Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 184
Like Tree45Likes

Thread: DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen: Discussion thread

  1. #1
    International Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    5,685

    DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen: Discussion thread

    Hi all,

    I will in the coming months present my top 100 test batsmen of all time using my standard countdown formula.

    Before I do so, I want to make this countdown list more interactive, in that I want my fellow posters to decide on what measures I should use and how much weight to give each measure.

    The measures I used for the top 100 test bowlers were as follows:

    Wickets taken/years active/great bowling performances 10%
    Career record 50%
    Peak record (best 50 innings block) 20%
    Non-home record 10%
    Quality opposition record 10%

    The career, peak, non-home and quality opposition records consisted of average, strike-rate and points-per-innings (using my individual innings performance metric).

    I want the formula to be consistent for both batsmen and bowlers. I have decided to do away with the points per innings as it gives too much of an advantage to batsmen and bowlers who scored a lot of centuries or took a lot of five wicket hauls in their career. Instead, for batsmen, I only want to use average and strike-rate (with a ratio of 4:1, the same as for bowlers).

    The three questions I have are:

    1. Should I keep the same weights for each measure? I feel that peak, non-home, and quality opposition should have the same weight.
    2. Should I drop the peak 50 innings measure and instead use a peak career record (i.e. when a batsmen achieved their best career average)?
    3. Should a player get their full rating after only 50 innings (or about 30 test matches)? Or should it be 100 innings? I feel this works better for ODI players.

    I look forward to your opinions. Cheers.
    andmark likes this.
    Favorite XI: WG Grace, VT Trumper, IVA Richards, DCS Compton, FMM Worrell (c), GS Sobers, AC Gilchrist (wk), H Larwood, SK Warne, T Richardson, SE Bond

  2. #2
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    India
    Posts
    164
    1. We all know Don Bradman is the greatest. I want 100 innings as a minimum cut off

    2. My order

    Overall Career : 50%

    Comparison to peers : 15%

    Peak : 10%

    Quality of bowlers : 15%

    Away record : 10%

    3. Peak should be when batsman achieved his best form.
    Last edited by Logan; 03-10-2019 at 10:59 PM.
    Days of Grace likes this.

  3. #3
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    67,204
    I think you'll find that regardless of your methodology, the result is always Allan Border being ranked the second greatest batsman of all time behind Bradman. So this thread really only needs to rank from numbers 3-100. That'll hopefully save DoG a bit of work.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
    - JK Galbraith
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**** over your head and get a woolly bull to f**** some sense into you.

    "Do you know why I have credibility? Because I don't exude morality." - Bob Hawke

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  4. #4
    International Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    5,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan View Post
    1. We all know Don Bradman is the greatest. I want 100 innings as a minimum cut off

    2. My order

    Overall Career : 50%

    Comparison to peers : 15%

    Peak : 10%

    Quality of bowlers : 15%

    Away record : 10%

    3. Peak should be when batsman achieved his best form.
    All batsmen will have their averages adjusted according to their era and the opposition that they faced. So we don't really need a comparison to peers measurement.

    Also, I feel that instead of a straight cut-off, batsmen will lose points if they have not batted in at least 100 innings.


  5. #5
    International Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    5,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    I think you'll find that regardless of your methodology, the result is always Allan Border being ranked the second greatest batsman of all time behind Bradman. So this thread really only needs to rank from numbers 3-100. That'll hopefully save DoG a bit of work.
    This countdown is going to be so much fun.

  6. #6
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    67,204
    I hope you enjoy it. It would be a shame to put as much effort into these things as you do and not to like doing it

  7. #7
    International Coach mr_mister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    13,457
    Look forward to Voges cracking the top 30

    Headleys rating will suffer if you take away points per innings right?
    Last edited by mr_mister; 03-10-2019 at 11:49 PM.
    cricket rules brah

  8. #8
    International Coach Starfighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    On a wing and a prayer
    Posts
    12,708
    70-80 innings / 40-odd tests as cut off for full points. Maybe even less. Otherwise punishes players who didn't play a lot because they never had the opportunity, especially applicable to players who crossed one of the wars.

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    15,186
    Yeah if you've already got 10% for total runs/years active adding another 10% penalty for less than 100 innings is skewing things a bit too much IMO

  10. #10
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Days of Grace View Post
    Hi all,

    I will in the coming months present my top 100 test batsmen of all time using my standard countdown formula.

    Before I do so, I want to make this countdown list more interactive, in that I want my fellow posters to decide on what measures I should use and how much weight to give each measure.

    The measures I used for the top 100 test bowlers were as follows:

    Wickets taken/years active/great bowling performances 10%
    Career record 50%
    Peak record (best 50 innings block) 20%
    Non-home record 10%
    Quality opposition record 10%

    The career, peak, non-home and quality opposition records consisted of average, strike-rate and points-per-innings (using my individual innings performance metric).

    I want the formula to be consistent for both batsmen and bowlers. I have decided to do away with the points per innings as it gives too much of an advantage to batsmen and bowlers who scored a lot of centuries or took a lot of five wicket hauls in their career. Instead, for batsmen, I only want to use average and strike-rate (with a ratio of 4:1, the same as for bowlers).

    The three questions I have are:

    1. Should I keep the same weights for each measure? I feel that peak, non-home, and quality opposition should have the same weight.
    2. Should I drop the peak 50 innings measure and instead use a peak career record (i.e. when a batsmen achieved their best career average)?
    3. Should a player get their full rating after only 50 innings (or about 30 test matches)? Or should it be 100 innings? I feel this works better for ODI players.

    I look forward to your opinions. Cheers.
    I liked that you mentioned "coming months". This is going to be a monumental effort. Might as well take one year as well. All the best !

  11. #11
    Request Your Custom Title Now! OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Elton Chicken Burrah
    Posts
    33,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Days of Grace View Post
    I have decided to do away with the points per innings as it gives too much of an advantage to batsmen and bowlers who scored a lot of centuries or took a lot of five wicket hauls in their career. Instead, for batsmen, I only want to use average and strike-rate (with a ratio of 4:1, the same as for bowlers).
    I don't agree with this. Making tons and big scores is what elite batting is about. Also was hoping you'd ignore strike rate completely for batsmen. It's too misleading and actually rewards batsmen like sehwag who scored 20(15) abroad when 20(70) would have been much more useful.

    Batting time and making big scores are big parts of test batting and this formula would properly capture that imo. There's no need for the parameters to be consistent for bowlers and batsmen at all, just treat them as different exercises.
    mr_mister and Singh767 like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**t over your head and get a woolly bull to f**k some sense into you.

  12. #12
    Hall of Fame Member harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    18,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Days of Grace View Post
    The three questions I have are:
    1. Should I keep the same weights for each measure? I feel that peak, non-home, and quality opposition should have the same weight.
    2. Should I drop the peak 50 innings measure and instead use a peak career record (i.e. when a batsmen achieved their best career average)?
    3. Should a player get their full rating after only 50 innings (or about 30 test matches)? Or should it be 100 innings? I feel this works better for ODI players.

    I look forward to your opinions. Cheers.
    1. I feel non-home should have a higher weight than 10% at the very least. With quality opposition, there is so much subjectivity that I would give it a low weight just so that it doesn't distort results much.

    2. Peak 50 innings

    3. There should be some way of rewarding longevity. Is there a better way to do that?
    Singh767 likes this.
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    15,186
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    1. I feel non-home should have a higher weight than 10% at the very least. With quality opposition, there is so much subjectivity that I would give it a low weight just so that it doesn't distort results much.
    anymore than 10% and you're further penalising batsmen who were really good at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    3. There should be some way of rewarding longevity. Is there a better way to do that?
    the first metric he mentioned: "Wickets taken/years active/great bowling performances 10%" covers that pretty well

  14. #14
    International Coach mr_mister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    13,457
    It's tricky. I know for the older era players you tend to say if they had a 20 year career like Bradman, Hobbs and Hammond they had a full career despite not playing anywhere near the amount of tests as modern players

    But for someone like say Headley or Aubrey Faulkner who really only played a token test or two after world wars effectively ended their careers, do we consider them to have played a full career. As on paper their test careers going by span of time looks very long
    Last edited by mr_mister; 04-10-2019 at 12:51 AM.

  15. #15
    International Coach stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    aus
    Posts
    12,898
    Quote Originally Posted by OverratedSanity View Post
    I don't agree with this. Making tons and big scores is what elite batting is about. Also was hoping you'd ignore strike rate completely for batsmen. It's too misleading and actually rewards batsmen like sehwag who scored 20(15) abroad when 20(70) would have been much more useful.

    Batting time and making big scores are big parts of test batting and this formula would properly capture that imo. There's no need for the parameters to be consistent for bowlers and batsmen at all, just treat them as different exercises.
    Agreed. I'd swap the rating for strike rate with the points per innings.

    Also home vs away stats are important but I think you're better off splitting them 50/50. Also consider the UAE to be home for Pakistan since the attacks.

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. DoG’s Top 100 Test Batsmen - Bowling Discussion
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 22-09-2013, 09:22 PM
  2. DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen: 50-26
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 239
    Last Post: 07-08-2013, 08:24 AM
  3. DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - 75-51
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 23-07-2013, 05:57 PM
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-07-2013, 07:43 PM
  5. CW's Ranking of Batsmen and Bowlers - A Discussion
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 23-04-2009, 11:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •