Top 50 Greatest test batters

[kyear2]

I might have Dravid ahead of Chappell too tbh though that might be unpopular. Not ahead of ponting though.

If I recall correctly the batsmen you don't rate as highly are

Hammond, Chappell and Punter?

Personally I think all 3 are clear of Dravid and reside between 10 and 15. Where do you have them?

 

[kyear2]

Kimber said when he did his first statistical analysis, Viv was well outside the top 15. So he then tried to justify him getting in the top ten based on other metrics.

Which just shows he might have an arbitrary mishmash of an entire list.

My problem is when you have peer cricketers where one is considered unanimously better yet you rate the other ahead. It seems so off.

Gavaskar should not be ahead of Viv.
Dravid should not be ahead of Ponting.
Steve Waugh should not be behind Chanderpaul.

Unanimously better by all who saw them, it wasn't something that was disputed at the time or even after.
Guys like Barrington weren't even rates during their career, and honestly not till stat guru cane along.

 

[Prince EWS]

England will win 4-1, 4-0, 5-0, 3-0, 3-1 etc (me)

India will atleast win 2 games (Luffy)

What if India win 1-0?

It never rains in England in June.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

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.

I'd imagine he'd rank the bowlers thusly:

Hadlee or McGrath
Murali
Warne
Lillee
Wasim
Steyn
Ambrose
Marshall
Imran

 

[Johan]

What if India win 1-0?

It never rains in England in June.

If that happens, Luffy wins.

 

[Johan]

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

Steven Smith and him didn't face much, and his achivements against an ATG attack is also as good as any in the top 10 really.

 

[Johan]

and this.

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

That's not as bad imo, they're statistically not far from each other with both having some strong arguments.

 

[Xix2565]

I'd guess with Sobers he probably didn't rate the attacks and conditions Sobers played that highly. It's part of why he likes openers, since they generally tend to play when it's tougher to bat.

 

[Johan]

Unanimously better by all who saw them, it wasn't something that was disputed at the time or even after.
Guys like Barrington weren't even rates during their career, and honestly not till stat guru cane along.

Barrington in top 20 and Compton not even top 50 was surprising to me, especially since to those who watched both there was no comparison, but oh well.

 

[DrWolverine]

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

True

It’s not like Hutton did not face great bowlers but he did far less often than others in the top 10.

 

[DrWolverine]

Guys like Barrington weren't even rates during their career, and honestly not till stat guru cane along.

Ken was reported to have scored at a SR of 43 and maybe his defensive style didn’t impress a lot but his amazing stats are hard to ignore.

 

[Johan]

for approximately 30% of his games, Hutton faced an elite ATG lineup in Invincibles Australia, if you count singular great bowlers (like it's done for Viv at times) then Ashes 1938 is eligible too, making it 34%.

 

[kyear2]

Percentage of years spent averaging 50+

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

That's quite interesting.

 

[kyear2]

It's certainly a quite new and imo useless metric

It really isn't.

It can't be consistently said that he's basically a one year player and lacks consistency when from what is clearly shown he's no less consistent than any of the others listed there.

 

[kyear2]

Steven Smith and him didn't face much, and his achivements against an ATG attack is also as good as any in the top 10 really.

Yes Smith as well, but his serous lack of longevity compared to the rest. He's not separated himself from Punter and the rest of the fraud 4 at this point. His saving grace is the live ball era of the past 8 years.

But it's still only one attack.

 

[kyear2]

for approximately 30% of his games, Hutton faced an elite ATG lineup in Invincibles Australia, if you count singular great bowlers (like it's done for Viv at times) then Ashes 1938 is eligible too, making it 34%.

That match was very much a special case, but that much of O'Reilly still has to be a challenge. The pitch and the remainder of the attack were distinctly poor though.

 

[Johan]

That match was very much a special case, but that much of O'Reilly still has to be a challenge. The pitch and the remainder of the attack were distinctly poor though.

Sobers' 226 at Bourda was under a similar context of one great bowler and a flatter wicket, so was the 178* at Bourda against India or the 153 at Sabina Park against India, not enough of a reason to just ignore the runs imo.

 

[subshakerz]

for approximately 30% of his games, Hutton faced an elite ATG lineup in Invincibles Australia, if you count singular great bowlers (like it's done for Viv at times) then Ashes 1938 is eligible too, making it 34%.

I think on reflection Hutton deserves to be in the top 5 ever and I would have him ahead of Sobers.

 

[DrWolverine]

Percentage of years spent averaging 50+

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

What about Lara and Smith?

Did you take for all the years? I mean he played 2 Tests each in 1978 and 1979. Is 2 tests enough?

 

[DrWolverine]

Yes Smith as well, but his serous lack of longevity compared to the rest. He's not separated himself from Punter and the rest of the fraud 4 at this point. His saving grace is the live ball era of the past 8 years.

But it's still only one attack.

Who?