DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[benchmark00]

Make an AFL top 25 and get 50 pages of replies, ****.

Would get 50 pages for Wayne Carey alone and you know it ****.

 

[Cabinet96]

So Garfield Sobers is closer to Ian Bell than he is to Don Bradman. I like that.

 

[Spikey]

So Garfield Sobers is closer to Ian Bell than he is to Don Bradman. I like that.

we can do better. How many points does andrew hilditch get?

 

[nightprowler10]

I wonder how Younis' ranking is affected after that double.

 

[Furball]

So Garfield Sobers is closer to Ian Bell than he is to Don Bradman. I like that.

The same way that in terms of average, Viv Richards is closer to Chris Martin than he is to Bradman. Which is just ludicrous when you think about it.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Well done DoG. What a great list. Bradman a deserving winner, though greatest sportsman ever? That's hard to say, maybe do some stats?
No it was very well done

 

[OverratedSanity]

This whole list was just fascinating, thought it was a wonderful attempt to quantify greatness.
Couple of things bothered me, though.
1) Capping career points doesn't really make sense to me, especially as it seems as though only Bradman, Lara and Tendulkar actually maxed out.
2) Personally, one of the main things I look for in a great batsman is a balanced record in a wide variety of conditions, and not just an "away average" which can be misleading and mask a number of weaknesses in a player's record. It's why I consider Ponting,Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis to be so great, because they've scored heavily virtually everywhere, and it should count for something. Some sort of additional modifier where you penalise a batsman for having a sub 40/sub 35 average in a particular country could help.
3) Maxing out quality points for cricketers who have played very few matches(<30 maybe) would even out the field as players like Headley get an unfair advantage here. While obviously a great batsman, averaging 50+ over 100 matches is infinitely more difficult than averaging 60 over 20 odd games.
4) Instead of a "top opposition", the rating should take into consideration "top quality attack". (ie) It should take into account the quality of the bowlers against whom the runs were made instead of the ranking of the opposing team. I don't know if this is possible to formulate right now.... Maybe once you do a top 100 bowlers list?

Overall, though, a fabulous formula and a great list. Excellent work

 

[chasingthedon]

One of the comments you made in initially presenting your ratings was that you finally had a list you were happy with. Would you care to elaborate on what it was you were originally unhappy with and what you did to fix it?

 

[BeeGee]

The same way that in terms of average, Viv Richards is closer to Chris Martin than he is to Bradman. Which is just ludicrous when you think about it.

No matter which way you slice it or dice it (or SRT fangirls spin it) Bradman is just so far ahead of the next best batsman it's almost unbelievable. There just aren't enough superlatives in the English language to do him justice. A cricketing freak of nature.

 

[honestbharani]

No matter which way you slice it or dice it (or SRT fangirls spin it) Bradman is just so far ahead of the next best batsman it's almost unbelievable. There just aren't enough superlatives in the English language to do him justice. A cricketing freak of nature.

And it is one of the cool things about being a cricket fan for me.. To watch the best in the world over my 25 years of watching the game and realize that there was a guy who was more than twice as good as these guys back in the 30s and 40s..

 

[smash84]

what's the point of bringing sachinfanboys/girls in this thread

 

[OverratedSanity]

And it is one of the cool things about being a cricket fan for me.. To watch the best in the world over my 25 years of watching the game and realize that there was a guy who was more than twice as good as these guys back in the 30s and 40s..

I find it more scary than cool tbh. No one has the right to be that far ahead of the rest if the pack. Boggles the mind

 

[Days of Grace]

This whole list was just fascinating, thought it was a wonderful attempt to quantify greatness.
Couple of things bothered me, though.
1) Capping career points doesn't really make sense to me, especially as it seems as though only Bradman, Lara and Tendulkar actually maxed out.
2) Personally, one of the main things I look for in a great batsman is a balanced record in a wide variety of conditions, and not just an "away average" which can be misleading and mask a number of weaknesses in a player's record. It's why I consider Ponting,Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis to be so great, because they've scored heavily virtually everywhere, and it should count for something. Some sort of additional modifier where you penalise a batsman for having a sub 40/sub 35 average in a particular country could help.
3) Maxing out quality points for cricketers who have played very few matches(<30 maybe) would even out the field as players like Headley get an unfair advantage here. While obviously a great batsman, averaging 50+ over 100 matches is infinitely more difficult than averaging 60 over 20 odd games.
4) Instead of a "top opposition", the rating should take into consideration "top quality attack". (ie) It should take into account the quality of the bowlers against whom the runs were made instead of the ranking of the opposing team. I don't know if this is possible to formulate right now.... Maybe once you do a top 100 bowlers list?

Overall, though, a fabulous formula and a great list. Excellent work

1. It makes a hell of a difference in the bowler's list. A lot of bowlers have career ratings above 150 and this puts them too far ahead of other greats who played less matches.
2. Good idea, but it doesn't work. At least, it would only work for batsmen who have played a significant amount of matches in all countries. Bradman only played in Australia and England. Are you going to penalise him for not playing in more countries? Are you also going to penalise someone who failed in India but only got to play 2 tests? There are too many variables to make it a relevant factor.
3. I already have. Headley is now at no.13 in the list.
4. I thought about this, but then concluded that you are playing to win the match against the whole opposition, not just the bowling attack. For example, India may be seen as a third-rate bowling attack, but their strength in batting means that your side is under pressure to put a lot of runs on the board (at least in Indian conditions). The formula for this actually incorporates the opposition's team rating along with their bowling rating.



Chasingthedon, in previous editions, I had Ken Barrington in the top 10 and Viv Richards at no.20. That is just wrong and presenting a list based on just bare averages without context was not what I wanted this list to be. I then added significant innings or adjusted the averages. In the end, the list reflects not only who were the best run scorers, but more importantly how much their runs were worth.

 

[kyear2]

1. It makes a hell of a difference in the bowler's list. A lot of bowlers have career ratings above 150 and this puts them too far ahead of other greats who played less matches.
2. Good idea, but it doesn't work. At least, it would only work for batsmen who have played a significant amount of matches in all countries. Bradman only played in Australia and England. Are you going to penalise him for not playing in more countries? Are you also going to penalise someone who failed in India but only got to play 2 tests? There are too many variables to make it a relevant factor.
3. I already have. Headley is now at no.13 in the list.
4. I thought about this, but then concluded that you are playing to win the match against the whole opposition, not just the bowling attack. For example, India may be seen as a third-rate bowling attack, but their strength in batting means that your side is under pressure to put a lot of runs on the board (at least in Indian conditions). The formula for this actually incorporates the opposition's team rating along with their bowling rating.



Chasingthedon, in previous editions, I had Ken Barrington in the top 10 and Viv Richards at no.20. That is just wrong and presenting a list based on just bare averages without context was not what I wanted this list to be. I then added significant innings or adjusted the averages. In the end, the list reflects not only who were the best run scorers, but more importantly how much their runs were worth.

Great answers DoG, and in fairness, even though I rate him higher, Headley does deserve to be closer to 13 than to No.2 and also as you have said pure averages can't tell the whole story in batting and Barrington doesn't deserve to be higher than someone like a Richards. Just a great exercise.

Two questions, I have noticed that your signature has changed, should we expect similar changes after your bowler reveal? With regard to limiting the points of players with lesser number of tests, I assume it would affect Barnes and O'Reilly the same way that it has affected Headley.

Looking forward to the bowler countdown and hope it isn't too far away. My prediction for the top 3 in some order would be Marshall, Murali and McGrath, looking forward to seeing how right/wrong I am.

Cheers mate.

 

[OverratedSanity]

1. It makes a hell of a difference in the bowler's list. A lot of bowlers have career ratings above 150 and this puts them too far ahead of other greats who played less matches.
2. Good idea, but it doesn't work. At least, it would only work for batsmen who have played a significant amount of matches in all countries. Bradman only played in Australia and England. Are you going to penalise him for not playing in more countries? Are you also going to penalise someone who failed in India but only got to play 2 tests? There are too many variables to make it a relevant factor.
3. I already have. Headley is now at no.13 in the list.
4. I thought about this, but then concluded that you are playing to win the match against the whole opposition, not just the bowling attack. For example, India may be seen as a third-rate bowling attack, but their strength in batting means that your side is under pressure to put a lot of runs on the board (at least in Indian conditions). The formula for this actually incorporates the opposition's team rating along with their bowling rating.



Chasingthedon, in previous editions, I had Ken Barrington in the top 10 and Viv Richards at no.20. That is just wrong and presenting a list based on just bare averages without context was not what I wanted this list to be. I then added significant innings or adjusted the averages. In the end, the list reflects not only who were the best run scorers, but more importantly how much their runs were worth.

1) Understood. I guess it's only fair that bowlers and batsmen get evaluated on the same parameters, so fair enough

2) Bradman wouldn't be penalised. The penalty would only apply to the countries you've actually played in. This actually favours the old timers because modern crcketers are much more likely to have a blot on their overall record given they play in 10-11 countries. I think this parameter is necessary, because just to take an example....great batsman though Dravid is, he failed repeatedly on South African pitches which I don't consider to be a coincidence, and this flaw should reflect in his rating. Put a lower limit on the number of innings if you want, maybe 8 minimum innings. But I seriously hope you include this in the formula for batsmen as well as bowlers.

Would Marshall be considered as great as he is if he averaged 35 in Australia and India but his overall average remained the same because of improved performances elsewhere? No, in my opinion. The greatest of the ATG players have beautifully balanced records where they've proved themselves in a variety of conditions.

Regarding 3) and 4) Excellent

 

[Burgey]

Who cares?

Look, I've had another think* abouth this and seriouslt, if you don't want to roger Allan Border you're kidding yourself. how great was he? On reflection, second to Bradman. Nevef mind the ***eh shots all arounf the wicket. let's talk about toughness. Not facing the WI attacks on fgeatherbeds like that ***** Gavaskar, but on real cricket wickets which offered a bit for the quicks. Get him up here, I want to **** him. You can have your FaiLaras or Flopdulkars, when the chips wree down, the great man always stood up. What could Tendulkar or lara do which AB couldn't? Play a back foot drive? Who gives a ****? When the chips were down, like they always were through the mid 80s, AB stood up. This was the era when the WI used to tour here and we'd play them in Brisbane and Perth first up - we'd be 2-0 down inside four days cricket. And this bastard use dto stand up and make runs when no one else would.

Lara's 153? Pfft. What about Border's 98 not out and 100 not out vs WI in 1984? Die in a fire, all you ****s. AB uber alles.




*several Makers Mark 46's.

 

[Riggins]

all time great post that.

 

[Adders]

A bit confused here.......

Burgey is championing AB's toughness and then talks about wanting to **** him. Pretty sure AB would be doing the ****ing Burgmeister.........you'd be crying your eyes out wishing you had Michael Clarke behind you

 

[Burgey]

Don't make jokes about AB mate. Not ever.

 

[uvelocity]

3pm burgey? ****en good life hey mate