Test Top 5s (as of now)

[mr_mister]

yeah i know. i also think all fifties dont mean the same thing, some are really damn valuable

 

[Pratters]

Morris gets Root in an absolute cracker.

 

[Spark]

Not just cricket pundits but that's how batting has been judged pretty much for all of known history. Batsmen go and want to get hundreds. Teams want their top order batsmen to get big hundreds. When a batsman is out of form and his place is questioned, a 100 is what shuts down that conversation, not a 60. Right now in the South Africa-England thread, people are frustrated by Root getting 78 instead of a 100. Sure you can question that wisdom but to do it now when Warner doesn't have hundreds in England sounds a bit weird... If he actually got hundreds in England, even a 101, Warner fans would be the first to remind everyone about it.

People are getting frustrated by Root getting 78 because it happened when his team were 3/140-odd and still well short of security, with not the world's strongest ever lower order coming in behind him. As mr_mister says, not all 50s are created equal and there is definitely such a thing as a particularly bad time to get out.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Amlas twin knocks this match helping my case regarding the 100s column nicely

Except that Amla has 26 test 100s, including a 311 in England. Him failing to convert in 1 game makes no difference to Warner failing to convert in two Ashes series in England and thus having 0 hundreds.

 

[Black_Warrior]

People are getting frustrated by Root getting 78 because it happened when his team were 3/140-odd and still well short of security, with not the world's strongest ever lower order coming in behind him. As mr_mister says, not all 50s are created equal and there is definitely such a thing as a particularly bad time to get out.

Correct.
These are some good examples

168/3 after a century opening stand, chasing 299. It's not unreasonable to suggest that had Warner converted in this match, Australia could have chased this down.
4th Test: England v Australia at Chester-le-Street, Aug 9-12, 2013 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


97/2 just when a partnership with Smith was developing
1st Investec Test: England v Australia at Cardiff, Jul 8-11, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[TheJediBrah]

Except that Amla has 26 test 100s, including a 311 in England. Him failing to convert in 1 game makes no difference to Warner failing to convert in two Ashes series in England and thus having 0 hundreds.

You've clearly completely missed the point with this utterly irrelevant post. The point was that Amla's innings' this game were crucial despite not being 100s. Each players' career stats couldn't be less relevant.

 

[Spark]

Correct.
These are some good examples

168/3 after a century opening stand, chasing 299. It's not unreasonable to suggest that had Warner converted in this match, Australia could have chased this down.
4th Test: England v Australia at Chester-le-Street, Aug 9-12, 2013 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


97/2 just when a partnership with Smith was developing
1st Investec Test: England v Australia at Cardiff, Jul 8-11, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

I don't get what point you're trying to make here...? Australian batsmen do it too, shock horror.

If you're just trying to make a dig because lol Aussies then that's pretty **** posting tbh.

 

[randycricfreak]

Smith is way better than Root and Williamson. He is on the way to become one of the greatest batsmen of all time along with the likes of Bradman, Sobers etc. He is certainly the best batsman I have seen in my time watching cricket ahead of even Lara. I love watching Root and he is great too but Smith is another level.

Lol way too early.

Fyi Haydos averaged in the mid 50s an opener around 2004-5 ish.Then you had GSmith with all those massive double hundreds in England.

Smith is a class act,but I won't rate him l that high

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't get what point you're trying to make here...? Australian batsmen do it too, shock horror.

If you're just trying to make a dig because lol Aussies then that's pretty **** posting tbh.

Umm this has nothing to do with Aussie batsmen or Aussies so relax, you don't have to come out defending your national honour here... the discussion between me and Mister was about Warner unless you take criticism of Warner as criticism of all Australian batsmen.

If you read the discussion of the last few pages from where you quoted my post, it was pointed out that Warner has 0 centuries outside of Australia and South Africa to which Mister replied how he has half centuries in England and half centuries are important too and used Amla's half century as an example, and then you made your point about how certain half centuries are different in the context of the game.

The only problem with this argument is Warner's half centuries in England do not qualify in that category..they are in fact the examples of getting out at the wrong time..so once again, to make these arguments to defend Warner's record in England seems disingenuous

You've clearly completely missed the point with this utterly irrelevant post. The point was that Amla's innings' this game were crucial despite not being 100s. Each players' career stats couldn't be less relevant.

The career stats are irrelevant in the context of this particular game, yes. But this topic was not about this game. This topic was about Top 5, so overall stats of the players mentioned in this thread are more relevant than 1 match.
So to use Amla as an example doesn't make sense because when we want to talk about how good Amla is, we don't make the argument "oh he got 2 crucial 50s in a test match once" His career stats speak for themselves.

 

[Pratters]

Lol way too early.

Fyi Haydos averaged in the mid 50s an opener around 2004-5 ish.Then you had GSmith with all those massive double hundreds in England.

Smith is a class act,but I won't rate him l that high

No one was claiming Graeme Smith was as good though really. It's the way he plays. And it's not like he had just had a season or two and is a flash in the pan. Any one who has watched him properly would know he is very special.

 

[honestbharani]

Aussie fans at CW, you now know whom to be mad at when The Chump inevitably declines.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The career stats are irrelevant in the context of this particular game, yes. But this topic was not about this game. This topic was about Top 5, so overall stats of the players mentioned in this thread are more relevant than 1 match.
So to use Amla as an example doesn't make sense because when we want to talk about how good Amla is, we don't make the argument "oh he got 2 crucial 50s in a test match once" His career stats speak for themselves.

You're still completely missing the point. Seems silly to be arguing about this now but you responded directly to post that was just stating that 50s can be as valuable as 100s, not all 50s are the same etc. No one cares about whatever topic you were arguing about before and you were perpetuating a meaningless argument that no one else was interested in having.

 

[Black_Warrior]

No. This conversation was about Top 5 bats and why Warner is no longer there, which is how we started talking about Warner's away stats, which is when you and Mister attempted to defend it by "50s are important too" to make up for Warner's lack of centuries in England without realizing that Warner's 50s in England are the exact opposite of crucial 50s.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Not seen a thread like this, might be fun to track periodically how our lists change:

Batsmen:
1) Steve Smith
2) Kane Williamson
3) Joe Root
4) Virat Kohli
5) Azhar Ali

HM: De Kock, Pujara, Ross Taylor, Dave Warner

Pace bowlers:
1) Dale Steyn
2) Mitchell Starc
3) KG Rabada
4) Josh Hazelwood
5) Stuart Broad

HM: Vernon Philander, Trent Boult

Spin bowlers:
1) R Ashwin
2) Rangana Herath
3) Yasir Shah
4) Nathan Lyon
5) Ravi Jadeja

All rounders:
1) Ben Stokes
2) Shakib Al Hasan
3) Angelo Mathews
4) R Ashwin
5) Moeen Ali

Assorted comments, Spinners first 3 picked themselves but after that I'd say there is a real paucity of quality options going around. Ali might be contentious to some at 5 on the batsmen slot but I rate him very highly and edges out Warner/Taylor et al because he has scored runs in a good variety of conditions. I expect De Kock to rapidly move up the list though, potentially going as far as 1#. Pace bowlers there to me a clear and obvious top 3, with 4-8 or so being a real logjam of good bowlers. All rounders is hard as basically all of them are primary skilled in one discipline with a bolt on extra.

I'd put Maharaj in the top 5 spinners and Wagner in the top 5 pace bowlers as neither depend on favourable conditions to succeed.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No. This conversation was about Top 5 bats and why Warner is no longer there, which is how we started talking about Warner's away stats, which is when you and Mister attempted to defend it by "50s are important too" to make up for Warner's lack of centuries in England without realizing that Warner's 50s in England are the exact opposite of crucial 50s.

you've just done the exact same thing again lol

I'd put Maharaj in the top 5 spinners and Wagner in the top 5 pace bowlers as neither depend on favourable conditions to succeed.

Which of Steyn, Starc, Rabada, Hazlewood & Broad do you think depend on favourable conditions to succeed?

tbh I doubt Wagner is in the top 20, he's been stinking up the County circuit too

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'd put Maharaj in the top 5 spinners and Wagner in the top 5 pace bowlers as neither depend on favourable conditions to succeed.

We can take out Steyn as he hasnt been in action for a while but then Philander has a claim to top 5 too

 

[Fuller Pilch]

you've just done the exact same thing again lol



Which of Steyn, Starc, Rabada, Hazlewood & Broad do you think depend on favourable conditions to succeed?

tbh I doubt Wagner is in the top 20, he's been stinking up the County circuit too

The top 20???

He had the best average of all quicks who played at least 5 tests last year:

Cricket Records | Records | 2016 | Test matches | Most wickets | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The top 20???

He had the best average of all quicks who played at least 5 tests last year:

Cricket Records | Records | 2016 | Test matches | Most wickets | ESPN Cricinfo

Also he might not be as naturally talented as those others but he is a 3rd seamer workhorse who doubles as a strike bowler - a very rare combination

 

[morgieb]

you've just done the exact same thing again lol



Which of Steyn, Starc, Rabada, Hazlewood & Broad do you think depend on favourable conditions to succeed?

tbh I doubt Wagner is in the top 20, he's been stinking up the County circuit too

I think there's some question marks re: Hazlewood's wicket-taking ability outside of favourable conditions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The top 20???

He had the best average of all quicks who played at least 5 tests last year:

Cricket Records | Records | 2016 | Test matches | Most wickets | ESPN Cricinfo

I don't think you're crazy, it's a fair shout, but still don't think he's close to those 5 at all, and others like Anderson, Philander, Pattinson (I know)