CW Best Batsmen 26-50

[srbhkshk]

Jayawardene ahead of Faulkner imo

I don't know much about Faulkner but if he is Jayawardene levels then Laxman should come before both.

 

[Coronis]

Crowe averaged less than cook batting at no.4 lol
Talk about eras but its just another one of those threads where everyone reminiscis about how much better the game was 'back then.'

Yeah! Lets just rank them by averages!

 

[Brian Lara]

Yeah, Faulkner is very borderline on whether or not he should be here to be honest.

Anyway, we are likely to spend days arguing about who makes or who doesn't make the cut so let's just rank the batsmen we have here for now and like I said, we can make adjustments and re-ranks to the list at a later date.

Edit - if I recall correctly, Mr Mister took a sample of 25 different lists so it would be great to get that kind of number again!

 

[Brian Lara]

Does anyone want to dive in and post their list, or is everyone too unsure to go first

 

[Gob]

Yeah, Faulkner is very borderline on whether or not he should be here to be honest.

Anyway, we are likely to spend days arguing about who makes or who doesn't make the cut so let's just rank the batsmen we have here for now and like I said, we can make adjustments and re-ranks to the list at a later date.

Edit - if I recall correctly, Mr Mister took a sample of 25 different lists so it would be great to get that kind of number again!

Forkers was good for a while but no way i'd have him this high

 

[harsh.ag]

Steve Smith >>> Faulkner

 

[weldone]

Steve Smith >>> Faulkner

haha yeah Faulkner shouldn't be in this discussion at all, with due respect

 

[Tom Flint]

Yeah! Lets just rank them by averages!

Pretty sure that's what everyone does with cook.
And a batsmen's average basically tells you roughly how many runs they score each innings. Which is a good way of seeing how good they were/are

 

[Gob]

There are so many other factors

 

[jimmy101]

Indeed. Averages should never be taken as gospel. Averages do not reflect the quality of the bowling attack faced, the state of the pitch/ball/outfield, the match situation, the amount of chances missed/taken by the fielding team, the mindset of the umpires, weather conditions and a few other variables I'm sure.

 

[Brian Lara]

Forkers was good for a while but no way i'd have him this high

OK, then let's replace him. Who would you put instead of Faulkner? Gooch? Cook? Macartney? Walters? Hussey? Laxman?

Steve Smith >>> Faulkner

Mr Mister excluded Smith from his ranking by virtue of people thinking he was too tough to rank right now with so much of his career still to go. I was thinking of passing on Smith for the same reason but if people want Smith on the list I'll happily add him.

haha yeah Faulkner shouldn't be in this discussion at all, with due respect

Yeah, to be honest he was the guy I was thinking could be changed. Who would you replace him with?

Question to everyone
If we take out Faulkner, who shall we add from this list?
Cook
Gooch
Pietersen
Walters
Hussey
Macartney
Hill
Morris
Lawry
Abbas
Laxman
Merchant
Jayawardene
Shrewsbury

 

[Tom Flint]

Indeed. Averages should never be taken as gospel. Averages do not reflect the quality of the bowling attack faced, the state of the pitch/ball/outfield, the match situation, the amount of chances missed/taken by the fielding team, the mindset of the umpires, weather conditions and a few other variables I'm sure.

Lol on there hole all those factors even themselves out after youve played hundred odd tests.
And to say bowling was better 20/30 years ago goes against all logic.

 

[jimmy101]

I didn't say bowling was better 20/30 years ago.

 

[jaideep]

Jayawardene for Faulkner

 

[OverratedSanity]

I didn't say bowling was better 20/30 years ago.

It's one of the few things that genuinely was better 20 years ago.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol on there hole all those factors even themselves out after youve played hundred odd tests.

Yeah that was a weird point. When you've played a lot over a long period of time then average does take into account all of those things . . . it's an average.

 

[Gob]

Wait you guys weren't talking about James Faulkner?

 

[jimmy101]

Yeah that was a weird point. When you've played a lot over a long period of time then average does take into account all of those things . . . it's an average.

Principally speaking, batting & bowling averages are mathematical values derived from runs/innings or wickets/runs. However, there are many outliers that must be considered when looking at averages (not outs for example), and therefore they are not definitive. The whole notion of "yeah but, the good luck & bad luck evens out after a while" doesn't hold any weight in a mathematical context. It has been long established in the world of cricket statistics that averages aren't perfect, this is why you see people creating new formulas such as the ones used for cricrate, or for those articles you sometimes see on cricinfo.

 

[jimmy101]

Wait you guys weren't talking about James Faulkner?

Sometimes it's better to remain quiet, and be thought a fool, than to speak up and erase all doubt.

 

[Brian Lara]

Well if only one guy makes a suggestion and its Jayawardene, then I'll add Jayawardene to the list.