All time batting ratings (statistical analysis by Silentstriker)

[silentstriker]

Tbf, hes not. But I doubt he'll crack the top 20 with legends like Chris Martin in that list.

Oopsy, he scores a 85.29.

 

[shortpitched713]

Slots in between Yousef and Chappell at #10. Interesting...

 

[Beleg]

Umm, can't see Inzy's on the first page...

 

[silentstriker]

Umm, can't see Inzy's on the first page...

Sorry about that. He scores 85.29, I can no longer edit the first page.

 

[Fusion]

Retired players only:

1. Bradman (132.47)
2. Sobers (90.50)
3. Sutcliffe (89.16)
4. Barrington (88.08)
5. Hobbs (87.80)
6. Hutton (87.37)
7. Chappell (84.41)
8. Hammond (83.46)
   [*]Miandad (81.67)
9. Richards (81.67)
10. Gavaskar (80.20)
11. Waugh (79.53)

Obviously this list is not the be all or end all of anything, but is Miandad massively under-rated when talking about the retired greats?

 

[marc71178]

Looking at the 2 names just below him, I'd say definitely not.

 

[Fusion]

Looking at the 2 names just below him, I'd say definitely not.

Actually I consider the two names below him to be better batsman, and in the case of Viv Richards, by a considerable distance. However, I was just saying that Miandad is rarely mentioned in the same breath as other all time greats. It has always puzzled me as he had a great record and competitive fire. I just think the cricket world a whole under-rates him.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually I consider the two names below him to be better batsman, and in the case of Viv Richards, by a considerable distance. However, I was just saying that Miandad is rarely mentioned in the same breath as other all time greats. It has always puzzled me as he had a great record and competitive fire. I just think the cricket world a whole under-rates him.

I agree that I am guilty of this as well. The list isn't the be-all and end-all of everything, and doesn't take into account stats such as S/R, and also perhaps places too much importance in average away and average during matches won, but I do think it gives a general guide.

Previously, both Gavaskar and Tendulkar would have made my all time side. Now, I've been forced through stats to look again, and now one or both may miss out in favor of some of the others. Though I always had Hobbs in my all time side, I would now add Sutcliffe to the middle order (Barrington would miss out in favor of a more attacking batsman) in place of either Tendulkar or Richards. Taking into account this list and bowling list, my new XI might be:

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Bradman
4. Hammond
5. Headley/Chappell
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. McGrath
11. Barnes

You have NO idea how much it hurts to leave out Gavaskar and Tendulkar...

Previously, I've defended Tendulkar as behind only Bradman and Sobers...now I can't say that with a straight face. Damned stats, I hate them.

 

[Fusion]

I agree that I am guilty of this as well. The list isn't the be-all and end-all of everything, and doesn't take into account stats such as S/R, and also perhaps places too much importance in average away and average during matches won, but I do think it gives a general guide.

Previously, both Gavaskar and Tendulkar would have made my all time side. Now, I've been forced through stats to look again, and now one or both may miss out in favor of some of the others. Though I always had Hobbs in my all time side, I would now add Sutcliffe to the middle order (Barrington would miss out in favor of a more attacking batsman) in place of either Tendulkar or Richards. Taking into account this list and bowling list, my new XI might be:

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Bradman
4. Hammond
5. Headley/Chappell
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. McGrath
11. Barnes

You have NO idea how much it hurts to leave out Gavaskar and Tendulkar...

Previously, I've defended Tendulkar as behind only Bradman and Sobers...now I can't say that with a straight face. Damned stats, I hate them.

Ok I'm probably about to contradict my post about Miandad, but SS stats don't mean EVERYTHING. They play an essential part obviously, but they can't tell the WHOLE story. There are numerous intangibles that can't be measured by stats. Look at King Viv for example. If u went by stats alone, there are many batsmen in history that can claim better numbers across the board. However anyone that actually watched him bat would know how dominant and awe inspiring he was and few (maybe just The Don) can match him. So my dear friend, it's ok to have Tendy or Gavaskar in your all time XI, even though stats may not support you. And I know I'm about to incur your anger with this statement, but that's why it's also ok for me to think that Akram > McGrath. You simply can't go by stats ALONE, specially as it relates to all time greats.

 

[adharcric]

Spot on Fusion.

 

[silentstriker]

Still makes me though.

 

[adharcric]

Still makes me though.

Go cry about it. Maybe you'll feel better.

 

[shortpitched713]

I agree that I am guilty of this as well. The list isn't the be-all and end-all of everything, and doesn't take into account stats such as S/R, and also perhaps places too much importance in average away and average during matches won, but I do think it gives a general guide.

Tbf, a Tendulkar or Lara would always be hurt by criteria like that in comparison to a Dravid or Ponting.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, I know.

 

[Matt79]

The average during matches won stat is a funny one. I don't know what it tells us about a player apart from the extent to which a team relies on him. Now, while being in a weak team puts you under more pressure, doesn't it discount the ability of players from strong teams, like a Ponting or a Richards?

 

[silentstriker]

The average during matches won stat is a funny one. I don't know what it tells us about a player apart from the extent to which a team relies on him. Now, while being in a weak team puts you under more pressure, doesn't it discount the ability of players from strong teams, like a Ponting or a Richards?

No, Ponting averages an excellent 67.88 in matches won. It shows you how important you are to your teams victory. And this is exactly right: "I don't know what it tells us about a player apart from the extent to which a team relies on him." It shows how important he is to his team winning a game.

 

[Matt79]

But my point is - doesn't that punish Ponting (for example, I'm not arguing to try and get him moved up or anything) in comparison to Lara because Ponting plays in the same team as Hayden and Gilchrist?

Also, does this formula take into account anywhere where a player bats in the order? ie. Are runs scored opening, or at first drop valued more than runs made at 5 or 6?

 

[silentstriker]

But my point is - doesn't that punish Ponting (for example, I'm not arguing to try and get him moved up or anything) in comparison to Lara because Ponting plays in the same team as Hayden and Gilchrist?

No, because Ponting averages more than Lara in matches won.

 

[Matt79]

No, because Ponting averages more than Lara in matches won.

Wow - that's a counter-intuitive result isn't it?

 

[silentstriker]

Wow - that's a counter-intuitive result isn't it?

Nope - not really. A lot of the greats in good teams average pretty high. Players average in matches won does not appear to have anything to do with the quality of teams.