Bradman obviously stands head and shoulders above the rest and then we have a large number of players averaging over 50. It isn't until we reach #29 that we come across a sub 50 batting average, but I'm not going to deny Boycott's worthiness for his place.
After that averages in the 40s are more common with Trumper and Hill the only batsmen with sub 40 averages.
When the voting closed for the 51st position, there were more debates than votes but multiple votes had been received for Yousuf Youhana (Mohammad Yusuf) and Bruce Mitchell while others were ranking Hashim Amla highly. This trio could be regarded as unlucky not to make the final cut.
From my perspective, there are some interesting questions that can be posed. In most cases players had careers lasting many Tests but I find it interesting that George Headley (22 Tests) and Graeme Pollock (23 Tests) are ranked 11 and 15 respectively yet Adam Voges (averaging 61.88 in 20 Tests) and Eddie Paynter (59.23 in 20 Tests) were almost entirely overlooked. Why?
It is common for voters to ignore current players yet Steve Smith makes the Top 10 while Kane Williamson, with a superior average to those ranked around him, is only ranked 39th.
Players that were around over a century ago have a certain mystique legendary status and this might explain Trumper's ranking yet W.G.Grace and Ranjitsinhji didn't rate a mention in voting. The latter, with an average of 44.95, wouldn't have looked out of place in the list.
Some places on the list are self-explanatory but worthy of comment. Shivnarine Chanerpaul's longevity and performances suggest a higher ranking, but he has been criticised for being selfish and for batting too low. The fact that he was not out in over a quarter of the Tests he played seems to support this.
I could go on, and will add my occasional comment, but I am interested in seeing comments and critiques - especially from cricket followers who may not have been involved in the voting thread.
I hope to add similar threads for the Pace bowlers, spinners and all-rounders when voting wanes and a nice round number on the list is achieved.
A handful of my observations, for what they're worth.
No issue with MoYo, Mitchell and Amla being the next three in line - all are more than deserving. As for others who I'd be voting for imminently, well I'm a bit of a sucker for weight of runs from the top of the order so I reckon I'd be finding a spot for both Cook and Gooch sooner rather than later. Herbie Taylor definitely worth a shout too, and it's interesting that while Bob Simpson is rated very highly in these parts, I don't think his great partner Bill Lawry has even gotten a single vote (or even a single mention?) yet. His style of batting may have had something to do with that...there are a load of other outstanding openers who you could argue for as well.
Outside of openers, I'd say that all of Walters, Gilchrist, Cowdrey, Gower, Pietersen, Hazare, Viswanath, Laxman and Jayawardene would be there or thereabouts in upcoming voting. I'm sure I'd remember others along the way.
As for why, for example, Trumper got in but Grace and Ranji didn't - well I can only speak for myself but I was specifically excluding blokes who played all or most of their career in the 19th century, I suppose to make things easier for myself. Grace and Ranji I have no problem at all calling two of the greatest batsmen of all time, but they are hard to judge as Test players. Grace had a pretty impressive record for his time, but his Test numbers didn't reflect his dominance over the game that his status did - though it's worth noting that he was already 32 by the time he played his first Test!
Ranji I find even more difficult to accurately judge. His Test record is very good for his time but it was quite brief (just 15 Tests from 1896-1902), and incredibly front loaded (42% of his total runs came in his first three Tests!). Consider this breakdown of Ranji's Test record:
Tests 1-3 - 418 runs at 104.50
Tests 4-8 - 409 runs at 45.44
Tests 9-15 - 162 runs at 18
He pretty much dropped off a cliff in the second half of his (short) Test career, and was finished as a Test player by the age of 29. This isn't to cast doubt on his (undeniable) greatness, but more to strengthen my cowardly position of excluding him as being too hard to judge!
