DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[_00_deathscar]

And I know this is again selective, but how many batsmen debuted at 16 who went on to have a career close to Sachin's? I'm really not sure (serious question by the way, not condescending etc) - there's always the odd 15/16 year old or so from Pakistan who hits a century and then never really has much of a career.
He was a literal child thrown into the test arena. I know he hit a few centuries early on (arguably some of his most impressive actually) but as an overall batsman, of course it took him a while to get going and gain the required cricket maturity. Obviously would have played into his score quite a bit.

This also works in a manner with players like Smith, of course, who were never in the team as batsmen to begin with.

 

[ankitj]

784 quality points with 114 career points.

Thanks. That would have 898 total points compared to 883 he actually got. So next couple of batsmen are going to be pretty close to each other and to Tendulkar.

 

[_00_deathscar]

@Pardus
Both of us are saying same points. Tendulkar's lack of a 500 runs test series puts him at disadvantage in these quality points.

Take for eg . Kohli who batted like a tail in 2014-15 ENG tour, but compensated by scoring 600 runs in last tour and took his total average in ENG to 37, which is similar to Tendulkar average vs Donald/Pollock. Lack of big series means he could never increase his overall average against these ATG bowlers, because you are bound to have a poor series against these bowlers. This is where players like Lara/ Smith/ Kohli win . Kohli , Smith both already have around 4 to 5 series each where they scored more than 500 runs in half of the career as Sachin

Which is great too but why is it valued more than consistently scoring 300-400?

 

[sunilz]

Which is great too but why is it valued more than consistently scoring 300-400?

Because when you score 500-600 runs, most of the time your team wins as compared to 300-400 runs

 

[vcs]

A batsman standing out head and shoulders in a low scoring series can be the difference between victory and defeat (e..g Smith in the recent Ashes) unless you play for a really terrible team like Lara and Chanderpaul at times.

Sachin did have a few such series to his credit though, he played a major part in India's only draw in South Africa (though Kallis was even better), and he was great in Australia in 99-00 and 07-08. But he was more a guy who was remarkably consistent in churning out one or two tons per series than go through a purple patch of hitting 5-6 big knocks in a row.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Because when you score 500-600 runs, most of the time your team wins as compared to 300-400 runs

Of course, I don't mean in isolation of one series but over a career.I'm asking where is the consistency that's being rewarded? It does seem a bit skewed in that respect.

I actually argued this very point earlier in favour of a Kohli (doesn't apply to Smith cos he's a beast), but that was with the extreme example of an Atherton - i.e. (hypothethically) that a Kohli's 35 average in England across two series is worth more (and is somewhat misleading), to an extent, than a Michael Atherton's average of 35 across the same two series.
However, we aren't talking 35 averages here when it comes to Sachin...

Not saying it should completely swing the other way by the way, I do think Kohli/Smith/Ponting are certainly more in the way of match winners because they piled on and did it big time. But being as consistent as Sachin was is impressive in its own right in a different manner.

I suppose the issue is that he never kicked on, and the 90s player that perhaps could have, at his prime, was no longer the same player anymore into his 2000s and his physical prime.

 

[pardus]

Which is great too but why is it valued more than consistently scoring 300-400?

Sachin scored ~300 or more runs in a Test series 21 times in his career
Lara scored ~300 or more runs in a Test series 19 times in his career
I don't think Sachin has much over Lara kind of players there, especially given that he has played a lot more Test cricket than Lara.

When you are emotionally invested in a player, what you consider a success can be very different from what is considered a success according to cold statistics.
For example - a couple of other posters here have said Sachin's 99-00 series performance against Aus was a great success. But statistically speaking,he didn't even average above 50 or score over 300 runs.
Please don't get me wrong, I don't intend to slight Sachin's performance here. He was genuinely good.
But - just statistically speaking - Lara had a similar series against Waqar+Wasim in 92-93 Test series (averaged around 44 I think), but I don't think those same posters would consider or remember that series
of Lara against Waqar+Wasim as being a great success.

 

[Burgey]

Sanga
Lara
Smith
Sobers
Hobbs
Bradman

Imo.

Controversial ranking of Bradman at number five there.

 

[Migara]

just statistically speaking - Lara had a similar series against Waqar+Wasim in 92-93 Test series (averaged around 44 I think), but I don't think those same posters would consider or remember that series of Lara against Waqar+Wasim as being a great success.

Lara had a series defining knock in that series IIRC, playing Wasim, Waqar and Mushtaq well, only to be bowled off the pad by Asif Mujtaba.

 

[stephen]

Controversial ranking of Bradman at number five there.

Haha. For the literalists of the world I was counting down.

 

[Slifer]

Lara had a series defining knock in that series IIRC, playing Wasim, Waqar and Mushtaq well, only to be bowled off the pad by Asif Mujtaba.

Fkning remember that. Was so pissed by that....

 

[spit]

Think some people just forget how utterly dominant Tendulkar was in the 90s, pretty decently ahead of the pack, when it really was very difficult to bat. To think he still managed to average 50+ in the 2000s and 2010s (despite his blip towards the end) is magnificent.

 

[Slifer]

View attachment 25042


Think some people just forget how utterly dominant Tendulkar was in the 90s, pretty decently ahead of the pack, when it really was very difficult to bat. To think he still managed to average 50+ in the 2000s and 2010s (despite his blip towards the end) is magnificent.

Now do the same thing with just Pakistan, RSA, Australia (with McGrath) and WI ( with Ambrose). He played extremely well during the 90s no doubt but if I'm getting these rankings correctly, it matters who he made those runs against

 

[Anil]

for me, tendulkar ranks top 5 all time in tests, inarguably at least as of right now...keeping aside bradman, the only players who would have really good arguments to be ranked above him are sobers & hobbs and i would rank lara on par with him. smith is the likeliest to push everyone other than bradman down by a notch by the time he is done but he doesn't have the career longevity to do that right now...hutton above tendulkar i guess can still be argued maybe but as terrific a batsman as he was, sangakkara above tendulkar, never thought i would see that in a serious ranking of all time greats...

 

[pardus]

Now do the same thing with just Pakistan, RSA, Australia (with McGrath) and WI ( with Ambrose). He played extremely well during the 90s no doubt but if I'm getting these rankings correctly, it matters who he made those runs against

Then Sachin's average in the 90s collapses to 36.9 (compared to 58 listed by the other poster).
I wanted to say the same thing but meltdown of this thread would have started in real earnest.

 

[Burgey]

Look, as you guys know I always come to Tendulkar's defense in these things. But when a bloke plays that long and does that well, it becomes possible to pull almost any stat from his record out of your arse to either sell him up or down. Speaking purely from having watched him a lot over the years, I personally find it hard to believe there are half a dozen or so blokes who are better than him as a test batsman. He was that good.

But, exercises like this are excellent for encouraging chat, and DoG has set out at the start what his parameters are and how he weights them. You're talkign about minute differences in records and rankings when you get to this sort of level, Bradman aside.

 

[mr_mister]

Then Sachin's average collapses to 36.9 (compared to 58 listed by the other poster).
I wanted to say the same thing but meltdown of this thread would have started in real earnest.

View attachment 25043

Sachin the Barrington of the 90s

 

[Slifer]

Then Sachin's average in the 90s collapses to 36.9 (compared to 58 listed by the other poster).
I wanted to say the same thing but meltdown of this thread would have started in real earnest.

View attachment 25043

Can you do the same with lara and waugh?? Obviously neither can play their own team so...McGrath, W W and Donald for Lara. You can figure out Waugh....

 

[mr_mister]

May as well add SL in SL to these as Murali was always a monster there

 

[stephen]

May as well add SL in SL to these as Murali was always a monster there

Murali was good without being great in the 90s. It wasn't until he developed his doosra that he became great.