• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

A different way of ranking of test batsmen, giving points across 5 statistical categories(runs, 100s, averages and more)

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So here at CW a lot of people have attempted methods of finding a consensus on the best ever test batsmen. Bradman's the #1 and this exercise will still show this, but from 2-15 it varies wildly depending on who you talk to. A lot of people value quality and consistency (average) far over quantity and longevity(runs) while others feel the latter does not get enough of its due when assessing players. I'm gonna attempt to bridge the gap between the 2.

Someone has/had in their signature here "stats is not synonymous with average" or some such thing and I always liked it. It is a bit silly that from all the batting statistics we have at our disposal, a lot are often ignored in favour of just one or two. I'm gonna use the 5 I like the most(one or two might be a little controversial) to give a rough rating of the best test batsmen. I will weight them as I see fit(trying to be as objective as possible). Spoilers.... the final results will look a bit funky


The categories in order of weighting:

Batting average (50% weighting)
Career Runs (20% weighting)
100s per match (15% weighting)
Career 200s (10% weighting)
Highest score (5% weighting)


Batting average is self explanatory. There's a reason Bradman's 99 average has him undisputedly number 1. It rewards consistent performances and plenty of people swear by it as the best assessment of a batsman. It deserves to have a large portion of the points. There will be a 40 innings minimum criteria employed.

Runs favours longevity naturally. Sachin fanboys will love this one. While some of the old timey players were perhaps unfairly hurt by a lack of tests played back in the day, there is still something to be said for modern players who kept performing day in, day out across double and sometimes triple the amount of tests the greats of old did. I think it deserves to be the number 2 slot weighting wise.

Now for the final 30% we get into a bit less of a mathematically sound territory, but we all know rating batsman comes down to more than just aggerates and averages.

Onto centuries. While a 99 is nearly as good as 100 practically speaking, we all know reaching the 3 figures is considered pretty special and the more often you do it, the more of a big time match winner you can claim to be. The 100s stat by itself obviously favours longevity over quality as the longer you play the more chance you get to make them. It also would result in a near identical top 15 to the most runs. So for that reason I will have 100s per match as the method used to continue the theme of quality > quantity. A 40 innings minimum criteria will be employed again.

Double centuries. Getting to 3 figures and turning it into a double is also something I don't want to gloss over. Sometimes the job is only half done after reaching a ton, so some more points will be awarded to those who peeled off the most double tons. I'm not using a ratio here, it's just a list of who hit the most, to give longevity a bit of balance back in its favour.

Lastly we get to highest scores. Personally, I love seeing records broken. As a kid when a batsman came out to bat and their stats/picture came on screen, my eyes immediately shifted to their highest score. Besides, the highest test score being beaten was always a huge deal whenever it happened. So for the final 5%, a few bonus points will be handed out to some of the guys who raised the bar. I feel this is a better stat than simply "triple centuries" for a few reasons, one being only 4 people ever got more than one triple ton. Another being that 200 itself is usually enough to win a match and a 300 just icing on the cake - but breaking the high score is to me just pretty special. I'm not giving Lara double points for breaking it twice, I considered it but decided against it. It feels wrong for Hutton to not get some credit.


The points across individual categories are as follows:

Averages:

Don Bradman - 50
Steve Smith - 49
Graeme Pollock - 48
George Headley - 47
Herbert Sutcliffe - 46
Ken Barrington - 45
Everton Weekes - 44
Wally Hammond - 43
Gary Sobers - 42
Kumar Sangakkara - 41
Jack Hobbs - 40
Clyde Walcott - 39
Len Hutton - 38
Jacques Kallis - 37
Kane Williamson - 36
Greg Chappell - 35
Dudley Nourse - 34
Sachin Tendulkar - 33
Brian Lara - 32
Javed Miandad - 31
Rahul Dravid - 30
Mohammad Yousuf - 29
Younis Khan - 28
Virat Kohli - 27
Ricky Ponting - 26
Andy Flower - 25
Michael Hussey - 24
Shiv Chanderpaul - 23
Sunil Gavaskar - 22
Steve Waugh - 21
Matt Hayden - 20
AB De Villiers - 19
Allan Border - 18
Viv Richards - 17
Denis Compton - 16
Mahela Jayawardene - 15
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 14
Frank Worrell - 13
Virender Sehwag - 12
Michael Clarke - 11
Bruce Mitchell - 10
Thilan Samaraweera - 9
Joe Root - 8
Neil Harvey - 7
Doug Walters - 6
Graeme Smith - 5
Bill Ponsford - 4
Stan McCabe - 3
Dave Warner - 2
Ted Dexter - 1

Runs:

Sachin Tendulkar - 20
Ricky Ponting - 19
Jacques Kallis - 18
Rahul Dravid - 17
Alistar Cook - 16
Kumar Sangakkarra - 15
Brian Lara - 14
Shiv Chanderpaul - 13
Mahela Jayawadene - 12
Allan Border - 11
Steve Waugh - 10
Sunil Gavaskar - 9
Younis Khan - 8
Hashim Amla - 7
Graeme Smith - 6
Graham Gooch - 5
Javed Miandad - 4
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 3
VVS Laxman - 2
AB De Villiers - 1


100s per match:

Don Bradman - 15
George Headley - 14
Steve Smith - 13
Clyde Walcott - 12
Graeme Pollock - 11
Everton Weekes - 10
Herb Sutcliffe - 9
Virat Kohli - 8
Matt Hayden - 7
Younis Khan - 6
Kumar Sangakkarra - 5
Kane Williamson - 4
Gary Sobers - 3
Dave Warner - 2
Greg Chappell - 1


200s:

Don Bradman - 10
Kumar Sangakkarra - 9
Brian Lara - 8
Wally Hammond - 7
Mahela Jayawardene - 7
Virat Kohli - 7
Ricky Ponting - 4
Younis Khan - 4
Virender Sehwag - 4
Sachin Tendulkar - 4
Javed Miandad - 4
Marvin Attapattu - 4

Highest scores:

Brian Lara - 5
Matt Hayden - 4
Mahela Jayawardene - 3
Gary Sobers - 2
Len Hutton - 1


Overall points

Don Bradman - 75
Kumar Sangakkarra - 70
Steve Smith - 62
George Headley - 61
Brian Lara and Graeme Pollock - 59
Sachin Tendulkar - 57
Herb Sutcliffe and Jacques Kallis - 55
Everton Weekes - 54
Clyde Walcott - 51
Wally Hammond - 50
Ricky Ponting - 49
Gary Sobers and Rahul Dravid- 47
Younis Khan - 46
Ken Barrington - 45
Jack Hobbs and Kane Williamson- 40
Len Hutton - 39
Mahela Jayawardene - 37
Greg Chappell and Shiv Chanderpaul- 36
Javed Miandad - 35
Dudley Nourse - 34
Steve Waugh - 30
Allan Border and Mohammad Yousuf - 29

And so on. I think a runs per test stat instead of 200s and Highest scores may have resulted in a more CW friendly list, but that'd have been a pain to calculate(looked for a list but couldn't find one online)
 
Last edited:
So here at CW a lot of people have attempted methods of finding a consensus on the best ever test batsmen. Bradman's the #1 and this exercise will still show this, but from 2-15 it varies wildly depending on who you talk to. A lot of people value quality and consistency (average) far over quantity and longevity(runs) while others feel the latter does not get enough of its due when assessing players. I'm gonna attempt to bridge the gap between the 2.

Someone has/had in their signature here "stats is not synonymous with average" or some such thing and I always liked it. It is a bit silly that from all the batting statistics we have at our disposal, a lot are often ignored in favour of just one or two. I'm gonna use the 5 I like the most(one or two might be a little controversial) to give a rough rating of the best test batsmen. I will weight them as I see fit(trying to be as objective as possible). Spoilers.... the final results will look a bit funky


The categories in order of weighting:

Batting average (50% weighting)
Career Runs (20% weighting)
100s per match (15% rating)
Career 200s (10% weighting)
Highest score (5% weighting)


Batting average is self explanatory. There's a reason Bradman's 99 average has him undisputedly number 1. It rewards consistent performances and plenty of people swear by it as the best assessment of a batsman. It deserves to have a large portion of the points. There will be a 40 innings minimum criteria employed.

Runs favours longevity naturally. Sachin fanboys will love this one. While some of the old timey players were perhaps unfairly hurt by a lack of tests played back in the day, there is still something to be said for modern players who kept performing day in, day out across double and sometimes triple the amount of tests the greats of old did. I think it deserves to be the number 2 slot weighting wise.

Now for the final 30% we get into a bit less of a mathematically sound territory, but we all know rating batsman comes down to more than just aggerates and averages.

Onto centuries. While a 99 is nearly as good as 100 practically speaking, we all know reaching the 3 figures is considered pretty special and the more often you do it, the more of a big time match winner you can claim to be. The 100s stat by itself obviously favours longevity over quality as the longer you play the more chance you get to make them. It also would result in a near identical top 15 to the most runs. So for that reason I will have 100s per match as the method used to continue the theme of quality > quantity. A 40 innings minimum criteria will be employed again.

Double centuries. Getting to 3 figures and turning it into a double is also something I don't want to gloss over. Sometimes the job is only half done after reaching a ton, so some more points will be awarded to those who peeled off the most double tons. I'm not using a ratio here, it's just a list of who hit the most, to give longevity a bit of balance back in its favour.

Lastly we get to highest scores. Personally, I love seeing records broken. As a kid when a batsman came out to bat and their stats/picture came on screen, my eyes immediately shifted to their highest score. Besides, the highest test score being beaten was always a huge deal whenever it happened. So for the final 5%, a few bonus points will be handed out to some of the guys who raised the bar. I feel this is a better stat than simply "triple centuries" for a few reasons, one being only 4 people ever got more than one triple ton. Another being that 200 itself is usually enough to win a match and a 300 just icing on the cake - but breaking the high score is to me just pretty special. I'm not giving Lara double points for breaking it twice, I considered it but decided against it. It feels wrong for Hutton to not get some credit.


The points across individual categories are as follows:

Averages:

Don Bradman - 50
Steve Smith - 49
Graeme Pollock - 48
George Headley - 47
Herbert Sutcliffe - 46
Ken Barrington - 45
Everton Weekes - 44
Wally Hammond - 43
Gary Sobers - 42
Kumar Sangakkara - 41
Jack Hobbs - 40
Clyde Walcott - 39
Len Hutton - 38
Jacques Kallis - 37
Kane Williamson - 36
Greg Chappell - 35
Dudley Nourse - 34
Sachin Tendulkar - 33
Brian Lara - 32
Javed Miandad - 31
Rahul Dravid - 30
Mohammad Yousuf - 29
Younis Khan - 28
Virat Kohli - 27
Ricky Ponting - 26
Andy Flower - 25
Michael Hussey - 24
Shiv Chanderpaul - 23
Sunil Gavaskar - 22
Steve Waugh - 21
Matt Hayden - 20
AB De Villiers - 19
Allan Border - 18
Viv Richards - 17
Denis Compton - 16
Mahela Jayawardene - 15
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 14
Frank Worrell - 13
Virender Sehwag - 12
Michael Clarke - 11
Bruce Mitchell - 10
Thilan Samaraweera - 9
Joe Root - 8
Neil Harvey - 7
Doug Walters - 6
Graeme Smith - 5
Bill Ponsford - 4
Stan McCabe - 3
Dave Warner - 2
Ted Dexter - 1

Runs:

Sachin Tendulkar - 20
Ricky Ponting - 19
Jacques Kallis - 18
Rahul Dravid - 17
Alistar Cook - 16
Kumar Sangakkarra - 15
Brian Lara - 14
Shiv Chanderpaul - 13
Mahela Jayawadene - 12
Allan Border - 11
Steve Waugh - 10
Sunil Gavaskar - 9
Younis Khan - 8
Hashim Amla - 7
Graeme Smith - 6
Graham Gooch - 5
Javed Miandad - 4
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 3
VVS Laxman - 2
AB De Villiers - 1


100s per match:

Don Bradman - 15
George Headley - 14
Steve Smith - 13
Clyde Walcott - 12
Graeme Pollock - 11
Everton Weekes - 10
Herb Sutcliffe - 9
Virat Kohli - 8
Matt Hayden - 7
Younis Khan - 6
Kumar Sangakkarra - 5
Kane Williamson - 4
Gary Sobers - 3
Dave Warner - 2
Greg Chappell - 1


200s:

Don Bradman - 10
Kumar Sangakkarra - 9
Brian Lara - 8
Wally Hammond - 7
Mahela Jayawardene - 7
Virat Kohli - 7
Ricky Ponting - 4
Younis Khan - 4
Virender Sehwag - 4
Sachin Tendulkar - 4
Javed Miandad - 4
Marvin Attapattu - 4

Highest scores:

Brian Lara - 5
Matt Hayden - 4
Mahela Jayawardene - 3
Gary Sobers - 2
Len Hutton - 1


Overall points

Don Bradman - 75
Kumar Sangakkarra - 70
Steve Smith - 62
George Headley - 61
Brian Lara and Graeme Pollock - 59
Sachin Tendulkar - 57
Herb Sutcliffe and Jacques Kallis - 55
Everton Weekes - 54
Clyde Walcott - 51
Wally Hammond - 50
Ricky Ponting - 49
Gary Sobers and Rahul Dravid- 47
Younis Khan - 46
Ken Barrington - 45
Jack Hobbs and Kane Williamson- 40
Len Hutton - 39
Mahela Jayawardene - 37
Greg Chappell and Shiv Chanderpaul- 36
Javed Miandad - 35
Dudley Nourse - 34
Steve Waugh - 30
Allan Border and Mohammad Yousuf - 29

And so on. I think a runs per test stat instead of 200s and Highest scores may have resulted in a more CW friendly list, but that'd have been a pain to calculate(looked for a list but couldn't find one online)
ok
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, needs a bit of tinkering though. I was really enjoying doing it til I came up with the final list. It just looks wrong having Mahela so high up, though I guess giving weighting to longevity and big scores was bound to do that
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, needs a bit of tinkering though. I was really enjoying doing it til I came up with the final list.
This is what always happens with this type of exercise. Someone comes up with a system - the players get ranked in an order that doesn't make sense - the system is tinkered with until the players come out in the same order that most people would rank them without a system. :tooth:
 

Raz0r6ack

U19 12th Man
I'm working on my own ratings system. It's similar to the ICC ratings but with different variances and bonuses. Consists of 3 main scoring points, along with a bunch of sub bonus points to calculate each innings:

Runs scored x Rating of Bowling Attack (good bowling attack would be ~1.4, bad would be ~0.5)
Runs scored x ICC Rating of Opposition Team (same as above, Bangladesh 0.5 and prime Australia ~1.3)
Runs scored x Runs Per Wicket ratio (based off of a chart, 30 RPW is 1, 15 RPW is 4, 45 RPW is 0.6, etc)

Bonuses:

Result of the match:
- Percentage of individual runs scored in innings (Out of total team innings) x ICC rating of Team
- Win counts for 100% of points, draw equates to 50% of points, loss equates to 25% of points. Subject to change.

Match winning 4th innings:
- If a team is chasing 200+ for victory and a batsmen scores 75+ runs in an innings then an extra 40% will be added on top of the "Result of match" bonus.

4th Innings draw:
- If a team is set a target of 350+ and the match results in a draw, a batsmen who faces 100+ deliveries in the 4th innings will receive a ~10% bonus for every delivery he faced. I.e. 450 balls faced would be 45 points.

Away Tests:
- An innings that is played outside of home country will receive a ~10-20% bonus.

Position of batting:
- An opening batsmen will receive a 4% bonus, a number 3 will receive a 2.5% bonus, a number 4 will receive a 1.25% bonus. Bonus points subject to change.

Team in trouble:
- Haven't quite figured out how to calculate this yet. But it would give bonuses for players who scored hundreds when their side is 3/35 or 5/80 or something or that sort. Something that will give an extra slight weighted bonus to innings like Dravid's 233 after being 5/80 or Ben Stokes 135*.

Getting the career averages would take some time but still figuring out the calculation.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm thinking either a 4 way even split between average, runs, Runs per match and 100s per match might be more fair.

Runs per match stats are things I'd have to calculate manually but wouldn't take forever


Or maybe a 40/20/20/20 split instead of even, with 40 to averages

What do others reckon
 

Top