Scyld Berry 30 greatest test fast bowlers

[kyear2]

Ok so do you replace Tendulkar with Hammond? Yes or no?

Please don't sit on the fence with the 'consider' excuse. Please tell us explicitly.


You don't even believe that though. You literally have Imran as an automatic no.8 to solve a no.7 not being strong enough.

Ahhh, I see you're back with the demanding.

And also with the "us"

My team is in my signature, you obsessive soul.

I have three slips I like and two of them are absolute top tier. I also understand that everything is about compromise.

We don't pick the absolutely best batting tail, the absolute best 5th bowling option, nor the absolute best slip cordon. There are primary skills to consider.

It's about balance. Sachin and McGrath are too good to leave out just because they couldn't do anything else.

And for the record, the same arguments for Hadlee or Imran over McGrath equally exists for Hammond over Sachin.

 

[kyear2]

Viv is a great slip

Yes he was, an ATG slip.

Only ones I saw better than him at 3rd were Richardson and ABdV

 

[kyear2]

He already has Barry, Viv, Sobers and Warne in the cordon though no? Hammond, even though he's an ATG, wouldn't improve it a lot

Exactly. Barry, Sobers, Richards and Warne, is good enough, which by the way is just as solid as Wasim, Marshall and Warne in the tail. It doesn't have to be the absolute best for either. Good yes, and both are.

 

[kyear2]

Kyear doesn't rate Warne as a slip.

AT no, but good and can hold down gully.

Don't even know what you're trying to prove at this point.

 

[kyear2]

people haven't seen Hobbs that much

Yeah, figured that was obvious.

 

[Spark]

The edit button is a thing, please use it

 

[kyear2]

Gavaskar clearly has better peer rating than Barry though.

I see you're bringing out all the greatest hits. You and Luffy turning a couple threads into the Imran and Kapil revenge tours.

Not all of those XI's were just contemporary accounts from their era and I can present many XI's where Barry is either selected alongside or ahead of Sunny. And many of these XI's, as referenced by you and Luffy are absolute garbage.

A lot of modern XI's are literally Sunny and Hayden, Sunny from their memories and Sunny ever present from television and his brilliant record.

The fact that the gentleman with 4 tests even get such mentions is testament to his brilliance and evidence of how damn good he was.

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.

What agenda would this be? That I love and have a have a hidden kink for the caucasian South African that was raised in a country ruled by apartheid?

The reasoning behind why I select Barry over Sunny is becuse when they both played, one was clearly and unanimously rated higher than the other, and it wasn't Sunny.
One was clearly better vs fast bowling on helpful tracks, somewhat a prerequisite for an opening batsman.
One was more respected and more highly rated by the pacers of the day, Lillee, Snow, Procter, Thompson.
That one could add impetus to an innings and consistently accelerate it as no other modern opener could, and especially in all conditions?

So could it possibly be because I've watched all that I could of him on YouTube, and listened to people who I respect who watched him bat, that I've read everything that I could about him and that he fits 3 out of 4 criteria that I have for the opening batsman position? Literally the only thing he lacks is being left handed.

But with @capt_Luffy and @subshakerz it has to be an agenda, a conspiracy, why possibly wouldn't he select the same players that we think he should. Let's consistently being up Barry and Inran and try to embarrass him. You two really don't see how ridiculous this is do you?

The argument with regards to the rebel tours is that Barry was well and fully retired and not playing for tears prior to same. The sad thing is that you know this.

It wasn't just Lillee and Snow, Procter, Thompson also rated him higher. And now apparently Lillee isn't qualified to rate batsmen, and is biased against him, Jesus wept. He literally said he didn't rate him as a batsman, Holding and others called him fair weather. But I'm sure you'll come up with excuses for that as well.

And yes, during his reign as best batsman in the world till '76, there were the Chappells', Pollock, Gavaskar, Lloyd, Boycott, but yeah, no competition. But I'm dishonest?

As I've said a few times, this is now personal for you two, and bringing up unrelated **** out of nowhere trying to prove a point. The tribalism is ridiculous.
And that too is wild because Wasim is in my XI and if anyone's going to replace him, it's Bumrah. Like is this just literally pick my guy?

 

[kyear2]

### 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.

What do you believe the weighting should be?

I'm happy with either 50 / 50 or 60 / 40 keeping.

Especially in a team with such a strong batting line up 50 / 50 should be the absolute minimum.

 

[kyear2]

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.

So basically what you're saying is that it's not crazy to choose one over the other.

And the majority of those who say both, preferred Barry.

Doesn't sound crazy at all then?

 

[kyear2]

Come off it, dude.

You're one of the ones who disparages it.

Really?

Yes. Multiple players, most notably Simpson, Sharpe were chosen because of their fielding. Sobers, Hooper and others initially kept their places because if it.

Teams pick their players based on specialists skills and fielders find themselves in these positions over time.

You can claim that, but it isn't true.

 

[Thala_0710]

What do you believe the weighting should be?

I'm happy with either 50 / 50 or 60 / 40 keeping.

Especially in a team with such a strong batting line up 50 / 50 should be the absolute minimum.

50/50 seems fair to me.

 

[kyear2]

50/50 seems fair to me.

More fair than how ever many seem to pick keepers these days.

No one says they shouldn't be bale to bat, but damn, keeping is your day job, be better at it.

 

[subshakerz]

You're one of the ones who disparages it.

When? Don't strawman.

Yes. Multiple players, most notably Simpson, Sharpe were chosen because of their fielding. Sobers, Hooper and others initially kept their places because if it.

So Simpson was selected in the side because of his slip fielding not his batting?

 

[subshakerz]

Not all of those XI's were just contemporary accounts from their era and I can present many XI's where Barry is either selected alongside or ahead of Sunny. And many of these XI's, as referenced by you and Luffy are absolute garbage.

The reasoning behind why I select Barry over Sunny is becuse when they both played, one was clearly and unanimously rated higher than the other, and it wasn't Sunny.

Sorry but the gap between Gavaskar and Barry in the XIs selection is too vast. Pretty clear consensus is Gavaskar is a better opener.

Once again you cherrypick the consensus and ATG XIs you like but ignore the rest.

Massive cope from you.

 

[subshakerz]

I have three slips I like and two of them are absolute top tier. I also understand that everything is about compromise.

We don't pick the absolutely best batting tail, the absolute best 5th bowling option, nor the absolute best slip cordon. There are primary skills to consider.

It's about balance. Sachin and McGrath are too good to leave out just because they couldn't do anything else.

Ah so after droning on and on about the importance of slips, when push comes to shove, you ignore your own criteria for slips and you agree they should not be a selection criteria in the case of Tendulkar. Otherwise there is no reason for you to not have Hammond over Tendulkar. Hypocrite.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sorry but the gap between Gavaskar and Barry in the XIs selection is too vast. Pretty clear consensus is Gavaskar is a better opener.

Once again you cherrypick the consensus and ATG XIs you like but ignore the rest.

Massive cope from you.

Just wanted to clarify, by "when both played" he means between 71-75, aka, Barry's half peak and Sunny's first 4 years of Tests.

 

[Coronis]

The edit button is a thing, please use it

Imagine the length of those posts tho.

 

[subshakerz]

Just wanted to clarify, by "when both played" he means between 71-75, aka, Barry's half peak and Sunny's first 4 years of Tests.

He also refers to several ATG XIs in which Barry is selected.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sorry but the gap between Gavaskar and Barry in the XIs selection is too vast. Pretty clear consensus is Gavaskar is a better opener.

Wisden Cricketers of the Century

 

[DrWolverine]