• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Top 50 Greatest test batters

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Among the openers, Hutton has the perfect placement, perfect batsman.
it's often a question how well Hutton did against top notch bowling lineups of his era, obviously slayed in the test arena but i found something interesting, now New South Wales after the war had a ridiculous bowling lineup. Hutton faced them in tour games while representing England, the bowlers were as follows order, I'll put a * in those who can be considered young.

1946-47: Lindwall/Toshack in first game, Lindwall/Johnston/Toshack in second game.

1950-51: Lindwall/Johnston/Benaud*/Davidson* in first game, Lindwall/Johnston/Miller in second.

1954-55: Davidson/Miller/Benaud in first and second game.

Output? 785 runs in 10 innings @ 78.5, 3 hundreds, 4 fifties.
 
Last edited:

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
so I went through this as I was curious on what reasoning one can have to remotely have Weekes and Walcott below Worrell, and well I was dissapointed that it's the usual "average in England and Australia" argument, I had hoped he had done some more research on the matter than just statsguru but I really don't think he particularly cared about it after like 20 batsmen. With Compton he cites the away issue, which I don't think anyone who has read into his away tours take much of an issue with, maybe a minor dissapointment at most. He seems to group Waugh and Chanderpaul together but... c'mon, there's a huge difference there. Steve Waugh was a fighter while Chanderpaul was a turtle who hid in his shell, to suggest anything Chanderpaul did comes close to achievements of Waugh against all the great pacemen of the 1990s is simply absurd.

He says Miandad handled lateral movement well but I'd say his England record is anything but contrary to that, more or less very good at handling soft duke balls from medium paced trundlers on sunny days and flat roads, I say this because in games in England that actually finished IE had result oriented wickets he averaged a pathetic 22.1. I'd have preffered if he went more indepth with Hammond against fast bowling, the man made four hundreds in ten innings against the infamous Larwood and Voce Bodyline duo after all. He suggested that Sutcliffe was often troubled by the likes of Nissar, Wall and Griffith, I wish I had a way to know what he is talking about.

He also seems to believe that the West Indies brought back short pitched fast bowling after it was banished after Bodyline, obviously, that is a myth. Short pitched pace was never banished, and it always happened, Ted McDonald and John Gregory bowled it before Harold Larwood. After the war, Raymond Lindwall and bowled short pitched balls intentionally to hurt the already injured Weekes and Walcott in 1951-52 Australia series, Fred Trueman/Wes Hall/Frank Tyson all consistently bowled short, Trueman bowled six bouncers in an over sometimes. It's really just a myth that the West Indies bowlers did short pitched bowling anymore than those who came before.

He also explained that David Gower is not on the list because of his record in India and at home against West Indies...as if that is a fair metric – The fact is, most of the batsmen he mentions don't even have to face an ATG attack at all, Cook never had to face anything that even came close to the West Indies juggernaut for example except perhaps the 2007 Ashes team, so frankly I get the vibe that Gower is being downgraded in a sense for having to face the strongest attack ever assembled in Cricket and having to face it constantly throughout his career. and...that simply does not sit right with me. Gower also has a better record against the West Indies than Miandad but that was glossed over. Gooch is not there because he did not average north of 40 when batting away, kind of arbitrary restriction considering he did well everywhere but Australia but that is whatever. He calls Geoffrey Boycott selfish while simultaneously admitting that Boycott won games...uh, I'm quite confused on how that works, I didn't think the nature of a cricketer mattered, only the effectiveness.

His explaination for Grace's placement was quite strange, I think he more or less said that had there been more tests from 1860s, Grace would rank a lot higher but come on, you don't rate someone like Doctor Grace over his Test record. He claims Hayden and Sehwag get boost for their strikerates...as if Hayden and Sehwag are in any sense equivalent in their strike rate...? He discusses the wobble ball a lot and in a similar fashion as starfighter I kind of am not a fan of the pretending that this is some new delivery instead of just scrambled seam spam and hitting the right spots to get deviation off the wicket. I think the Harvey rating was also kind of off? I won't really describe Harvey as struggling against England, I think he should've looked more into the nature of the wickets in England on that regard.

All in all, I feel like after the top 3 or 5, the research was a bit undercooked.
 
Last edited:

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
I think our list is much superior, I have some disagreements like Root being that low but that's just the classic Anti-English bias some of the cricketing community have and I don't agree with the placement of a few names, namely Miandad and Chanderpaul but regardless of that, I reckon it doesn't have the same level of howlers as the Waugh and Pollock placements, I also reckon people actually read into things more here.
 
Last edited:

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
I think our list is much superior, I have some disagreements like Root being that low but that's just the classic Anti-English bias some of the cricketing community have and I don't agree with the placement of a few names, namely Miandad and Chanderpaul but regardless of that, I reckon it doesn't have the same level of howlers as the Waugh and Pollock placements.
Ours is much superior no doubt. Think when L&L will update it in 2026, it would be even better.
 

ma1978

International Debutant
Stats nerds thinking they know more than people who analyze the game for a living or actually played crick3et at the top level…
 

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Stats nerds thinking they know more than people who analyze the game for a living or actually played crick3et at the top level…
That is like saying Candace Owen's opinions are more valid on political matters than others because she analyzes Politics at a high level.
 

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
To be fair she's a **** though.
Maybe kind of an extreme example but a valid one, just being an "analyst" is not really a badge of validation, not knowing the basics of the careers of those you're ranking is a negative for anyone.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
so I went through this as I was curious on what reasoning one can have to remotely have Weekes and Walcott below Worrell, and well I was dissapointed that it's the usual "average in England and Australia" argument, I had hoped he had done some more research on the matter than just statsguru but I really don't think he particularly cared about it after like 20 batsmen. With Compton he cites the away issue, which I don't think anyone who has read into his away tours take much of an issue with, maybe a minor dissapointment at most. He seems to group Waugh and Chanderpaul together but... c'mon, there's a huge difference there. Steve Waugh was a fighter while Chanderpaul was a turtle who hid in his shell, to suggest anything Chanderpaul did comes close to achievements of Waugh against all the great pacemen of the 1990s is simply absurd.

He says Miandad handled lateral movement well but I'd say his England record is anything but contrary to that, more or less very good at handling soft duke balls from medium paced trundlers on sunny days and flat roads, I say this because in games in England that actually finished IE had result oriented wickets he averaged a pathetic 22.1. I'd have preffered if he went more indepth with Hammond against fast bowling, the man made four hundreds in ten innings against the infamous Larwood and Voce Bodyline duo after all. He suggested that Sutcliffe was often troubled by the likes of Nissar, Wall and Griffith, I wish I had a way to know what he is talking about.

He also seems to believe that the West Indies brought back short pitched fast bowling after it was banished after Bodyline, obviously, that is a myth. Short pitched pace was never banished, and it always happened, Ted McDonald and John Gregory bowled it before Harold Larwood. After the war, Raymond Lindwall and bowled short pitched balls intentionally to hurt the already injured Weekes and Walcott in 1951-52 Australia series, Fred Trueman/Wes Hall/Frank Tyson all consistently bowled short, Trueman bowled six bouncers in an over sometimes. It's really just a myth that the West Indies bowlers did short pitched bowling anymore than those who came before.

He also explained that David Gower is not on the list because of his record in India and at home against West Indies...as if that is a fair metric – The fact is, most of the batsmen he mentions don't even have to face an ATG attack at all, Cook never had to face anything that even came close to the West Indies juggernaut for example except perhaps the 2007 Ashes team, so frankly I get the vibe that Gower is being downgraded in a sense for having to face the strongest attack ever assembled in Cricket and having to face it constantly throughout his career. and...that simply does not sit right with me. Gower also has a better record against the West Indies than Miandad but that was glossed over. Gooch is not there because he did not average north of 40 when batting away, kind of arbitrary restriction considering he did well everywhere but Australia but that is whatever. He calls Geoffrey Boycott selfish while simultaneously admitting that Boycott won games...uh, I'm quite confused on how that works, I didn't think the nature of a cricketer mattered, only the effectiveness.

His explaination for Grace's placement was quite strange, I think he more or less said that had there been more tests from 1860s, Grace would rank a lot higher but come on, you don't rate someone like Doctor Grace over his Test record. He claims Hayden and Sehwag get boost for their strikerates...as if Hayden and Sehwag are in any sense equivalent in their strike rate...? He discusses the wobble ball a lot and in a similar fashion as starfighter I kind of am not a fan of the pretending that this is some new delivery instead of just scrambled seam spam and hitting the right spots to get deviation off the wicket. I think the Harvey rating was also kind of off? I won't really describe Harvey as struggling against England, I think he should've looked more into the nature of the wickets in England on that regard.

All in all, I feel like after the top 3 or 5, the research was a bit undercooked.
ok
 

Xix2565

International Regular
I think our list is much superior, I have some disagreements like Root being that low but that's just the classic Anti-English bias some of the cricketing community have and I don't agree with the placement of a few names, namely Miandad and Chanderpaul but regardless of that, I reckon it doesn't have the same level of howlers as the Waugh and Pollock placements, I also reckon people actually read into things more here.
Ours is much superior no doubt. Think when L&L will update it in 2026, it would be even better.
Are we sure about this? There's a lot of blinders on and accepted wisdom here that suggests it's not the case. Especially given that we don't really do much analyses overall.
 

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Stats nerds thinking they know more than people who analyze the game for a living or actually played crick3et at the top level…
Yeah, hence why they can't be dismissed out of hand as we tend to.

A bit of useful knowledge in everything
 

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Are we sure about this? There's a lot of blinders on and accepted wisdom here that suggests it's not the case. Especially given that we don't really do much analyses overall.
What do you not like about our list?
 

Xix2565

International Regular
What do you not like about our list?
Waugh being quite high for someone who basically hid lower down the order, for one. Viv being quite high, the general underrating of certain eras and so on. Doesn't mean it's a bad list but it's not clearly superior to Jarrod's list, was my point.
 

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Waugh being quite high for someone who basically hid lower down the order, for one. Viv being quite high, the general underrating of certain eras and so on. Doesn't mean it's a bad list but it's not clearly superior to Jarrod's list, was my point.
Viv was rated pretty fine as far as I am concerned, Waugh can be problematic though and I get why one won't rate him
 

Xix2565

International Regular
Viv was rated pretty fine as far as I am concerned, Waugh can be problematic though and I get why one won't rate him
Yeah, but that's kind of my point. I think it's fair to call out our list for the way we rate certain players. I'd say we're not that far from being Candace Owens as you might feel.
 

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, but that's kind of my point. I think it's fair to call out our list for the way we rate certain players. I'd say we're not that far from being Candace Owens as you might feel.
Yeah but nothing of it is as big of a howler as something like Kevin Pietersen over the Ws making the list but Peter May not making it, no list can be unanimously perfect but there can be levels to it.
 

Xix2565

International Regular
Yeah but nothing of it is as big of a howler as something like Kevin Pietersen over the Ws making the list but Peter May not making it, no list can be unanimously perfect but there can be levels to it.
I don't think those are howlers, tbh. We're too prone to exaggeration IMO.
 

Top