DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[Coronis]

Doesn't necessarily make him better, also still not conceived that he demonstrated at Test level to ability to handle high quality pace bowling.

Might be to do with the lack of high quality pace bowling he faced.....

 

[kyear2]

Some quotes from team mates and articles

"Hammond was cut on the chin by a short ball, causing him to retire hurt. He again commented that he would quit rather than face such bowling; soon after his return, he was out. Les Ames, who played in the three-match series, won by England 2–0, believed that the West Indian pacemen worried Hammond, who showed a weakness against short, fast bowling."

"However, Australian bowlers such as O'Reilly and Grimmett troubled him by bowling at his leg stump, restricting his scoring as he had fewer effective leg-side shots.[208][214] Occasionally, he displayed discomfort against the fastest bowlers.[208] His team-mate Charlie Barnett said that he did not relish fast bowling, although he was capable of playing it well in the initial stages of his career.[214] Other colleagues, such as Les Ames, Bob Wyatt and Reg Sinfield, believed that he did not like to face the new ball,[122] and he was occasionally happy for the other batsmen to face the difficult bowling"

While the above is certainly subjective, what is certain is against the West Indies, the only strong pace attack he would have faced, he struggled mightily and in thirteen matches and twenty innings only scored one hundred at an average of 35 and was known to be uncomfortable against them much in the same way that Weekes struggled versus Lindwall and Miller.

 

[Burgey]

Any criticism of DOG's rankings, in particular surrounding Tendulkar, is pretty threadbare IMO. He set out his parameters at the start of the exercise and has ranked payers accordingly. He's never said its exhaustive, and if you want to use other criteria then that's fine. But **** off if you're going to bag the bloke who's put as much work into this as he has.

 

[honestbharani]

I think Sachin being in the bottom 5 of a top 10 batsmen's list is pretty fair too, personally...

 

[Burgey]

I would probably have him higher, but when someone exhaustively lists and explains their criteria, I don't think people can just pop on a thread and say any result is **** because they don't like it. You could reasonably say you don't agree with some of the criteria used or that there's too much emphasis on one criteria or the other, but it's pretty ordinary to say you just don't agree when your favourite player is listed a few places too low for your liking.

 

[fredfertang]

Hammond was also a decent footballer, who played for Bristol Rovers but couldn't really be arsed with the game

... and a womaniser par excellance

per Eddie Paynter "He liked a shag did Wally"

... not put off by having to have a year out of the game with an STD - not even Shoaib Akhtar can match that

 

[harsh.ag]

The next 5 to be: Headley, Hobbs, Hutton, Lara, Sobers in that order.

Wonderful list, I must say. Just slightly amused with Chappell, Ponting and Tendulkar ranking lower than Sangakkara. But Sanga's stats have been ridiculously good, and as this is a statistical exercise, I completely understand. Sanga at 12 and Sachin at 9 would have been nice

 

[kyear2]

The next 5 to be: Headley, Hobbs, Hutton, Lara, Sobers in that order.

Wonderful list, I must say. Just slightly amused with Chappell, Ponting and Tendulkar ranking lower than Sangakkara. But Sanga's stats have been ridiculously good, and as this is a statistical exercise, I completely understand. Sanga at 12 and Sachin at 9 would have been nice

Really at this level and point in the competition, we have arrived at the best of the best since the top 8 and the margins are incredibly close.

The top 8 having 4 W.Indians and 3 Englishmen makes me evaluate the England ATG batting lineup, though Barrington was a stonewaller and Beefy is some what of a liability at 6. Top 4 of Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond and Compton is right up there with the other teams and the best top three of any 11.

That being said, as I said earlier expect probably Lara next to be followed by Hutton then Headley. Hobbs though because of his era, partiularily hard to judge.

 

[NUFAN]

Does anyone else feel a little surprised when they remember/see Hobbs highest score is 211? I know it's not bad at all, I made 105 (72) once in junior Cricket and Jack has just gone and doubled my score so it's a solid knock, but the 211 just doesn't have the same ring to it as the 334, 400, 365, 364 or 270 from the other five batsman. Hobbs obviously makes up for not having a massive highest score but being very consistent and terrific away from home, plus several other good things - just never managed to produce a completely massive score.

 

[Howe_zat]

I realise we still have to finish the batting countdown but I'm already really looking forward to this. I reckon it could be even more surprising than the batting list.

Agreed, I think bowling stats generally need a closer working over than batting stats. How often do you hear "He took 2-100 but he actually bowled really well" compared to "He scored 23 but it was actually a really good innings"

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm really pleased that there's two openers in the top six. Probably more than I should be.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's become a whole other thread.

 

[Pothas]

It's become a whole other thread.

An awful one. No other posts should be allowed, I don't want to wade through pages of crap to find the newest entry.

 

[honestbharani]

I would probably have him higher, but when someone exhaustively lists and explains their criteria, I don't think people can just pop on a thread and say any result is **** because they don't like it. You could reasonably say you don't agree with some of the criteria used or that there's too much emphasis on one criteria or the other, but it's pretty ordinary to say you just don't agree when your favourite player is listed a few places too low for your liking.

Top ten batting lists in India mostly means "why do you think Sachin is the greatest batsman/cricketer of all time?"

 

[honestbharani]

Of course, but taking 20 wickets is how you win.

Nope, you only win if you take 20 wickets AND have scored more runs than the opposition. Funny how such an important and basic fact of the game is apparently forgotten so easily

 

[Furball]

Migara, Ikki, take your **** some place else.

 

[Ikki]

Migara, Ikki, take your **** some place else.

I'll reply to what I want to reply to. If you don't like it, don't read. Just as I ignore half your bull**** posts on here.

Having said that, I'm more interested in the next batsman coming up. Hurry up DoG.

 

[uvelocity]

Migara, Ikki, take your **** some place else.

why is self filtered?

 

[akilana]

Boring. Next please

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Nope, you only win if you take 20 wickets AND have scored more runs than the opposition. Funny how such an important and basic fact of the game is apparently forgotten so easily

Fine fine, I think my point was you can score the most runs and not win if you don't get the other team out. A real problem for the Aussies at the moment even when they get in a position to win they can't bowl the other sides out. Of course they failed to get the runs a couple tests back too.