like

 

[The Sean]

Wot? It's your list. If you want to present some alternative theories, do so at the end - not after we've sat through 90 other pretenders waiting for the inevitable denouement.

That's a fair point actually - a week is a long time in CW. Perhaps finish the countdown as is, while updating the system in the background and then at the end telling us how rankings may or may not have changed under a different model?

For three of them yes, to have Headley vindicated via such a statistical exercise is quite pleasing.. Thats all. Lots of great batsmen didn't make the final cut.

Fair enough. As I've said, Sobers, Richards and Lara all make mine with Headley just missing out by a couple of spots, but given how little there is between the players at that level I've got no real issue with all of them making the final ten.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, wouldn't it be a bit weird to have a different criteria at the end than you did at the beginning. I mean, theoretically, the previous rankings would no longer hold true under your system if you make alterations now?

 

[Spikey]

Yeah I say keep on keeping on. Maybe a month later after all the suggestions and debate etc have taken place release a new list all at once.

 

[Furball]

It will take me a week or so to make the changes that I have in mind based on the last few pages' discussion.

Then I will present the top 10 with those amendments.

Just do the top ten now, it would seem pretty daft if (for example) your changes bump Ponting up a couple of places and you reveal in 10th place a batsman you've already covered.

 

[Migara]

Yeah, I was thinking that, too.

How about if I make it that a great innings has to also be a significant innings, i.e. must be in a match where the batsman's team won, had a close draw, or a close loss.

On that criteria, Kallis would only have one great innings, which would drop him behind Ponting.

Close draw may not be the term. A team might start with 200 run deficit looking down the barrel. Then someone steps up as scores 250 and test becomes a dull draw. Is that a great innings or not?