• 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 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

Johan

Johan

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Actually think Morris was a bit better with the bat than Simmo but the latter's bowling and fielding make him a somewhat easy choice over Arthur, honestly.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
@Days of Grace, I realise I already have a request in for the ranking of the batsman with a 494 rating so I'm being greedy now, but where would Sangakkara end up if we were just judging him on the two thirds (ish) of his career as a 66-averaging specialist batsman, removing the third (ish) of his career when he was a 40-averaging 'keeper-bat?

Obviously he'd take a hit to career longevity, but get a big boost on average - it'd be interesting to see if one measure overrode the other.
 
H

howitzer

State Captain
OK I'll be greedy too. As we've already chopped off bits of the careers of Hobbs and Hutton we may as well do the same for Sobers. What would he score if his career started with the Pakistan series in 1958 and ended with the England series in 1973?

Edit: That's a 15+ year period with a raw batting average of 64.82 so I'm thinking it might be good for 900+
 
J

janedcaffe

Cricket Spectator
@Days of Grace , I have a small query .

why hasn’t Garry Sober's adjusted average dropped much? Wasn’t his era generally considered quite batting friendly with flatter pitches?
But then players from the 2000s like Ponting, Jacques Kallis, and Kumar Sangakkara all show noticeable drops after adjustment.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
howitzer said:
My personal first 7 Australian opening pairs (players who would already have middle-order spots in brackets where they would be otherwise):

Hayden/Simpson
Lawry/Ponsford
Taylor/Woodfull
Bardsley/(Trumper)/Morris
McDonald/Langer
Slater/Redpath
(Boon)Warner/Khawaja

I've reassessed slightly regarding Bardsley given some of his pre-WWI output was in the middle-order. I do think people sleep on those few years before the war though. He obviously wasn't the same player after it though.

I definitely think McDonald is underrated. Plenty of hard runs in tough series'. Non-Home and strike rate wouldn't help him much in this thread, though his average would likely go up a fair bit and Top-Opposition would go quite well too. He cashed in on that one tour to WI when nearly every established batsman cashed in to some degree (Worrell the exception). Other than that it was mostly hard runs. I actually have all of McDonald, Langer, Slater and Redpath pretty much equal though.
Click to expand...
I would rank the Aussie Openers as:

  1. Trumper
  2. Hayden
  3. Lawry
  4. Simpson
  5. Ponsford
  6. Morris
  7. Barnes
  8. Woodfull
  9. Boon
  10. Bardsley
  11. Langer
  12. Khawaja
  13. Taylor
  14. Warner
  15. Slater
  16. Redpath
  17. Brown
  18. Katich
  19. Collins
  20. Jackson
  21. McDonald
  22. Wessels
  23. Duff
  24. Fingleton
  25. Darling
  26. Rogers
  27. Stackpole
  28. Laird
  29. McCosker
  30. Watson
  31. Jacques
  32. McDonnell
  33. Marsh
  34. Lyons
  35. Wood
  36. Hughes
  37. Burke
  38. C Bannerman
  39. Elliot
  40. Burns

All have atleast 33% of their games as Openers. I know Trumper performed better in MO than OP in Tests, but he is the best batsman among the openers by a ridiculous margin, so I am not walking without him.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Request Your Custom Title Now!
capt_Luffy said:
I would rank the Aussie Openers as:

  1. Trumper
  2. Hayden
  3. Lawry
  4. Simpson
  5. Ponsford
  6. Morris
  7. Barnes
  8. Woodfull
  9. Boon
  10. Bardsley
  11. Langer
  12. Khawaja
  13. Taylor
  14. Warner
  15. Slater
  16. Redpath
  17. Brown
  18. Katich
  19. Collins
  20. Jackson
  21. McDonald
  22. Wessels
  23. Duff
  24. Fingleton
  25. Darling
  26. Rogers
  27. Stackpole
  28. Laird
  29. McCosker
  30. Watson
  31. Jacques
  32. McDonnell
  33. Marsh
  34. Lyons
  35. Wood
  36. Hughes
  37. Burke
  38. C Bannerman
  39. Elliot
  40. Burns

All have atleast 33% of their games as Openers. I know Trumper performed better in MO than OP in Tests, but he is the best batsman among the openers by a ridiculous margin, so I am not walking without him.
Click to expand...
You actually took the time to rank 40 Aus openers?
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Jane Austen said:
Johan,
Surely there should be no criticism to Kyear2 to imply that a cricketer may be a selfish player,so long as there is a degree of logic to back that criticism.
Ken Barrington,one of my all-time favourite cricketers,played one or two very slow innings for which he was accused of selfishness.I always took the view in Barrington's case that he was not being selfish and,in one case he was so out of form he couldn’t get the ball off the square and in the others he was batting in the interest of the team,recognising that he didn't have the sheer talent,granted to few,to be able to break free from the shackles---NB Johan,he was UNABLE to reach a more acceptable strike rate because his ability was limited in comparison to a few others.
However it was justifiably open to Kyear2 and others to take a different view.There was no slur.
Conversely I am of the opinion that Geoffrey Boycott and Shivnarine Chanderpaul have batted selfishly on occasions.
In a different manner Graeme Pollock may have been a selfish batter at times and I think Denis Compton was too but,in their case at least the spectators were pleased.
With the exception of Compton I have actually watched specific instances of what I've mentioned above.
I won't bore everyone with some more actual examples.

Always remember that attributing selfishnes to a player can be no more than a subjective view,an opinion,obviously helped by having actually seen the incident or the cricketer at play.

By the way I have never considered Barrington a selfish player--quite the reverse.One could counter-argue that Ken was the consumate team player happy to accept his ugly-duck role amonst the swans....Cowdrey,Graveney,Dexter.....and take the flak for it.
Click to expand...

My only point, unwilling or unable.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
DrWolverine said:
It is normal when you play for almost 25 years


Lack of big scores or ATG tours.
Not really a big flaw but yeah that has to be told
Click to expand...
His record vs the Ws and Donald and Pollock.os basically identical to Lara's of memory serves correct.

Think he was consistent. Lacking the highest of highs, but also the lowest of depths.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Days of Grace said:
Please vote on the following for the next 24 hours:

A: Keep the same weighting (Average x4, Runs per innings x 2, Strike-rate x1)
B: Less emphasis on strike-rate (Average x6, Runs per innings x 3, Strike-rate x1)
C: No strike-rate (Average x2, Runs per innings x1)
Click to expand...
A
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Jane Austen said:
A fervent,even desperate plea to you Days of Grace.
Even if popular demand requests the diminution or removal of strike-rates from the evaluation of batters,please do not give way to this request.
Embedded in the fascination of Test,and first-class cricket,is the coming together,the equation,of runs,wickets AND time.Take away that vital third element of time is akin to taking the saxophone out of BAKER STREET by Jerry Rafferty.It's the time element which can,and often has,given Test cricket the neccesary vigour to what would be no more interesting than watching two tortoises race a marathon.
That vital ingredient of time,of itself,consequently lays emphasis on the amount of runs scored in a session,a day,and throughout the match and will ultimately have a bearing on it's result.
No one is decrying the greatness and the need for the batters of ballast,the grafters who lay the foundations of the innings.Their great skills of concentration,playing within the limit of their ability and being risk averse are rewarded and statistically recognised by the standard averages.
Accordingly those who are chosen because their greater range of stroke will give them licence to increase the scoring rate and,by definition,increase the possible chance of winning rather than just drawing the match,should have their different skill-set given credit by virtue of strike-rate being part of any assessment of batting comparisons.
Those who seem to be horrified by any credit being given to a faster rate of scoring have,so far,not given any logical objection as to why this particular part of a batters skill-set should be ignored.
To repeat---The faster the scoring rate the more chance of WINNING a match so,if possible,a stroke-player or two of appropriate quality should be considered.
Of course there must be a balanced batting line-up to include quality accumulators who will do their job of binding the innings together AND guiding their team to a draw if need be.
However the batters and their different skills aren't mutually exclusive.They bat together as a unit and in accordance with trying to win and,if this isn't achievable,seeking the draw.
But the basic premise is that the faster the scoring rate,the better chance of winning,thus strike-rate has to be given due credit in the assessment of a batter.This has been recognised by historians hence why faster scoring batters with lower averages have been considered greater than their contempories who have a higher average (to the shock-horror of some on this forum!)
Some on this forum need to look up from their spreadsheets and watch a game of cricket as well as reading the books of the great cricket historians.
So Days of Grace,please don't be swayed by an illogical cry to ignore strike-rates-------stay true to your own instincts and beliefs.....PLEASE.
Click to expand...
Exactly that paragraph.
 
A

AbhishekB

Cricket Spectator
@Days of Grace - would Viv's ranking have changed at all if he had retired on Feb 28, 1989 (immediately after his series in Aus in 1988-89), couple of years before he actually retired?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top