Top 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

[subshakerz]

For the umpteenth time I will respond to this.

From as early as '88 Marshall was beginning to gain recognition as the greatest fast bowler of all time. His peer rating from among the players of his era was on par with that of Lillee if not higher, his domination across the globe and agaist all allies placed him ahead for many.

As early as '91 he was named as part of a world XI as the leader pacer



When Imran was asked if Wasim or Waqar were capable of being ATGs, the names referenced were Lillee and Marshall, when asked about the best of his era, Viv cited Marshall, because unlike others he didn't only bark in his own back yard. Border, Gower etc chose him as the best they faced and Wasim hailed him as the best they've seen. The two most experienced posters here, rate him the same. He was clearly rated as the greatest bowler of his generation by his peers.

The media however....

With regards to Lillee being seen ahead, the lauded Richie Benuad left him off his top 6 fast bowlers list and rated at least Hadlee ahead of him as well. TMS and Woodcock released lists that had him in the 60's and 70's respectively. Yes, they were less subtle but the message was very clear throughout the 80's and 90's.

The West indies quartet were vilified in the British and only to a slighly lesser extent the Australian one. They were called barbaric, accused of destroying the sport and playing outside of the rules, despite mind you, they not doing anything Lillee and Thompson patented. That didn't stop Benaud and the like from extolling the virtues of Lillee while castigating Marshall, Holding and co. It was biased, targeted and for a while, at least in the media, quite effective.

Rules and restrictions soon followed, and yes we know the main ones regarding bouncers and over rates, but more nuanced ones like restricting fan access and participation.

But no, Marshall's reputation didn't spike out of the blue 20 years after his retirement as so many of the more dour players like Barrington and Sutcliffe that came along with the advent of more access to spread sheets.

In terms of peer rating and general acclaim, there's Barnes, Lillee, Marshall, Wasim and McGrath.

Lillee was rated higher than Marshall in the Wisden list, the ESPN list, the 2010 ATG collection and the Cricinfo ATG XI. He is still comfortably ahead of Marshall On peer consensus.

 

[howitzer]

I reckon Lara or Sobers will be next up. Which I guess means I think they will be the next two.

Reckon Smith is also an option here. He's likely going to get a sizeable strike rate hit due to era and he has a surprising amount of red ink for a batsman who usually plays in the top 4. I don't believe for one second he's a conscious red-inker, and indeed he's scored a bunch of runs pretty quickly with the tail over the years. The bottom line is it will effect his second column though. I'm really unsure which of his series over this decade will count towards top-opposition though which will likely influence his placement here.

Sobers is interesting. He's going to get a strong boost to his strike rate which will help him but non-home is likely to get adjusted down to mid-high 40s average. While he'll have a great peak rating, having a decade long period that was great without a massively standout 5 years amongst them won't help him especially drastically. We also know that the peaks of both Smith and Sobers will be below the Richards peak too.

Hutton is probably unlikely to be next up. Facing some good Aussie bowling attacks will probably keep his adjusted average at least close to his career average. His top-opposition metric will be outstanding and his peak and non-home will be very good too. He'll also be solid, if unspectacular on career ranking too. You can live with a lowish strike rate if that's the only thing going against you.

Bradman aside, Hobbs is the one I'd be genuinely shocked to see up next. His career has enough years to counteract the relatively few runs compared to some of the others remaining, His non-home will be outstanding and top-opposition will be very good too. I'm interested as to how his peak will go with it potentially covering as much as 18+ years. It should still be very good but maybe not elite. His excellent pre WWI record in a low scoring era should probably keep his average at least above 55 and his fast scoring pre WW1 should keep his strike rate reasonable too. There's not really anything going against him.

I think Lara is most likely to be next. He has a slight problem with peak. Two problems actually. His first didn't last long enough and his second was in a high scoring era so will get marked down. I imagine his top-oppo, overall, and career rankings will be good though. His strike rate is definitely helping him here though; maybe it already has helped him.

New predictions for top 6:

1. Bradman
2. Hobbs
3. Hutton
4. Sobers
5. Smith
6. Lara

 

[Jane Austen]

I like how the angle you take is completely non-cricket related. I'm fine with it, racism is and has always been a central part of the society alongside other discriminatory factors, the same factors that leads to defensive batsmen being underestimated in comparisons to the "aggressive" ones.

The fact is, Cricket and all it's instructions, are existing largely to serve the very same concept — Capitalism. With the difference of a few independent writers and some historians, almost all forms are institutionalised and constructed in a way they glorify what brings more eyes on the game. That is simply the reality of the matter. Almost all forms of letters and even writers want the game to stay alive and thus directly or indirectly serving the Bourgeoisie on top by fattening their pockets with more cash from larger gates.

The demonification of the West Indies bowlers is rooted in racism, while the demonification of orthodox and conservative batting is rooted in a desire to uphold capitalism, and the belief is largely sold by and made wide by the ruling Bourgeoisie over Cricket as they control the institutions and writing about the game.

A.good example is Compton and Barrington. They both strike at the same rate and yet one was rated far higher and the other was termed by certain selectors as selfish, because fundamentally selfish batting is just another way of saying batting that doesn't entertain crowds. In previous eras, when so much of the money made in the game was dependant on the gates and such, logically it made sense to be promotive of the unorthodox and exciting style that Compton deployed, even if it made zero difference in comparison to Barrington.

See it as this, the administrative and ruling classes of Cricket as the Bourgeoisie, the cricketers as workers and your source of income. Fundamentally, you want workers who draw in more money, and that is done by drawing in more people, and therefore a cricketer who brings in more people and causes larger gates is bringing in more money, which makes the institution wealthier and therefore logically you want to be promotive of this because more players playing an exciting and unorthodox brand of Cricket are simply bringing in more money. On the flip side, you want to be discouraging of a more orthodox and boring style of play whenever you can be, because that would turn people away. Fundamentally, a good worker is the one who brings in more money, and a poor one is the one who potentially drives away money, and therefore the establishment is much more in profit if they are promotive of the good workers and demonise the bad ones, therefore promoting an aggressive and exciting brand of Cricket, which gets termed as "entertaining", "breathtaking", "fantastic" while denouncing the more orthodox and boring style of play which is termed "selfish", "negative", "conservative" and so forth.

I don't believe in upping Bourgeoisie propaganda, so I just don't care much for players being underrated because of having a boring style of play.

Those administrating cricket in the UK,especially in the higher echelons of power,have long been guity of racism,bigotry,hypocrisy,
misogyny,class snobbery,intellectual snobbery and,since the suits usurped power from the blazers,an unmitigated greed for money and more money,plus blatant virtue signalling.
Consider the pandering to the South African Apartheid government over many years of cricketing contact culminating in the collusion and attempted appeasement in the D'Oliviera Affair.
And who still recalls the days when even the greatest of professional cricketers would call their amateur teammates "sir",change in seperate and inferior dressing-rooms from their "betters" and be grateful for the pittance they were paid,so much less than the"expenses" gifted, tax free,to some of the more guilded "gentlemen".
And then the suits welcomed such as Alan Stanford into the cricket fraternity and the grubby rush for gold still continues apace.

But blaming the bigotry,hypocrisy and money-grabbing greed of cricket's establishment as the reason why less glamorous batters are underrated is a fantastical conspiracy theory taken to extreme.
Proper cricket historians,statisticians and the ordinary,yet passionate,fan is not taken in by such blarney.They,and we,take our pub arguments about "WHO IS THE GREATEST" much too seriously to be subverted by the establishment into making a wrong call.

One small point mentioned recently which I had stumbled across some years previous.An eyebrow was metaphorically raised by Johan that the strike rates in Tests of the "brylcream glamour boy",Denis Compton and dear old Kenny Barrington were very similar- 42 to 41.However the pitch conditions in the 1950s when Compton was playing were as poor as they had been for 80 years wheras,in the heyday of Barrington,in the 60s,pitches were flatter and the scoring,hence,a little faster.
The post war English icons,Compton,Botham ,Gower,Pietersen,are such partly because of the way they play.Two icons though will have pleased those who favour the staid over the spectacular.....Geoffrey Boycott and David Steele.

 

[Johan]

But blaming the bigotry,hypocrisy and money-grabbing greed of cricket's establishment as the reason why less glamorous batters are underrated is a fantastical conspiracy theory taken to extreme.
Proper cricket historians,statisticians and the ordinary,yet passionate,fan is not taken in by such blarney.They,and we,take our pub arguments about "WHO IS THE GREATEST" much too seriously to be subverted by the establishment into making a wrong call.

One small point mentioned recently which I had stumbled across some years previous.An eyebrow was metaphorically raised by Johan that the strike rates in Tests of the "brylcream glamour boy",Denis Compton and dear old Kenny Barrington were very similar- 42 to 41.However the pitch conditions in the 1950s when Compton was playing were as poor as they had been for 80 years wheras,in the heyday of Barrington,in the 60s,pitches were flatter and the scoring,hence,a little faster.
The post war English icons,Compton,Botham ,Gower,Pietersen,are such partly because of the way they play.Two icons though will have pleased those who favour the staid over the spectacular.....Geoffrey Boycott and David Steele.

I made a direct exception for passionate fans and independent writers, I was speaking largely on media and how their opinions are influenced by things that are not really Cricket, and it's not just Cricket, it's true for most facets of life. I don't really diffrentiate between scoring rates, and why I believe some of the older times might be underrated because of more orthodox Cricket is simply a view I hold, and I don't force it on anyone. I'm simply exhausted of people taking a personal offense to me saying I don't promote a Cricketer for general tempo, for range perhaps, but not for general tempo. I've explained my views on why I believe some may like Sutcliffe or Kallis may not be so hyped by the media, nobody is obligated to agree.

Eh, Compton also had a really good batting era for a large chunk of his career, until the 1950 summer or so, If I've time tomorrow, I'll try to go through Charlie Davis's database and calculate his strike rate before the extremely bowling friendly era began from 1950/51 Ashes forward.

 

[kyear2]

Being a FTB is not a thing related to anything as a character, lots of fast scoring batsmen are FTBs, Warner springs to mind, Jamie Smith feels like one, Bairstow was one and many examples of such.

Though, if anything, Peter once mentioned that a selector told Barrington to the face that he was a selfish batsman, in turn he also mentioned that Dexter and Cowdrey played at a similar rate, and a selector would never dare say such a thing to them. He mentioned that there was a hypocrisy around Barrington's scoring rates and not entirely unrelated to social class barriers, which I'm inclined to believe. While it is true that Barrington was not regarded as the greatest tough wicket batsman, he was no worse than a Weekes on them, infact if memory serves Jane mentioned a fantastic knock he played on a difficult rain effected wicket against Pakistan.

By all accounts, Barrington was an absolute gentleman loved and respected by those who knew him and he was a proper fighter who batted three for his team and wanted to win at all times.


One is rated higher than the other because they were a better batsman, Chanderpaul averaged 48 without minnows in the flattest era of the sport, and even then had a low RPI.

I'll be clear with you, Chanderpaul is not critiqued because he struck at 43 strike rate, he is critiqued because he insisted on sticking to number 6 while he couldn't bat with the tail, both those combined, he damaged the team greatly by robbing them of their best batsman batting in the top order and helping out the inexperienced top order, It's not about scoring rate, and even if Chanderpaul scored at the same rate as Lara, he won't be a better player.

If you agree that both have a place in the game, why are you so offended by others not putting one methodology on the pedestal and giving extra credit for it?


What the **** are you talking about? are you seriously turning this into a dick-measuring contest when I actively agreed with your explanation, and then seperately told you there is a reason a certain style of play is promoted and it isn't entirely gameplay related? Please don't respond if you can't have a discussion without trying to poison the well.

No one is questioning Barrington's character.

Chanders was criticized for all of it. His selfishness showed up in everything from his scoring rate, to not batting higher, to refusing to shield the tail. Everything he did was to protect his numbers and he played for him.

The fact you dont understand the point I was making doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[kyear2]

Well a (quite vocal) number of posters here, believe him to be a top 5 bat with an argument for best after Bradman. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him ranked that highly outside of CW.

Because he isn't.

 

[Johan]

No one is questioning Barrington's character.

Chanders was criticized for all of it. His selfishness showed up in everything from his scoring rate, to not batting higher, to refusing to shield the tail. Everything he did was to protect his numbers and he played for him.

The fact you dont understand the point I was making doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

You implied Barrington was playing for himself, or it was a justifiable opinion to have, that's a clear critique of character or at the very least, a question on character.

The real problem was that he was doing these things, regardless of his ability. He was batting 6 when he was very much a good enough player to bat top four, he wasn't shielding the tail when he could've atleast learnt to, and these hurt the team, his intentions do seem selfish but it's the effect that ultimately counts.

Yes, I am an idiot and you are a genius, why even bother conversing with me? Why even be so offended by my refusal to give a single point to higher scoring rates? return to Subs, please.

 

[Johan]

Because he isn't.

No offense, but you have really gone off the deep end ever since you realised Hutton will beat Tendulkar. Please, see this case as the same as Hadlee, you can't change what is, no matter how much discussion of peer reputations, so please just let it go for all of our sakes.

 

[kyear2]

Those administrating cricket in the UK,especially in the higher echelons of power,have long been guity of racism,bigotry,hypocrisy,
misogyny,class snobbery,intellectual snobbery and,since the suits usurped power from the blazers,an unmitigated greed for money and more money,plus blatant virtue signalling.
Consider the pandering to the South African Apartheid government over many years of cricketing contact culminating in the collusion and attempted appeasement in the D'Oliviera Affair.
And who still recalls the days when even the greatest of professional cricketers would call their amateur teammates "sir",change in seperate and inferior dressing-rooms from their "betters" and be grateful for the pittance they were paid,so much less than the"expenses" gifted, tax free,to some of the more guilded "gentlemen".
And then the suits welcomed such as Alan Stanford into the cricket fraternity and the grubby rush for gold still continues apace.

But blaming the bigotry,hypocrisy and money-grabbing greed of cricket's establishment as the reason why less glamorous batters are underrated is a fantastical conspiracy theory taken to extreme.
Proper cricket historians,statisticians and the ordinary,yet passionate,fan is not taken in by such blarney.They,and we,take our pub arguments about "WHO IS THE GREATEST" much too seriously to be subverted by the establishment into making a wrong call.

One small point mentioned recently which I had stumbled across some years previous.An eyebrow was metaphorically raised by Johan that the strike rates in Tests of the "brylcream glamour boy",Denis Compton and dear old Kenny Barrington were very similar- 42 to 41.However the pitch conditions in the 1950s when Compton was playing were as poor as they had been for 80 years wheras,in the heyday of Barrington,in the 60s,pitches were flatter and the scoring,hence,a little faster.
The post war English icons,Compton,Botham ,Gower,Pietersen,are such partly because of the way they play.Two icons though will have pleased those who favour the staid over the spectacular.....Geoffrey Boycott and David Steele.

It passes the conspiratorial well into what ever comes next.

Batsmen who scored at a higher rate has been traditionally been rated higher because it's harder, requiring more skill, and because it's impacted the game more.

 

[kyear2]

No offense, but you have really gone off the deep end ever since you realised Hutton will beat Tendulkar. Please, see this case as the same as Hadlee, you can't change what is, no matter how much discussion of peer reputations, so please just let it go for all of our sakes.

Deep end?

Have you read any of what youve written the past few weeks?

Not least of all the nonsense you typed out a few posts back?

This is a statistical analysis that no one takes any further than that. It's an interesting conversation piece, and Root and Brook where they are speaks to that.

When I said no he's not, I was clearly speaking to the fact that outside of the echo chamber that here has become, he isn't rated that highly. Has never been rated that highly.

 

[Johan]

Deep end?

Have you read any of what youve written the past few weeks?

Not least of all the nonsense you typed out a few posts back?

This is a statistical analysis that no one takes any further than that. It's an interesting conversation piece, and Root and Brook where they are speaks to that.

When I said no he's not, I was clearly speaking to the fact that outside of the echo chamber that here has become, he isn't rated that highly. Has never been rated that highly.

I've not written a single incorrect sentence the past few weeks, you're welcome to present one.

Not a single block of nonsense actually, I'd rather have Cricket never be played again than give a single extra point to higher scoring batsmen, because in my eyes it's irrelevant, why is that so hard for you to cope with?

Ah, so the site is an echochamber because a player you rate at number 8 all time is rated in the top five here?

I've never asked anyone to upgrade Hutton seriously, I have my own views, I make my arguments, if some get convinced then they get convinced, people can believe what they want. The difference between us here is I don't get pissed off at people for having Hutton outside of the top 5, while you go on your whole incoherent rambling rants when someone places Hutton in the top 5, Sutcliffe in the top 15 or Barrington in the top 25 because you see people having opinions that contradict the consensus decades ago as an evil thing that must be opposed.

Please, let it go.

 

[Days of Grace]

just a question for doG - why does Sachin have only 39 innings vs best opposition? That number feels quite low .

I forgot to edit last night and now I can't! For the record, Tendulkar had 172 innings against top opposition, second only to Joe Root.

 

[Prince EWS]

@Johan @kyear2

I'm going to kick you both out if you don't stop ignoring mod instructions about what to avoid talking about in here. Can it. Plenty of threads to go over that stuff in.

 

[Johan]

@Johan @kyear2

I'm going to kick you both out if you don't stop ignoring mod instructions about what to avoid talking about in here. Can it. Plenty of threads to go over that stuff in.

Okay, I'm more than willing to drop the topic, but ut if he writes another mocking post to me over the same topic I'll request you to take action.

 

[Prince EWS]

Okay, I'm more than willing to drop the topic, but ut if he writes another mocking post to me over the same topic I'll request you to take action.

I'll kick him out the thread if he does that. If you reply you'll be gone too.

 

[Days of Grace]

Curious to know where would Headley end up if he hadn’t returned after WW2? Would he go up due to better sheer numbers or go down due to lesser longevity?

He would get 839 points if he didn't come back after the war. His adjusted average would be 68.98 (66.72) but he would lose a lot of career points.

"If he had retired after the 2011 world cup, Tendulkar would have finished in 4th on 867 points."

Similarly, If his teen years are excluded, what would be his rating ?
From January 1993 Eng tour of India till 2011 cricket worldcup. Is it 900+ ?
A career phase of 18+ years and rating of 900+

873. Again good enough for 4th.

1993-2011, 13534 runs.

54.23 (59.36) 47.93 (52.46) 50.37 (54.68)

 

[Days of Grace]

I think we all need no.6 and no.5. Here they are.

No.6

Steve Smith (Australia) 855

2019 edition: rank 3

Career: 2010-2025, 10763 runs (rank 15)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (220 inns): 54.24 (56.06) 47.34 (48.92) 46.91 (53.91) (rank 10)
Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (2014-2019; 87 inns): 71.07 60.45 50.43 (rank 7)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (112 inns): 52.42 48.21 46.37 (rank 8)
Top Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (119 inns): 55.42 50.76 47.86 (rank 7)

Smith's record before and after 2020 reads as follows:

	2010-2019	2020-2025
Adjusted average (original)	58.77 (62.84)	47.49 (45.92)
Adjusted runs per innings (original)	51.59 (55.17)	41.08 (39.73)
Adjusted strike-rate (original)	48.38 (55.30)	44.17 (51.26)

This drop-off is reflected in his new ranking of 6th. It's interesting how his adjusted average from 2020 is greater than the original value, reflecting very clearly the difficulty level of batting (or the decline of batting skills!) in the 2020s compared to the first 20 years of the 21st century.

 

[Days of Grace]

No.5

Brian Lara (West Indies) 857



2019 edition: rank 5

Career: 1990-2006, 11912 runs (rank 9)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (230 inns): 51.97 (53.18) 50.62 (51.79) 57.34 (60.49) (rank 7)
Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (2001-2006; 81 inns): 61.68 60.16 55.16 (rank 12)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (119 inns): 47.83 47.43 57.49 (rank 13)
Top Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (153 inns): 51.60 50.59 55.33 (rank 9)

The Prince of Trinidad retains his ranking of 5th from the previous edition. His is a very solid record, ranking no lower than 13 in any measurement. Interestingly, his adjusted average takes a hit of only 1.21, compared to Tendulkar losing 4.2 from his original value, perhaps reflecting the level of support that the two batsmen had.

 

[honestbharani]

I have a lot of issues with this rating system but obviously an ATG effort from you @Days of Grace - but then I see Lara above almost all modern batsmen and I think, hey, maybe DoG is right after all.

 

[Days of Grace]

I have a lot of issues with this rating system but obviously an ATG effort from you @Days of Grace - but then I see Lara above almost all modern batsmen and I think, hey, maybe DoG is right after all.

Thanks! What are your main issues with the system? I’m always looking to improve it.