Top 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

[DCH]

873. Again good enough for 4th.

1993-2011, 13534 runs.

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

That is why many regard Sachin as second to Bradman. He averaged 59.41 for a continous period of 18+years. This is his record from Capetown test (1993) till Capetown(2011). HIs lowest cumulative avg in this period is 56.53 (Banglore 2008).

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[DrWolverine]

Bradman.
Hobbs/ Sobers/ Hutton.
The top 4

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Joel Garner top 4 let's ****in goooooo

 

[centurymaker]

There's no gap between Lara, Smith and Tendulkar.

5) Lara 857
6) Smith 855
7) Tendukar 854

8) Headley 844

 

[OverratedSanity]

Based top 4

 

[Two short legs]

The perfectionist in me loves the fact that the 6 ultimately highest-ranked batsmen will include 2 openers, and a genuine all-rounder.

That's balance.

 

[centurymaker]

I have a lot of issues with this rating system but obviously an ATG effort from you @Days of Grace -

Well the weights are:

Overall career record: 50%
Away (non-home) : 12.5%
Top opposition : 12.5%
Peak performance: 12.5%
Career volume: 12.5%

Personally, I wouldn't have a weight for Overall career record as it is already reflected in all other categories. Instead I would try:

Home record: 20%
Away record: 20%
Top opposition: 20%
Peak performance: 20%
Career volume: 20%

(Eventually might increase weight for away record to 25% and reduce home or volume to 15%). Other than this it has been an extraordinary effort to compile a million things and to standardise all the data.

 

[honestbharani]

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

Haha... I will explain in detail when I am not at work which maybe a while yet, but I do agree that SR seems to be a tad overrated in your methodology.

 

[Days of Grace]

Well the weights are:

Overall career record: 50%
Away (non-home) : 12.5%
Top opposition : 12.5%
Peak performance: 12.5%
Career volume: 12.5%

Personally, I wouldn't have a weight for Overall career record as it is already reflected in all other categories. Instead I would try:

Home record: 20%
Away record: 20%
Top opposition: 20%
Peak performance: 20%
Career volume: 20%

(Eventually might increase weight for away record to 25% and reduce either home or peak to 15%). Other than this it has been an extraordinary effort to compile a million things and to standardise all the data.

Thanks again for your thoughts and feedback. I’ve found that anything above 12.5% for career is too much and benefits players like Anderson and Walsh. I’ve previously had it set at 10%. But I currently really like the 50% for overall record and 12.5% for everything else.

 

[honestbharani]

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

TBF I dont think there is any smoking gun improvement that can be done. Most of us who seriously follow the game understand that cricket stats always lack context and no matter how much contextualize the numbers, we are still using some other numbers to contextualize, so there will be built-in bias or weaknesses that can be pointed out with just about anything.

I think this is still an amazing effort as I do think it provides a reasonable picture of these players based on their career numbers and is definitely more contextual than the raw averages and other stuff we end up using. So kudos

 

[Days of Grace]

Haha... I will explain in detail when I am not at work which maybe a while yet, but I do agree that SR seems to be a tad overrated in your methodology.

Yeah the general consensus is that strike rate is overvalued somewhat. I’m thinking of having a 6:3:1 spilt instead of 4:2:1. Will make a slight difference.

 

[Pothas]

Need a separate thread for just the rankings please.

 

[OverratedSanity]

@Days of Grace Mentioned before that I think along with SR, the biggest issue with the formula is the how each of the metrics (non-home/peak, top-opposition) are affected by the sample size. It seemed to me that Brook benefited from a small sample size here. There should be some kind of penalty where if a batsman has less than the minimum no of innings for a non-home/top-opposition, there should be a downward adjustment.

 

[DrWolverine]

Home record: 20%
Away record: 20%
Top opposition: 20%
Peak performance: 20%
Career volume: 20%

Perfect. Like you said, increase weightage to the away records and decrease weightage to the home records.

 

[Bolo.]

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

There are very few threads on CW that asking people to stick to the topic make sense for. This is very, very much one of them.

 

[sayon basak]

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.

What's the argument for taking opinions outside CW that seriously?

 

[Thala_0710]

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.

Kimber rated him 4th as well in his list tbf

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hutton is statistically so perfect he would make top 4 despite the SR category working against him.

 

[HimeshChaturvedi]

There are very few threads on CW that asking people to stick to the topic make sense for. This is very, very much one of them.

10 positions a day would have saved a lot of time and maybe these discussions would not have been hindering much.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

It’s insane for Hutton to make top 4 despite SR being such a big factor. I mean one can just wonder if he could have sealed that 2nd spot without his accident in the War.