Top 100 Test Batsmen of all time newly revised

[fredfertang]

That's a fair question. How many times did Hobbs play on them? Maybe he should get some extra points for that.

The fifth test in 1926 and the third in 28/29 are the stuff of legend but by no means the only occasions - he also mastered the South African googly bowlers on the mats

 

[Days of Grace]

Still, that brings up a good criticism of this analysis. Should not the likes of Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara get more points for playing more opponents over more conditions?

This analysis also awards points for career runs and centuries scored. As you know, the likes of Tendulkar and Lara have many more runs/centuries then earlier players, thus giving them a good advantage.

And sorry, but if Hobbs had the chance to play against Zimbabwe/Bangladesh, then he would be above 1000 points, I reckon. Although, the Indias and New Zealands of his time were more or less the Zimbabwes of Tendulkar/Lara's time. Zimbabwe pre 2003 anyway.

 

[Ikki]

This analysis also awards points for career runs and centuries scored. As you know, the likes of Tendulkar and Lara have many more runs/centuries then earlier players, thus giving them a good advantage.

That's irrelevant to the point that Hobbs faced only 3 opponents where the other batsmen faced 3 times as many as that, home and away. The above is an issue of longevity, not of conquering varying conditions.

And sorry, but if Hobbs had the chance to play against Zimbabwe/Bangladesh, then he would be above 1000 points, I reckon. Although, the Indias and New Zealands of his time were more or less the Zimbabwes of Tendulkar/Lara's time. Zimbabwe pre 2003 anyway.

I am not talking about Hobbs playing the likes of Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. How about the Pakistanis or the Saffies in the 90s? How about the dominant Australian side of the past decade and a half. How about the Indian side now? Or the Windies of the 80s?

However, you wish to state it, Hobbs career is very limited in comparison to these batsmen. Sure, he'd have faced things the others might not have but they've probably got the upper hand on varying conditions. It's essentially a small sample size.

 

[Days of Grace]

And yet you'd probably cry blue murder when it shows Victor Trumper below the likes of Justin Langer. Same argument applies, so if you accept Tendulkar as having a great sample than Hobbs, then surely you'd have to say the same for Langer over Trumper.

 

[Ikki]

And yet you'd probably cry blue murder when it shows Victor Trumper below the likes of Justin Langer. Same argument applies, so if you accept Tendulkar as having a great sample than Hobbs, then surely you'd have to say the same for Langer over Trumper.

No, I wouldn't cry blue murder and if I did I'd have to state why. Victor Trumper is a curious case where people seem to say he is much better than his stats suggest...well, they'd have to explain why.

But this is irrelevant to my Hobbs/Tendulkar point as there really aren't big faults with the stats representing their "true" ability. They are players of the same class where one had many times more different/varying conditions to conquer. It's not really a fault of Hobbs but a reality that Tendulkar, and players like him, had to face and did well against.

 

[susudear]

Living upto name

DOG is.

I have same rights as you. STFU. Your analysis has same value as any other opinion.