DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[mr_mister]

Very surprising quality opposition average :o

He did dominate England attacks a lot

 

[OverratedSanity]

I am starting to get uncomfortable about Kohli's ranking. He is already above many ATG.

Kohli is an ATG himself imo. But i get what you mean.

 

[honestbharani]

We have to respect that guys who have finished playing are having their whole careers ranked but current players are only getting marked for their careers so far. Whatever be the position of the fab 4 and other current players in this exercise, I will wait till end of their careers to properly place them amongst the ATG.

Not saying they are not ATGs already (some are) but properly ranking them based on a full career is, for me, the ultimate thing.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yea their drop-off is yet to come. I know some (Kohli) had a pretty tough start and didn't average 50+ for a very, very, long time, but it would be shocking if he didn't have a slump or a Ponting/Tendulkar-like drop off at some point. Would be really freaky if he just did a Sangakkara/Kallis and got stronger and stronger.

 

[_00_deathscar]

No.19

Steve Waugh (Australia) 824

Quality Points: 736
Career Points: 88

Career/Runs: 1985-2004, 10927 (rank 9)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 48.63 (51.06) 40.02 (42.03) 46.83 (48.65) (rank 50)
50 Innings Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1993-1997): 77.84 52.93 47.66 (rank 5)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 53.26 41.72 46.42 (rank 20)
Quality Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 42.58 38.22 46.08 (rank 98)

Another single-minded batsman who a lot of posters might choose to bat for their life. It's somewhat fitting that Steve Waugh and Shivnarine Chanderpaul are ranked together in this analysis as they have two similarities in their records. Both played for a very long time and both had incredible peaks that were somewhat misleading because they were boosted by a large number of not outs; in Waugh's case he remained unbeaten in 16 out of the 50 innings. Waugh's peak was a lot more influential than Chanderpaul's as it was one of the main factors in Australia becoming the leading test nation, a status they would not relinquish until well after his retirement. The older Waugh twin's career path could also be used as a case-in-point for not giving up on young talent if they are not immediately successful: up to the 1989 Ashes, he had played 26 test matches for an adj. average of 30.38 (30.53) with no centuries. In his remaining 142 tests, he averaged 52.32 (55.21). Like Border, Steve Waugh was outstanding away from home but he is let down somewhat by his relatively poor average against the strong teams of his time (England were not quality opposition for the majority of the 1990s). Like Border, Waugh is most remembered for his "tough runs." Who can forget his double century at Kingston in 1995 to effectively wrestle the no.1 status away from the West Indies? As mr_mister stated above, who can not immediately name five great backs-to-the-wall knocks from Steve Waugh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEHHo-IFh0

Should be higher, much, much higher.

 

[honestbharani]

Yea their drop-off is yet to come. I know some (Kohli) had a pretty tough start and didn't average 50+ for a very, very, long time, but it would be shocking if he didn't have a slump or a Ponting/Tendulkar-like drop off at some point. Would be really freaky if he just did a Sangakkara/Kallis and got stronger and stronger.

Well, he has made a career out of surprising people. So let's see.

 

[Burgey]

Who’s he surprised? Want he IDed as a prodigious talent at a young age and confirmed that?

 

[honestbharani]

Well, not counting the many that marked him down to fail at this level here at CW, the entire media, commentators and basically fans across the world have said how he can't succeed at the international level first, then tests, then T20s and then captaincy and then England in tests etc. He was not really ID'd for success and even I thought Rohit Sharma was far along his development course than Virat when they both flayed an Aussie attack to all corners in 2008 for the A side. He has been proving many people wrong with his success almost all of his career.

 

[ankitj]

Should be higher, much, much higher.

I think Steve Waugh is placed about right overall. Just that some that are going to be above him probably should have been below and some who have come below should have been above.

 

[Slifer]

It is due to his relatively poor average of 34.59 against Pakistan which was a quality opposition throughout his career.

But this is more than made up for by going very well vs South Africa and the West Indies.

 

[jaideep]

But this is more than made up for by going very well vs South Africa and the West Indies.

11 of his last 12 matches against WI where he scored 774 runs @ 59.54 were not against quality opposition.

 

[Bolo.]

But this is more than made up for by going very well vs South Africa and the West Indies.

He obliterated RSA. I always tell myself Im capable of being objective enough to judge a player based on more than just what I have seen, but how highly I rate Waugh always disproves this.

 

[Spark]

Steve Smith had a habit of doing this a few years ago. I can think of 3 off the top of my head. The singles were not considered 'idiotic' tbf though.

Hobart 2016 vs South Africa
Ranchi 2017 vs India
Brisbane 2017 vs England

I have never really understood the whole exposing the tail criticism. Smith deserved those 'not outs' anyways. The most appropriate criticism of Chanderpaul (imo) was how low down the order he batted.

Think you've got this the wrong way around tbh in two of those instances; those run outs were off the 5th or 6th ball of the over to try and get back on strike for the next over. At Ranchi Hazlewood was dawdling a little iirc and Jadeja pinged him out.

What Chanderpaul was doing iirc was trying to get a single first ball of an over. There's nothing wrong with that per se, it's the fact that he was so desperate to get off strike that he took a clearly suicidal single to do so.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But this is more than made up for by going very well vs South Africa and the West Indies.

Well it clearly wasn't made up for otherwise he'd be ranked higher than 98th.

Didn't realise his record against Pakistan was that mediocre, but it's partly because of two series in the 80s when he wasn't a great batsman against anyone.

 

[Slifer]

11 of his last 12 matches against WI where he scored 774 runs @ 59.54 were not against quality opposition.

Even if you limit it til '99 which is when he last faced quality WI bowling, he still averaged 45 which imo is very very good. Next....

 

[ataraxia]

Waugh should really be below Border and Chappell.

 

[stephen]

Waugh in the 90s peeled off so many runs against great attacks. Even if the West Indies weren't quality opposition post-Ambrose, Waugh made plenty of runs against the West Indies when Ambrose and Walsh were in their pomp. Also Donald and Pollock.

His record against Pakistan probably was affected by the lack of need for runs against them since the top 4 tended to feast against Pakistan. Not making excuses for him but I'd take runs against 90s SA and 90s WI over Pakistan.

 

[mr_mister]

Certainly in the '98 and '99 Pak series Steve was not needed too much. Taylor's 334*, Slater's 169, Pontings 197, Gilly's 149* to name but a few

 

[Burgey]

Presumably gavaskar and tendulkar next up.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Certainly in the '98 and '99 Pak series Steve was not needed too much. Taylor's 334*, Slater's 169, Pontings 197, Gilly's 149* to name but a few

Just because someone else picks up the slack doesnt give you a pass for not making runs surely? In the last two you mentioned especially, Australia were in big trouble