Scyld Berry 30 greatest test fast bowlers

[subshakerz]

I think it's more of a case of people only choosing those they have seen play/played with. Pretty common practice for ex-players, one of the main reasons I take most of their XIs with a grain of salt.

Gavaskar clearly has better peer rating than Barry though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gavaskar clearly has better peer rating than Barry though.

See, it's also clearly more so Kyear's agenda. Peterhrt and Fredfertang saw Barry play, and they clearly were fans of his game. Perfect stance, don't need to turn everything to numbers and other's opinions, nothing wrong with going with the one you feel is best. But, what Kyear does so often is just dishonest. Will repeatedly say how highly 70s bowlers rated Barry, namely Lillee and Snow. Whereas, Lillee rated Barry joint 4th, behind David Gower; and Gavaskar didn't scored in matches against him (3 Tests, 2 outs, 1 legal; 5 more FC games where he legit had the wool over Sunny but it was his 3rd International Series overall), they had a pretty major falling out (walkout incident) and to top it off, he openly have said he just doesn't rate batsmen like him and Boycott. Will say how Barry was unequivocally the best of the early 70s, which was partly for less competition, and even then I would have Graeme Pollock ahead. Will constantly being how Barry averages 60 odd in 14 Test equivalent games, but won't count Rebel tours in them since he did sub 30 there and it brings his overall to low 40s. I do think Barry was a Great batsman, but he just doesn't have anything to justify Top 10 placement if you atleast haven't seen him bat. Had a relatively short FC career and multiple batsmen outscored him in CC. The reason I even have him in Top 40 is his SA domestic record really.

 

[Johan]

always remember, Compton's peer reputation is fanatic romanticism but Barry's is factual quality judgement.

 

[subshakerz]

See, it's also clearly more so Kyear's agenda. Peterhrt and Fredfertang saw Barry play, and they clearly were fans of his game. Perfect stance, don't need to turn everything to numbers and other's opinions, nothing wrong with going with the one you feel is best. But, what Kyear does so often is just dishonest. Will repeatedly say how highly 70s bowlers rated Barry, namely Lillee and Snow. Whereas, Lillee rated Barry joint 4th, behind David Gower; and Gavaskar didn't scored in matches against him (3 Tests, 2 outs, 1 legal; 5 more FC games where he legit had the wool over Sunny but it was his 3rd International Series overall), they had a pretty major falling out (walkout incident) and to top it off, he openly have said he just doesn't rate batsmen like him and Boycott. Will say how Barry was unequivocally the best of the early 70s, which was partly for less competition, and even then I would have Graeme Pollock ahead. Will constantly being how Barry averages 60 odd in 14 Test equivalent games, but won't count Rebel tours in them since he did sub 30 there and it brings his overall to low 40s. I do think Barry was a Great batsman, but he just doesn't have anything to justify Top 10 placement if you atleast haven't seen him bat. Had a relatively short FC career and multiple batsmen outscored him in CC. The reason I even have him in Top 40 is his SA domestic record really.

This list with Gavaskar dominating among peer XIs actually entirely blows up Kyears argument for Barry.

 

[peterhrt]

I think it's more of a case of people only choosing those they have seen play/played with. Pretty common practice for ex-players, one of the main reasons I take most of their XIs with a grain of salt.

For exercises like this, it can be argued that ex-players add more value by evaluating what they have seen first-hand, rather than what they may, or may not, have heard or read.

There was a reasonable spread of judges by nationality: England 21, West Indies 18, Australia 15, Pakistan 15, India 14, South Africa 12, New Zealand 4, Sri Lanka 2.

Only one of the Sri Lankans (Ranatunga) picked Murali. Aravinda de Silva went for Warne instead. Martin Crowe didn't pick Hadlee. Only four of the Australians chose Gilchrist and none selected Knott. There were eight wicket-keepers on the panel. Two chose Evans (far superior to Knott and Bob Taylor according to John Waite), while one each selected Grout, Healy, Marsh and Tallon. Kirmani as noted earlier picked himself. Alec Stewart went for fellow batsman-keeper Gilchrist.

 

[subshakerz]

Kirmani's team had seven men from the sub-continent, three West Indians and one from England.
Gavaskar, Greenidge, Viv Richards, Gower, Javed Miandad, Imran Khan*, Kapil Dev, Kirmani+, Holding, Bedi, Chandrasekhar.

"As it is my team I'll pick myself, though I feel my record justifies it. It was an immense challenge keeping to legendary spinners like Chandrasekhar and Bedi, and the art and ability of a wicket-keeper is judged only when he stands up to spinners."

Number of teams where each wicket-keeper was chosen:

35 - Knott
26 - Gilchrist
10 - Evans
8 - Tallon
7 - Healy
6 - Marsh
3 - Kirmani
2 - Dujon, Grout
1 - Kanhai, Waite

@kyear2 looks like Knott has more support than we thought

 

[Thala_0710]

@kyear2 looks like Knott has more support than we thought

The older you go the support for Knott rises, the more modern you come the support for Gilly rises. It's literally the debate of very good keeper + very good bat vs great keeper and good bat.
I ran basic mathematical simulations on grok/chatgpt and they favour knott as well

 

[Coronis]

I ran basic mathematical simulations on grok/chatgpt and they favour knott as well

Based on what?

 

[Johan]

Based on what?

mathematics.

 

[subshakerz]

The older you go the support for Knott rises, the more modern you come the support for Gilly rises. It's literally the debate of very good keeper + very good bat vs great keeper and good bat.
I ran basic mathematical simulations on grok/chatgpt and they favour knott as well

I.now favor Knott too.

 

[Thala_0710]

Based on what?

Simple data like byes per innings (whatever data is available), expected value of extra dismissals by keeper, batting impact in terms of rpi, sr, centuries etc
Actually the weights you give to each metric change the results quite a bit. So my earlier comment on Knott getting favoured generally is not fully correct.

 

[Thala_0710]

### Step 1: Define Metrics
- **Wicketkeeping**:
- **Byes per innings (BPI)**: Measures tidiness (lower is better).
- **Extra dismissals per innings (EDPI)**: Estimates additional dismissals due to keeping brilliance.
- **Batting**:
- **Runs per innings (RPI)**: Total run contribution per batting opportunity.
- **Batting average**: Consistency and ability to stay at the crease.
- **Strike rate (SR)**: Scoring speed, reflecting momentum-shifting ability.
- **Centuries**: Match-turning innings.
- **Weighting**: Test three scenarios (60% keeping/40% batting, 50%/50%, 40%/60%).

### Step 2: Collect Statistical Data
Based on historical Test cricket data (sourced from ESPNcricinfo, with estimates for BPI and EDPI):

- **Alan Knott (England, 1967–1981)**:
- **Tests**: 95
- **Innings fielded**: ~174 (95 Tests × ~2 innings per Test).
- **Keeping**:
- **Byes**: BPI ≈ 0.5 (exceptional tidiness).
- **Dismissals**: 250 catches + 19 stumpings = 269.
- **DPI**: 269 / 174 ≈ 1.546.
- **EDPI**: Era average DPI ≈ 1.2. Knott adds ~10% more dismissals. EDPI ≈ 0.1 × 1.2 = 0.12.
- **Batting**:
- Runs: 4,389
- Innings: 149
- RPI: 4,389 / 149 ≈ 29.46
- Average: 32.75
- Centuries: 5 (0.0336 per innings: 5 / 149)
- Strike rate: ~45 (estimated, defensive style).
- Position: Typically 6 or 7.

- **Adam Gilchrist (Australia, 1999–2008)**:
- **Tests**: 96
- **Innings fielded**: ~191 (96 Tests × ~2 innings per Test).
- **Keeping**:
- **Byes**: BPI ≈ 0.8 (very good but less tidy).
- **Dismissals**: 379 catches + 37 stumpings = 416.
- **DPI**: 416 / 191 ≈ 2.178.
- **EDPI**: Era average DPI ≈ 1.8. Gilchrist adds ~5% more dismissals. EDPI ≈ 0.05 × 1.8 = 0.09.
- **Batting**:
- Runs: 5,570
- Innings: 137
- RPI: 5,570 / 137 ≈ 40.66
- Average: 47.60
- Centuries: 17 (0.1241 per innings: 17 / 137)
- Strike rate: 81.95 (per ESPNcricinfo).
- Position: Typically 7.

**Notes**:
- Knott’s EDPI (0.12) vs. Gilchrist’s (0.09): ~3 extra dismissals per 100 innings.
- Knott’s BPI (0.5) vs. Gilchrist’s (0.8): ~0.3 runs saved per innings (~30 runs per 100 innings).
- Gilchrist’s RPI (40.66 vs. 29.46), average (47.60 vs. 32.75), centuries, and SR reflect stronger batting.

### Step 3: Build the Mathematical Model
Calculate a **Player Value Score (PVS)** combining keeping and batting, normalized for era differences and weighted by role importance.

#### Keeping Score
Combine BPI and EDPI, normalized:
- **BPI Score** (invert and scale, lower is better):
- Era average BPI ≈ 1.0.
- Knott: 1 / 0.5 = 2.0 → (2.0 / 1.0) = 2.0 (100% better).
- Gilchrist: 1 / 0.8 = 1.25 → (1.25 / 1.0) = 1.25 (25% better).
- **EDPI Score** (normalize to era DPI, scale for comparability):
- Knott: EDPI 0.12 / era DPI 1.2 ≈ 0.1 × 20 = 2.0.
- Gilchrist: EDPI 0.09 / era DPI 1.8 ≈ 0.05 × 20 = 1.0.

**Keeping Score** = (BPI Score + EDPI Score) / 2:
- Knott: (2.0 + 2.0) / 2 = 2.0
- Gilchrist: (1.25 + 1.0) / 2 = 1.125

#### Batting Score
Normalize RPI, batting average, strike rate, and centuries, with equal weighting (25% each) for batting impact:
- **RPI Score**:
- Era average RPI: Knott’s era ~22, Gilchrist’s era ~27.
- Knott: 29.46 / 22 ≈ 1.339 (33.9% above average).
- Gilchrist: 40.66 / 27 ≈ 1.506 (50.6% above average).
- **Batting Average Score**:
- Era average: Knott’s era ~25, Gilchrist’s era ~30.
- Knott: 32.75 / 25 ≈ 1.310 (31% above average).
- Gilchrist: 47.60 / 30 ≈ 1.587 (58.7% above average).
- **Strike Rate Score**:
- Era average SR: Knott’s era ~50, Gilchrist’s era ~60.
- Knott: 45 / 50 ≈ 0.9 (10% below average).
- Gilchrist: 81.95 / 60 ≈ 1.366 (36.6% above average).
- **Centuries Score**:
- Era average centuries per innings: Knott’s era ~0.02, Gilchrist’s era ~0.03.
- Knott: 0.0336 / 0.02 ≈ 1.68 (68% above average).
- Gilchrist: 0.1241 / 0.03 ≈ 4.137 (313.7% above average).

**Base Batting Score** = (RPI Score + Batting Average Score + Strike Rate Score + Centuries Score) / 4:
- Knott: (1.339 + 1.310 + 0.9 + 1.68) / 4 ≈ 1.3073
- Gilchrist: (1.506 + 1.587 + 1.366 + 4.137) / 4 ≈ 2.149

**Batting Impact Adjustment** (minimal, to fine-tune for match influence):
- Use a small multiplier based on centuries and strike_rate (10% total, 5% each):
- Century multiplier: Gilchrist 4.137 / Knott 1.68 ≈ 2.462; Knott = 1.
- Strike rate multiplier: Gilchrist 1.366 / Knott 0.9 ≈ 1.518; Knott = 1.
- Impact multiplier: (0.05 × Century Multiplier) + (0.05 × Strike Rate Multiplier) + 0.9.
- Kn فنott: (0.05 × 1) + (0.05 × 1) + 0.9 = 1.0
- Gilchrist: (0.05 × 2.462) + (0.05 × 1.518) + 0.9 ≈ 0.1231 + 0.0759 + 0.9 ≈ 1.099

**Adjusted Batting Score** = Base Batting Score × Impact Multiplier:
- Knott: 1.3073 × 1.0 ≈ 1.3073
- Gilchrist: 2.149 × 1.099 ≈ 2.3618

#### Total Player Value Score (PVS)
PVS = (W_k × Keeping Score) + (W_b × Batting Score), where W_k + W_b = 1.

Test three weighting scenarios:
1. **60% Keeping, 40% Batting**:
- Knott: (0.6 × 2.0) + (0.4 × 1.3073) ≈ 1.2 + 0.5229 = 1.7229
- Gilchrist: (0.6 × 1.125) + (0.4 × 2.3618) ≈ 0.675 + 0.9447 = 1.6197
2. **50% Keeping, 50% Batting**:
- Knott: (0.5 × 2.0) + (0.5 × 1.3073) ≈ 1.0 + 0.6537 = 1.6537
- Gilchrist: (0.5 × 1.125) + (0.5 × 2.3618) ≈ 0.5625 + 1.1809 = 1.7434
3. **40% Keeping, 60% Batting**:
- Knott: (0.4 × 2.0) + (0.6 × 1.3073) ≈ 0.8 + 0.7844 = 1.5844
- Gilchrist: (0.4 × 1.125) + (0.6 × 2.3618) ≈ 0.45 + 1.4171 = 1.8671

### Step 4: Interpret Results
- **60% Keeping/40% Batting**: Knott (1.7229) > Gilchrist (1.6197). Knott’s keeping edge prevails.
- **50% Keeping/50% Batting**: Gilchrist (1.7434) slightly > Knott (1.6537). Results are close, with Gilchrist edging out due to batting.
- **40% Keeping/60% Batting**: Gilchrist (1.8671) > Knott (1.5844).

### Step 5: Contextual Considerations
- **Keeping Impact**: Knott’s EDPI (0.12 vs. 0.09) yields ~3 extra dismissals per 100 innings. His BPI (0.5 vs. 0.8) saves ~30 runs per 100 innings. These are critical in tight Tests.
- **Batting Impact**: Gilchrist’s RPI (40.66 vs. 29.46), average (47.60 vs. 32.75), SR (81.95 vs. 45), and centuries (17 vs. 5) make him a game-changer, balanced by equal weighting with RPI and average.
- **Team Needs**: In an all-time XI with elite batsmen (e.g., Bradman) and bowlers (e.g., Warne), Knott’s keeping maximizes bowling efficiency, while Gilchrist’s batting adds depth and aggression at 7.

### Step 6: Conclusion
The model, with equal weighting for RPI, average, SR, and centuries, achieves the desired balance:
- **60% keeping**: Knott’s superior keeping (BPI 0.5, EDPI 0.12) gives him the edge.
- **50% keeping/batting**: Scores are close (Gilchrist slightly ahead), reflecting near-equal contributions.
- **60% batting**: Gilchrist’s batting (RPI 40.66, average 47.60) prevails.

**Recommendation**: For an all-time Test XI, the choice depends on team priorities:
- If prioritizing keeping (60% keeping), **Alan Knott** is the better pick at number 7 for his exceptional keeping reliability.
- If prioritizing batting or balance (50% or 60% batting), **Adam Gilchrist** is preferred for his match-turning batting.
Given the balanced 50%/50% scenario where Gilchrist edges out slightly, and considering his batting’s potential to shift games in a strong XI, Gilchrist is the marginal choice.

**Final Answer**: Pick **Adam Gilchrist** for the all-time Test XI at number 7, as his batting (RPI 40.66, average 47.60, SR 81.95, 17 centuries) slightly outweighs Knott’s keeping (BPI 0.5, EDPI 0.12) in the balanced 50%/50% weighting (1.7434 vs. 1.6537), with Knott favored at 60% keeping and Gilchrist at 60% batting.

 

[Thala_0710]

Actually Gilly has the edge in the latest iteration, but only just.
The results are basically that it comes down to preference tbh. But keeping ability definitely has more of a role to play than is thought of in the modern period.

 

[peterhrt]

This list with Gavaskar dominating among peer XIs actually entirely blows up Kyears argument for Barry.

Gavaskar's vote count is impressive. Obviously a lot more of the judges saw him than they did Barry Richards, especially in the sub-continent and Caribbean. Only Prasanna from the 31 sub-continental judges picked Richards and he never saw him play, and only Lawrence Rowe from the Caribbean chose him. Gavaskar received 25 votes from the sub-continent and 15 from West Indians. Outside those regions he has 19 votes to Richards' 16.

Of those who chose both in their team, Bird, Bland, Gooch, Thomson and Procter said Richards was the superior bat. So did Martin Crowe but he changed his mind a few years later. Rowe preferred Gavaskar. Richards himself picked Gavaskar to open with Greenidge, his old Hampshire partner.

 

[sayon basak]

mathematics.

mind blow

 

[sayon basak]

I.now favor Knott too.

Never has anyone seen Grok and Subshakerz in the same room.

 

[Johan]

Walcott is an easily better batsman and probably a better keeper than Kanhai, don't know how one can opt for Kanhai at all, honestly

 

[Thala_0710]

Walcott is an easily better batsman

No

 

[Gob]

1. Marshall
2. McGrath
3. Hadlee
4. Steyn
5. Ambrose
6. Imran
7. Lillee
8. Wasim
9. Trueman
10. Bumrah
11. Donald
12. Waqar
13. Walsh
14. Pollock
15. Cummins
16. Lindwall
17. Davidson
18. Garner
19. Rabada
20. Holding
21. Anderson
22. Shoaib
23. Broad
24. Hazlewood
25. Philander
26. Willis
27. Gillespie
28. Larwood
29. Roberts
30. Botham

 

[Coronis]

- **Alan Knott (England, 1967–1981)**:
- **Tests**: 95
- **Innings fielded**: ~174 (95 Tests × ~2 innings per Test).
- **Keeping**:
- **Byes**: BPI ≈ 0.5 (exceptional tidiness).
- **Dismissals**: 250 catches + 19 stumpings = 269.
- **DPI**: 269 / 174 ≈ 1.546.
- **EDPI**: Era average DPI ≈ 1.2. Knott adds ~10% more dismissals. EDPI ≈ 0.1 × 1.2 = 0.12.
- **Batting**:
- Runs: 4,389
- Innings: 149
- RPI: 4,389 / 149 ≈ 29.46
- Average: 32.75
- Centuries: 5 (0.0336 per innings: 5 / 149)
- Strike rate: ~45 (estimated, defensive style).
- Position: Typically 6 or 7.

- **Adam Gilchrist (Australia, 1999–2008)**:
- **Tests**: 96
- **Innings fielded**: ~191 (96 Tests × ~2 innings per Test).
- **Keeping**:
- **Byes**: BPI ≈ 0.8 (very good but less tidy).
- **Dismissals**: 379 catches + 37 stumpings = 416.
- **DPI**: 416 / 191 ≈ 2.178.
- **EDPI**: Era average DPI ≈ 1.8. Gilchrist adds ~5% more dismissals. EDPI ≈ 0.05 × 1.8 = 0.09.
- **Batting**:
- Runs: 5,570
- Innings: 137
- RPI: 5,570 / 137 ≈ 40.66
- Average: 47.60
- Centuries: 17 (0.1241 per innings: 17 / 137)
- Strike rate: 81.95 (per ESPNcricinfo).
- Position: Typically 7.

**Notes**:
- Knott’s EDPI (0.12) vs. Gilchrist’s (0.09): ~3 extra dismissals per 100 innings.
- Knott’s BPI (0.5) vs. Gilchrist’s (0.8): ~0.3 runs saved per innings (~30 runs per 100 innings).
- Gilchrist’s RPI (40.66 vs. 29.46), average (47.60 vs. 32.75), centuries, and SR reflect stronger batting.

Ok so to summarise (hopefully slightly more succinctly), Knott is taking 3 more catches and saving 30 more runs tidily in 100 innings. Whilst Gilchrist is scoring 1120 more runs in 100 innings. So for Knott to be equal those 3 catches gained by him that Gilchrist would miss would have to be worth 1090 runs