Top 50 Greatest test batters

[Johan]

I don't even know how Chanderpaul made it to the list.

 

[subshakerz]

Ah the freudian slip

Sorry that was a mistake, corrected.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't even know how Chanderpaul made it to the list.

I listened to Kimber on Waugh, he clearly hates him, thinks he was a selfish bat who batted for NOs and gave the strike unnecessarily to the tail.

 

[DrWolverine]

Kimber said when he did his first statistical analysis, Viv was well outside the top 15.

Acceptable.

Viv’s record is too dependant on one specific year

 

[DrWolverine]

I listened to Kimber on Waugh, he clearly hates him, thinks he was a selfish bat who batted for NOs and gave the strike unnecessarily to the tail.

To an extent it is true

 

[Johan]

I listened to Kimber on Waugh, he clearly hates him, thinks he was a selfish bat who batted for NOs and gave the strike unnecessarily to the tail.

Are we talking about Waugh or Chanderpaul bruh

 

[Johan]

Acceptable.

Viv’s record is too dependant on one specific year

Percentage of years spent averaging 50+

Viv: 44%
Sachin: 48%
Ponting: 38%
Gavaskar: 41%

 

[DrWolverine]

Percentage of years spent averaging 50+

What does that even mean?

 

[Johan]

What does that even mean?

Number of years the player averaged 50 or more divided by numbers of years they played Cricket and then multiplied by 100 to get percentage.

Viv averaged 50+ for 8 years
Played 18 years of Cricket

so 8/18 = 0.44 => 44% of years he played Cricket, he averaged over 50.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Number of years the player averaged 50 or more divided by numbers of years they played Cricket and then multiplied by 100 to get percentage.

Viv averaged 50+ for 8 years
Played 18 years of Cricket

so 8/18 = 0.44 => 44% of years he played Cricket, he averaged over 50.

It's certainly a quite new and imo useless metric

 

[Johan]

It's certainly a quite new and imo useless metric

It's not really a metric, I just don't think Viv was as inconsistent as people make him out to be.

 

[subshakerz]

Are we talking about Waugh or Chanderpaul bruh

Waugh sorry. Just explaining why he downgraded him vs Chanderpaul even.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not really a metric, I just don't think Viv was as inconsistent as people make him out to be.

He wasn't. You explained it quite well.

 

[sayon basak]

It's certainly a quite new and imo useless metric

Better than your research paper.

 

[kyear2]

I don't really agree tbh. Gavaskar's placement here isn't even that different from the general consensus. Kimber has ranked him 7th and behind Hobbs/Hutton as the third greatest opener. That's roughly where he's generally placed imo, even in cricketweb's batsmen poll he was 9th which isn't far off.

The real howler in the Sobers and Gavaskar rankings isn't Gavaskar being 7th, it's Sobers being below him at 9th. It flat out doesn't make any sense and is the lowest I've ever seen Sobers being ranked in any such poll. Frankly Sobers being out of the top 5 is virtually impossible to justify. The guy averaged 75 over a full decade.

If you want to have a whine about India bias, the real thing to point out would be Kohli all the way up at 25. Way more ridiculous than Sunny's ranking imo.

I think that I clarified my take on Sunny's ranking subsequently. It's about 3 spots higher than mine, so negligible, it's the persons he's ahead of.

And since you mentioned Sobers, his rank of 9 is controversial, but his range of 5 - 12 is even worse. He notes that he down grades players who batted lower down the order, because it was so easy, and most played for n/o's. Sobers bowlers 40 overs a game, and never played for a not out in his career, but even outside of that, his record at 3 and 4 was better than it was at 6. As E.W. Swanton said, he was the ideal no. 4.

But that isn't my main gripe, and I need to be clear that we all have favorites, me included, and it impacts our views and he was aware that he over rated a few guys.

He openly said that he knows he rates Hutton higher than most, and with regards to him and Sunny, he did say that he gave openers a boost (though that certainly didn't apply to Hobbs, but more on that later), but the inconsistencies. He says that he factors in ability to turn the game quickly and s/r, noting the impact it has on bowlers, captains and field settings, but then in the next breath says not for everyone, specifically naming Hutton, noting that you couldn't get him out. But that's the argument for all of the slower batsmen though.

You mention India bias, it was, as @peterhrt suggested much more sales bias. Tendulkar was not going to be anywhere but two, and the way he spoke of him ignores his slump, projecting him as perfect while everyone else could be "nitpicked", he had no flaws. @Johan has easily demonstrated how his career mirrored that of Viv, though a bit longer in each. Sachin was also aided as was Lara by the dead pitch era in their later days. As he indicated in the other podcast shared, previously he could rate Sachin ahead, but would still get criticized becuse it made it seem like they were close. Hobbs was more dominant over his era than Sachin was over Lara, there were arguments with regards to which was better. And with any mentioned opener boost, Hobbs should have been easily ahead.
Lara too being higher to boost sales as Lara drives numbers in his desired markets. As he said in the pod, early cricket internet traffic was driven purely by Sachin vs Lara.

As far as contradictions go, he said that he wasn't taking FC into consideration, but do for Hobbs and his hundreds. Said that the lowest number if test on the list was 16, factored in WSC for Barry, and when one look at the tests he played (even the ones demoted after), and WSC it's 14, yet said if he had got to 15 he would have been on the list.

But in all Haydos over Pollock, and there was an argument for I think Javed over Waugh that didn't make sense, but guess that's just me.

The list just seems sale driven, with more than a hint of personal favorites. I know you and I disagree on Punter, but he was rated higher by all who saw him and Kallis in said era, and even if you rate Kallis slightly ahead, the gap here was ridiculous. And as you say, you may rate Sunny ahead of Richards, again no one from their era did. But the explanation he gave was interesting. Viv was arguably the greatest ever against out right pace, Sunny the best vs spin (in the s/c), and there is more spin in the s/ c than there is outright pace outside of it?

It's his list, but I expected more.

 

[kyear2]

Gavaskar being in lower part of top 10 is reasonable.

Yes it is.

Sure but him above Sobers is hard to explain.

and this.

But also, Sobers below Hutton is hard to explain. Though the tide here has certainly turned.

 

[kyear2]

One interesting nugget that he did mention at the end is that he's probably going to be looking at bowlers next.

Noting his statistical perspective, my guess to be no. 1 would be either of McGrath, Hadlee or Murali.

Either longevity (McGrath) or wpm (Hadlee / Murali) might be the ultimate decider.

 

[kyear2]

Graeme Pollock is a very weird case in test cricket

1. He played only 23 Tests.

2. 14 of those were at home.

3. 9 away matches - 5 in Aus, 3 in Eng & 1 in NZ.

4. Faced Aus 14 times, Eng 8 times and NZ once

5. Never faced any quality bowlers.

6. Never faced Trueman.

7. The best bowler he faced was Graham McKenzie

8. Retired at 26 years old

I honestly don’t know how to judge his test career.

I referenced the highlighted line before, he literally never faced any quality bowlers in tests. So when the argument is made between him and Barry, despite the fact that Barry only played the 4 tests, because he did turn mercenary, he consistently faced and was more proven against better bowling than Pollock.

Pollock is still better than a lot of the guys ahead of him though. Haydos, like WTH.

 

[kyear2]

He can only face what is presented, he faced one of the greatest attacks ever made from 1946 Ashes to 1953 Ashes and averaged nearly 60, always coming up on tough wickets against them. put a bunch of ATG Batsmen in the same context and I don't think they break to 40.

also, him above the names below him isn't ridiculous at all.

He could flip the switch when he needed to, he wasn't a slogger.

But of all the top 10, outside of Hobbs, he faced the least great and ATG bowlers and attacks.

And while you say "when he needed to" , he hardly, if ever did.

I'm not saying he isn't top 10, 4 is a little high.

 

[kyear2]

add Davidson, Johnston, O'reilly, Cowie and benaud to that.

Yeah, noticed afterwards with regards to Davidson and Benaud, blanked on O'Reilly before the war, that's on me.

And yes the attacks in the post '52 pitches were excellent.

But it was still less than any of the others, was my only point...