Top 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

[Coronis]

You do know you're not required to respond to everything if it doesn't add to the discourse.

Not required, but it is fun.

 

[manoftommorow]

No.8

Ravindra Jadeja (India) 850

View attachment 53242

























Nah. The real no.8 tomorrow.

Almost got a heart attack.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Almost got a heart attack.

Yeah, 7 places too low

 

[centurymaker]

3rd Graders come up with better insults. All this because we were having a perfectly normal discussion about scoring rates in Cricket by the way.

Who found it necessary to respond to a mere facepalm with an instigating post. He is a serial instigator. He has done it on so many occasions, including to me specifically. Hence I swear to never unignore him again.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Who found it necessary to respond to a mere facepalm with an instigating post. He is a serial instigator. He has done it on so many occasions, including to me specifically. Hence I swear to never unignore him again.

Hopefully stays that way.

 

[centurymaker]

Conservative batting is useful if your teammates are able to take advantage of it by playing long as well and/or score quickly eventually.

For instance at Gabba it wasn't only Pujara, it was Gill+Pujara+Pant. It was a collective effort. Pujara almost got India at least a draw by batting long, while Gill and Pant set up the victory by scoring the many runs required at a quick pace.

Ultimately it was not conservative batting that exhausted Australia. It was Australia's reluctance to change or rotate their bowling lineup.

 

[Johan]

Pant batted well slower than his usual pace for the Gabba chase. But that just goes to further prove my point, the series was won due to a combination of adaptable and versatile Cricket by India, showing you need both and therefore one approach doesn't necessarily establish superiority, and successful radical players shouldn't get any more credit than successful conservative players as they both help each other and the better approach is dependant on microfactors and the situation.

It's really not that complex.

 

[kyear2]

It's the truth isn't it? Scoring rate in Test cricket is a completely irrelevant phenomenon, only thing that ultimately matters is how many games you win or save with your contributions.

It really isn't and I really don't know what you've been watching to make you think this?

 

[Johan]

It really isn't and I really don't know what you've been watching to make you think this?

Red ball Cricket on various levels, are we sure you're not mistaking the redball with the white ball?

 

[kyear2]

Red ball Cricket on various levels, are we sure you're not mistaking the redball with the white ball?

Quite sure.

But one thing that I dont think should be up for debate is that scoring at a quicker rate is exponentially more difficult and should be rewarded accordingly.

 

[Johan]

But one thing that I dont think should be up for debate is that scoring at a quicker rate is exponentially more difficult and should be rewarded accordingly.

Depends on the player, but I don't think there is any reason to give more credit just because a job is tougher to most people. It is harder to get bowled wickets than caught behind, we don't give extra credit to bowlers who get more bowled dismissals than caught behind.

 

[Gob]

Get the feeling that the people's champ is next

 

[trundler]

No.8

Ravindra Jadeja (India) 850

View attachment 53242

























Nah. The real no.8 tomorrow.

Excellent

 

[Jane Austen]

Ofcourse there are instances where faster scoring is of use, it's also equally true that there are many instances where slower scoring is of use.

For example, look at the Bengaluru test between India and South Africa in 2000, they scored nearly 500 runs at the run rate of under 2.5, an exhausted India and a breaking up wicket meant they won comfortably and didn't let India get back into the game. They sealed the series (1-0 up) by just batting so long, exhausted and broke down India, made use of the good wicket and so forth. Their scoring largely helping in the win.

1964 England tour of South Africa, the series would be lost at Johannesburg if one Geoffrey Boycott didn't bat and bat and bat on the final day of the fourth test, playing over 250 balls to save the game when England were 33-3 and 6 batsmen were dismissed for under 20 or so, if Boycott batted faster, say he batted like Viv, South Africa would've had another 150 or so balls to dismiss the remaining batsmen and perhaps win the game and England would not win the series.

2010/11 Ashes was a good example, England simply batted Australia out of games, the tired and exhausted Australians kept collapsing because each game they were spending a ridiculous amount of time in the field. 2020/21 BGT, a series regarded as the crown achievement of India in Cricket, would not have happened had Vihari and Ashwin not blocked away at Sydney, without Jadeja, Ashwin or Rahane's work at Melbourne, there's no guarantee Australia collapses third dig and India wins their first game. Ofcourse, Pant's erratic and aggressive batting was also important.

Edgbaston test last summer was a good example, if England had batted at a much slower pace, let's say struck around 30 or so, or scored at under 2.5 runs an over, the game would very likely be saved and with that the series would be won. The same way the first match required fast batting. Lord's 2023, the Ashes would perhaps be reclaimed if England had batted much slower at Lord's, but their own hastiness in the first two games cost England, a drawable game at Lord's turned into a loss, the same thing in an easily saveable first game, other than the absolutely insane decision to declare the innings when Root was batting the way he was, a slower and steadier approach by England would've elimited the potentiality of an Australian victory. If Australians had batted faster at Old Trafford, perhaps the series would be lost for them.

The truth of the matter is, faster batting is more result oriented and leads to more results, one way or the other. Slower batting is more neutral and it leads to less results, one way or the other. Truly, one isn't superior to the other, and almost all great victories are the resultant of a team that had players that can do both or players who were versatile and adaptible. That's what scoring rate is about, a batsman should be able to adapt and score at the required rate if there is potential for a win or saving a game, it doesn't matter if a batsman has a career strike rate of 70, you should be able to drop it and bat at 25 runs per hundred balls to save a game. It doesn't matter if you generally strike at 25, you should be able to bat near 70 if the team is going for the win and that would help.

Neither playing styles are inherently superior, and career strike rate is probably the worst statistic of them all. For example, Jacques Kallis is a somewhat dour batsman and Ricky Ponting was regarded as very aggressive, yet over the course of 200 balls played, Ponting would make 25 more runs, Kallis would play another 50 or so balls to make up for that normally. Ponting is making one extra run every 8th delivery paced, who even cares?

One can and should critique one dimensional players if they can post evidence of games where the one dimensionality cost the team, and it's totally fair to praise someone like Root who can score like Boycott or like Viv at will, that's adaptability and versatility which is certainly valuable, but giving points to guys like Sehwag or Brook for their scoring rate is something I'll never agree to, they don't score at their outlandish strike rates because they are adaptible or making a choice. They do it because they have no other option and lack the versatility and adaptability of someone like Joe Root or Ricky Ponting, and are therefore severely limited in the same ways as some percieve Boycott and Bruce Mitchell in modern times, just in the reverse direction.

Johan----Unlike Boycott,Kallis et al,you are defending the indefensible.
A win is better than a draw.....isn't it?
A player who can create a win out of nothing,who has more strokes,who is more gifted,is a greater asset.
A batting line-up is chosen on the basis of your most competent players available.
In 1970/71 England grafted a 2-0 series win partly thanks to Messrs.Boycott,Edrich,Luckhurst and co pragmatically grinding out large enough scores to win a couple of Tests.I have the feeling that if one of Clive Lloyd,Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards (the latter of whom scored a double century against Illingworth's team that season) had been English they may have been squeezed into that side and,who knows,may have won England another Test or two---Illingworth,probably with the players at his disposal, pragmatically made the choice to opt for the draw whereas,with a great stroke player,he could have initially pushed for a win,safe in the knowledge that he had the draw to fall back on.
Go back to the 4th Test,West Indies v England at Queen's Park Oval in March 68.Sobers' quixotic declaration left England needing to score 215 runs in 165 minutes to win.Captain Cowdrey,a batter of supreme class and technique,a Rolls-Royce player who would often bat like a Skoda howevever,was all for batting out time.However two in particular of the team persuaded him that " this thing can be done" (the words of Fred Spofforth at The Oval in 1882 which led to the creation of The Ashes---but that is another story). And England chased down the runs for the loss of only 3 wickets.Boycott provided the ballast with 80 not out whilst Cowdrey glided and eased to a match-winning 71.Ironically,the two players who were the strongest persuaders were...Boycott and Barrington,the old slow-coaches.
But there have been so many instances over the years where captains DON'T want to risk defeat in pursuit of victory partly because they haven't had a great stroke-player.
Your argument,Johan,also implies that the great stroke-player doesn’t have the capability to "bat dumb",but this is a fallacy of course.Wonderful,gifted stroke-players have played with restricted freedom in the interests of the team.Bradman,Sobers, deVilliers,Compton,Botham!,Gower,Ponting immediately come to mind.
In any case different batters are picked for different reasons----that courageous stalwart Pujara could never play an innings such as the several Pant has played.Tellingly though,in Australia in 2021,it was their combination of completely contrasting styles that led to India's amazing series victory.
The examples you give are with the benefit of hindsight---of course mistakes are made otherwise EVEN CHRIS MARTIN would have a Test batting average of 99.94.These don't defeat the logic that strikes rates are important,both in relation to the most favourable result,but also for the more ephemeral reason of evaluating players.
Days of Grace has quite rightly taken it into consideration.
Who cares,you say Johan----well selectors do and so do experts.That is why Viv Richards,averaging a paltry 50,is thought by most to be a better,a greater,a more talented,bat----by far(?)-----than Boycott,Edrich,Chanderpaul,Cook etc,even Kallis,Dravid,Barrington and Sutcliffe.
Finally no one is saying that one batting style is inherently better than another otherwise I'd be claiming greatness for Shahid Afridi over Sunny Gavaskar.You have mistakenly misinterpreted the basic premise of argument put forward by me and others,by erroneously putting that forward.

 

[subshakerz]

"driving an advantage and taking advantage of tired bowlers" basically means scoring runs, which means the guy who is scoring 50 runs per dismissal at 40 strike rate is superior at. Therefore I would take the 50 averaging bat as he makes more runs, the sole duty of a batsman.

Would Aus have preferred a Gilly averaging 52 with an SR of 40 or 47 with his SR? Let’s be real.

 

[kyear2]

Depends on the player, but I don't think there is any reason to give more credit just because a job is tougher to most people. It is harder to get bowled wickets than caught behind, we don't give extra credit to bowlers who get more bowled dismissals than caught behind.

No part of that post makes the slightest amount of sense.

You shouldn't get credit for being skilled at the harder part of the skill?

 

[kyear2]

Johan----Unlike Boycott,Kallis et al,you are defending the indefensible.
A win is better than a draw.....isn't it?
A player who can create a win out of nothing,who has more strokes,who is more gifted,is a greater asset.
A batting line-up is chosen on the basis of your most competent players available.
In 1970/71 England grafted a 2-0 series win partly thanks to Messrs.Boycott,Edrich,Luckhurst and co pragmatically grinding out large enough scores to win a couple of Tests.I have the feeling that if one of Clive Lloyd,Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards (the latter of whom scored a double century against Illingworth's team that season) had been English they may have been squeezed into that side and,who knows,may have won England another Test or two---Illingworth,probably with the players at his disposal, pragmatically made the choice to opt for the draw whereas,with a great stroke player,he could have initially pushed for a win,safe in the knowledge that he had the draw to fall back on.
Go back to the 4th Test,West Indies v England at Queen's Park Oval in March 68.Sobers' quixotic declaration left England needing to score 215 runs in 165 minutes to win.Captain Cowdrey,a batter of supreme class and technique,a Rolls-Royce player who would often bat like a Skoda howevever,was all for batting out time.However two in particular of the team persuaded him that " this thing can be done" (the words of Fred Spofforth at The Oval in 1882 which led to the creation of The Ashes---but that is another story). And England chased down the runs for the loss of only 3 wickets.Boycott provided the ballast with 80 not out whilst Cowdrey glided and eased to a match-winning 71.Ironically,the two players who were the strongest persuaders were...Boycott and Barrington,the old slow-coaches.
But there have been so many instances over the years where captains DON'T want to risk defeat in pursuit of victory partly because they haven't had a great stroke-player.
Your argument,Johan,also implies that the great stroke-player doesn’t have the capability to "bat dumb",but this is a fallacy of course.Wonderful,gifted stroke-players have played with restricted freedom in the interests of the team.Bradman,Sobers, deVilliers,Compton,Botham!,Gower,Ponting immediately come to mind.
In any case different batters are picked for different reasons----that courageous stalwart Pujara could never play an innings such as the several Pant has played.Tellingly though,in Australia in 2021,it was their combination of completely contrasting styles that led to India's amazing series victory.
The examples you give are with the benefit of hindsight---of course mistakes are made otherwise EVEN CHRIS MARTIN would have a Test batting average of 99.94.These don't defeat the logic that strikes rates are important,both in relation to the most favourable result,but also for the more ephemeral reason of evaluating players.
Days of Grace has quite rightly taken it into consideration.
Who cares,you say Johan----well selectors do and so do experts.That is why Viv Richards,averaging a paltry 50,is thought by most to be a better,a greater,a more talented,bat----by far(?)-----than Boycott,Edrich,Chanderpaul,Cook etc,even Kallis,Dravid,Barrington and Sutcliffe.
Finally no one is saying that one batting style is inherently better than another otherwise I'd be claiming greatness for Shahid Afridi over Sunny Gavaskar.You have mistakenly misinterpreted the basic premise of argument put forward by me and others,by erroneously putting that forward.

There have been instances where Richards, Sobers even Pant as someone mentioned in another thread were able to bat out time to save a match. Hobbs was also a mose assertive scorer, saying he couldn't slow down of required.

I don't get what some of these guys are trying to say?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Johan----Unlike Boycott,Kallis et al,you are defending the indefensible.
A win is better than a draw.....isn't it?
A player who can create a win out of nothing,who has more strokes,who is more gifted,is a greater asset.
A batting line-up is chosen on the basis of your most competent players available.
In 1970/71 England grafted a 2-0 series win partly thanks to Messrs.Boycott,Edrich,Luckhurst and co pragmatically grinding out large enough scores to win a couple of Tests.I have the feeling that if one of Clive Lloyd,Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards (the latter of whom scored a double century against Illingworth's team that season) had been English they may have been squeezed into that side and,who knows,may have won England another Test or two---Illingworth,probably with the players at his disposal, pragmatically made the choice to opt for the draw whereas,with a great stroke player,he could have initially pushed for a win,safe in the knowledge that he had the draw to fall back on.
Go back to the 4th Test,West Indies v England at Queen's Park Oval in March 68.Sobers' quixotic declaration left England needing to score 215 runs in 165 minutes to win.Captain Cowdrey,a batter of supreme class and technique,a Rolls-Royce player who would often bat like a Skoda howevever,was all for batting out time.However two in particular of the team persuaded him that " this thing can be done" (the words of Fred Spofforth at The Oval in 1882 which led to the creation of The Ashes---but that is another story). And England chased down the runs for the loss of only 3 wickets.Boycott provided the ballast with 80 not out whilst Cowdrey glided and eased to a match-winning 71.Ironically,the two players who were the strongest persuaders were...Boycott and Barrington,the old slow-coaches.
But there have been so many instances over the years where captains DON'T want to risk defeat in pursuit of victory partly because they haven't had a great stroke-player.
Your argument,Johan,also implies that the great stroke-player doesn’t have the capability to "bat dumb",but this is a fallacy of course.Wonderful,gifted stroke-players have played with restricted freedom in the interests of the team.Bradman,Sobers, deVilliers,Compton,Botham!,Gower,Ponting immediately come to mind.
In any case different batters are picked for different reasons----that courageous stalwart Pujara could never play an innings such as the several Pant has played.Tellingly though,in Australia in 2021,it was their combination of completely contrasting styles that led to India's amazing series victory.
The examples you give are with the benefit of hindsight---of course mistakes are made otherwise EVEN CHRIS MARTIN would have a Test batting average of 99.94.These don't defeat the logic that strikes rates are important,both in relation to the most favourable result,but also for the more ephemeral reason of evaluating players.
Days of Grace has quite rightly taken it into consideration.
Who cares,you say Johan----well selectors do and so do experts.That is why Viv Richards,averaging a paltry 50,is thought by most to be a better,a greater,a more talented,bat----by far(?)-----than Boycott,Edrich,Chanderpaul,Cook etc,even Kallis,Dravid,Barrington and Sutcliffe.
Finally no one is saying that one batting style is inherently better than another otherwise I'd be claiming greatness for Shahid Afridi over Sunny Gavaskar.You have mistakenly misinterpreted the basic premise of argument put forward by me and others,by erroneously putting that forward.

Jane, you are a Great poster and have watched atleast 50x more cricket than I have, but that's exactly the point, no? Boycott accelerated when his team needed to win. You mention someone like Compton, he strikes at a mere 42. That's less than Barrington. Only one is portrayed as dour. It's not about your career SR, but whether you are flexible for the role. Some players bat fast as their natural game, some grinds. But the only thing important is if they can change their game according to team situation.

 

[subshakerz]

Jane, you are a Great poster and have watched atleast 50x more cricket than I have, but that's exactly the point, no? Boycott accelerated when his team needed to win. You mention someone like Compton, he strikes at a mere 42. That's less than Barrington. Only one is portrayed as dour. It's not about your career SR, but whether you are flexible for the role. Some players bat fast as their natural game, some grinds. But the only thing important is if they can change their game according to team situation.

Except he didn't, not nearly enough. Boycott was notorious for being inflexibly slow as a matter of course aside from a handful of innings.

A batsman should accelerate when he is settled in the crease unless he wants to bat out a draw. If you don't, you are wasting time and runscoring opportunities.

Slomo defenders somehow think players are like robots and aren't affected by momentum of the game or see a need of intent to score. Its a view totally divorced from real gameplay to pretend pace of game is not connected to odds of winning.

 

[subshakerz]

A win is better than a draw.....isn't it?

Johans view of cricket is inherently defensive.

He unironically views avoiding losses as inherently more important than winning matches.

Once you understand that, you realise why he doesn't care about SR, since winning to him isnt the critical end goal it is to the rest of us, to him either you are lucky and you grind out opposition by slomo batting though most times you end up drawing and wasting the money of audiences.