Top 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

[Johan]

Alright I asked one simple question after I saw DoG do that cutoff for Sachin and now people want a cut-off for everyone in the top ten (bar Bradman).

 

[Days of Grace]

Updated top 100 with the new formula:
Average x6
Runs per innings x3
Strike-rate x1

		Runs	Years	Ave.	Adj. Ave.	RPI	Adj. RPI	S/R	Adj. S/R	Rating
1​	DG Bradman	6996​	21​	99.94​	90.77​	87.45​	79.42​	61.05​	63.82​	1317​
2​	JB Hobbs	5410​	23​	56.95​	55.87​	53.04​	52.03​	50.94​	52.08​	900​
3​	GS Sobers	8032​	21​	57.78​	55.28​	50.20​	48.02​	52.39​	59.03​	880​
4​	L Hutton	6971​	19​	56.67​	53.51​	50.51​	47.69​	38.26​	43.71​	874​
5​	SPD Smith	10763​	16​	56.06​	54.24​	48.92​	47.34​	53.91​	46.91​	864​
6​	BC Lara	11912​	17​	53.18​	51.97​	51.79​	50.62​	60.49​	57.34​	860​
7​	SR Tendulkar	15921​	25​	53.79​	49.59​	48.39​	44.61​	53.96​	49.96​	858​
8​	GA Headley	2190​	25​	60.83​	62.73​	54.75​	56.46​	44.12​	47.75​	855​
9​	JE Root	13943​	15​	51.07​	52.15​	46.79​	47.78​	57.52​	50.11​	844​
10​	KF Barrington	6806​	14​	58.67​	54.65​	51.95​	48.39​	41.11​	46.99​	836​
11​	IVA Richards	8540​	18​	50.24​	47.94​	46.92​	44.78​	68.55​	66.82​	832​
12​	KC Sangakkara	12400​	16​	57.41​	50.91​	53.22​	47.20​	54.19​	47.92​	823​
13​	H Sutcliffe	4555​	12​	60.73​	53.83​	54.23​	48.06​	37.43​	40.29​	814​
14​	WR Hammond	7249​	21​	58.46​	49.83​	51.78​	44.13​	45.31​	47.97​	809​
15​	ED Weekes	4455​	11​	58.62​	53.09​	55.00​	49.81​	58.77​	64.66​	803​
16​	HC Brook	3178​	5​	54.79​	54.55​	52.97​	52.73​	86.83​	67.38​	797​
17​	JH Kallis	13206​	19​	55.26​	49.75​	47.50​	42.77​	45.98​	42.17​	797​
18​	AR Border	11174​	17​	50.56​	49.30​	42.17​	41.11​	40.98​	41.64​	796​
19​	GS Chappell	7110​	15​	53.86​	50.94​	47.09​	44.53​	50.96​	53.03​	790​
20​	KS Williamson	9461​	16​	54.69​	51.67​	49.28​	46.56​	51.99​	45.46​	789​
21​	SM Gavaskar	10122​	17​	51.12​	47.96​	47.30​	44.75​	44.75​	45.59​	787​
22​	CL Walcott	3798​	13​	56.69​	53.24​	51.32​	48.20​	53.05​	58.58​	786​
23​	R Dravid	13265​	17​	52.64​	48.28​	46.71​	42.84​	42.54​	38.95​	782​
24​	S Chanderpaul	11867​	22​	51.37​	48.55​	42.38​	40.06​	43.32​	39.57​	780​
25​	SR Waugh	10927​	20​	51.06​	48.25​	42.03​	39.72​	48.65​	46.90​	779​
26​	Inzamam-ul-Haq	8829​	16​	50.16​	47.86​	44.59​	42.55​	54.04​	51.18​	777​
27​	RT Ponting	13278​	18​	51.87​	46.25​	46.59​	41.54​	58.77​	52.04​	777​
28​	Younis Khan	10099​	18​	52.06​	46.96​	47.41​	42.77​	52.12​	46.49​	776​
29​	AD Nourse	2960​	17​	53.82​	53.42​	47.74​	47.39​	42.69​	48.58​	769​
30​	RN Harvey	6149​	16​	48.42​	48.17​	44.88​	44.65​	49.61​	58.13​	764​
31​	AB de Villiers	8765​	15​	50.66​	46.76​	45.89​	42.35​	54.52​	48.17​	763​
32​	RB Kanhai	6227​	18​	47.53​	45.72​	45.45​	43.71​	48.58​	54.73​	760​
33​	DCS Compton	5807​	21​	50.06​	49.13​	44.33​	43.51​	41.28​	48.67​	759​
34​	RG Pollock	2256​	8​	60.97​	56.81​	55.02​	51.26​	54.78​	61.63​	758​
35​	Javed Miandad	8832​	18​	52.57​	48.12​	46.73​	42.78​	47.43​	46.99​	757​
36​	FMM Worrell	3860​	16​	49.49​	49.16​	44.37​	44.08​	42.38​	49.00​	754​
37​	RB Simpson	4869​	22​	46.82​	45.97​	43.86​	43.07​	43.91​	50.10​	751​
38​	V Kohli	9230​	15​	46.85​	45.87​	43.95​	43.03​	55.58​	48.92​	750​
39​	PBH May	4537​	11​	46.77​	49.72​	42.80​	45.50​	40.11​	49.84​	750​
40​	V Sehwag	8503​	13​	49.44​	44.56​	47.77​	43.05​	82.19​	72.15​	745​
41​	Mohammad Yousuf	7530​	13​	52.29​	47.56​	48.27​	43.90​	52.39​	47.72​	745​
42​	ML Hayden	8437​	16​	50.22​	45.51​	46.36​	42.01​	60.05​	53.33​	740​
43​	CH Lloyd	7515​	20​	46.68​	44.08​	42.94​	40.55​	59.40​	59.81​	739​
44​	A Flower	4794​	11​	51.55​	49.58​	42.80​	41.17​	45.07​	44.75​	739​
45​	G Boycott	8114​	19​	47.73​	45.41​	42.04​	40.00​	35.39​	38.71​	736​
46​	DPMD Jayawardene	11814​	18​	49.85​	44.86​	46.88​	42.19​	51.46​	46.18​	735​
47​	GA Gooch	8900​	21​	42.58​	42.11​	41.40​	40.94​	49.24​	49.42​	730​
48​	C Hill	3412​	17​	39.22​	44.69​	38.34​	43.69​	58.64​	55.87​	729​
49​	B Mitchell	3471​	21​	48.89​	47.12​	43.39​	41.82​	30.93​	34.59​	725​
50​	MC Cowdrey	7624​	22​	44.07​	43.37​	40.55​	39.91​	39.03​	45.45​	721​
51​	GA Faulkner	1754​	20​	40.79​	48.93​	37.32​	44.77​	51.14​	49.59​	717​
52​	KD Walters	5357​	17​	48.26​	45.92​	42.86​	40.78​	49.35​	53.86​	716​
53​	HW Taylor	2936​	21​	40.78​	46.22​	38.63​	43.79​	43.37​	47.08​	712​
54​	HM Amla	9282​	16​	46.64​	42.55​	43.17​	39.39​	49.98​	43.89​	712​
55​	Saeed Anwar	4052​	12​	45.53​	44.27​	44.53​	43.29​	55.77​	54.61​	709​
56​	DI Gower	8231​	15​	44.25​	43.34​	40.35​	39.52​	50.60​	50.51​	707​
57​	SJ McCabe	2748​	9​	48.21​	45.74​	44.32​	42.06​	61.07​	61.97​	705​
58​	YBK Jaiswal	2511​	3​	49.24​	49.84​	47.38​	47.96​	66.03​	55.08​	701​
59​	GC Smith	9253​	13​	48.70​	42.13​	45.58​	39.43​	59.72​	52.36​	700​
60​	M Labuschagne	4694​	9​	44.70​	46.18​	41.18​	42.54​	52.23​	46.19​	699​
61​	WM Lawry	5234​	11​	47.15​	46.51​	42.55​	41.97​	38.65​	44.54​	699​
62​	ER Dexter	4502​	11​	47.89​	44.14​	44.14​	40.68​	48.13​	54.81​	697​
63​	RR Pant	3476​	8​	42.91​	44.62​	40.42​	42.02​	74.24​	64.65​	697​
64​	AD Mathews	8214​	17​	44.40​	43.24​	38.75​	37.73​	48.40​	42.99​	696​
65​	TM Head	4592​	9​	43.73​	45.97​	41.37​	43.49​	69.83​	60.50​	696​
66​	AC Gilchrist	5475​	10​	47.61​	43.72​	40.56​	37.24​	81.94​	73.03​	696​
67​	VT Trumper	3163​	14​	39.05​	44.69​	35.54​	40.68​	66.96​	61.90​	694​
68​	AN Cook	12472​	13​	45.35​	41.56​	42.86​	39.28​	46.95​	41.04​	694​
69​	Hanif Mohammad	3915​	18​	43.99​	43.70​	40.36​	40.09​	33.01​	39.42​	694​
70​	KP Pietersen	8181​	10​	47.29​	43.43​	45.20​	41.51​	61.72​	53.66​	691​
71​	PA de Silva	6361​	19​	42.98​	41.15​	40.01​	38.31​	50.94​	50.47​	690​
72​	DA Warner	8786​	14​	44.60​	41.91​	42.86​	40.27​	70.19​	61.08​	689​
73​	VVS Laxman	8781​	17​	45.97​	43.15​	39.03​	36.63​	49.37​	44.60​	689​
74​	MJ Clarke	8599​	12​	49.42​	44.33​	43.87​	39.35​	55.91​	48.11​	688​
75​	Babar Azam	4366​	10​	42.39​	43.46​	38.98​	39.96​	54.46​	48.27​	688​
76​	NCL O'Neill	2779​	8​	45.56​	46.86​	40.28​	41.43​	47.67​	55.38​	688​
77​	TW Graveney	4882​	19​	44.38​	43.00​	39.69​	38.46​	40.29​	47.33​	686​
78​	Saleem Malik	5768​	18​	43.70​	40.76​	37.45​	34.94​	49.36​	48.38​	685​
79​	MD Crowe	5444​	14​	45.37​	42.32​	41.56​	38.77​	44.66​	44.92​	684​
80​	CG Greenidge	7558​	18​	44.72​	41.82​	40.85​	38.20​	50.04​	48.59​	684​
81​	PR Umrigar	3631​	15​	42.22​	43.13​	38.63​	39.46​	40.86​	49.36​	682​
82​	VS Hazare	2192​	8​	47.65​	49.59​	42.15​	43.87​	39.47​	46.95​	682​
83​	G Kirsten	7289​	12​	45.27​	42.58​	41.41​	38.95​	43.43​	42.10​	681​
84​	GP Thorpe	6744​	13​	44.66​	44.43​	37.68​	37.48​	45.90​	45.00​	681​
85​	JL Langer	7674​	15​	45.68​	42.35​	42.63​	39.53​	54.21​	49.30​	679​
86​	RB Richardson	5949​	13​	44.40​	43.15​	40.75​	39.60​	47.76​	46.52​	679​
87​	ME Waugh	8029​	12​	41.82​	40.93​	38.42​	37.60​	52.27​	50.63​	678​
88​	M Azharuddin	6215​	17​	45.04​	41.60​	42.28​	39.05​	57.51​	56.14​	676​
89​	DR Martyn	4406​	15​	46.38​	43.98​	40.42​	38.33​	51.42​	46.37​	674​
90​	CG Macartney	2131​	20​	41.78​	42.31​	38.75​	39.24​	57.47​	55.89​	673​
91​	UT Khawaja	6229​	16​	42.96​	42.29​	39.18​	38.56​	48.83​	42.52​	671​
92​	Misbah-ul-Haq	5222​	17​	46.63​	42.37​	39.56​	35.95​	44.53​	39.72​	671​
93​	CA Pujara	7195​	14​	43.61​	42.57​	40.88​	39.91​	44.37​	39.63​	668​
94​	PHKD Mendis	1316​	4​	62.67​	64.53​	54.83​	56.46​	63.79​	53.25​	668​
95​	SM Nurse	2523​	10​	47.60​	45.14​	46.72​	44.30​	53.14​	58.31​	668​
96​	AJ Stewart	8463​	14​	39.55​	40.55​	36.01​	36.93​	48.67​	48.69​	667​
97​	CH Gayle	7214​	15​	42.19​	38.85​	39.64​	36.50​	60.27​	54.67​	666​
98​	M Leyland	2764​	11​	46.07​	43.43​	42.52​	40.09​	43.84​	48.94​	665​
99​	EH Hendren	3525​	16​	47.64​	42.43​	42.47​	37.83​	48.43​	50.79​	663​
100​	DB Vengsarkar	6868​	17​	42.13​	40.32​	37.12​	35.53​	43.65​	43.44​	660​

 

[howitzer]

I've counted and 33 of the top hundred have adjusted strike rates below Barrington's 46.99, while Miandad has the same. Cowdrey is lower, Compton and May are higher but not by that much. It does seem that Barrington's bad reputation on this front is a bit overstated.

 

[Days of Grace]

I've counted and 33 of the top hundred have adjusted strike rates below Barrington's 46.99, while Miandad has the same. Cowdrey is lower, Compton and May are higher but not by that much. It does seem that Barrington's bad reputation on this front is a bit overstated.

I think he gets that reputation partly because he scored slowly against relatively easier opponents on flatter wickets compared to Hutton and Compton who had to tough it out against Lindwall, Miller et al.

 

[Johan]

May too, to an extent. Faced much stronger bowling lineups and played in the spiciest era Cricket has seen since the first world war. Cowdrey is the exception, played much on the same wickets as Barrington.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Does Headley get credit in the career rating for having a 25 year career span? That doesn't seem quite right. I understand the War would screw things up if it's not accounted for but still.

 

[Days of Grace]

Does Headley get credit in the career rating for having a 25 year career span? That doesn't seem quite right. I understand the War would screw things up if it's not accounted for but still.

Yes, I have toyed with the idea of decreasing the weight for years played compared to runs scored (currently 1:1), or only giving full credit for years played if they played all their team's matches during that time. Headley only played 50% of West Indies matches from 1930-1954 so perhaps he should only be credited with 12 or 13 years. However, I think this is unfair for many other players, such as Fred Trueman, who were available and obviously good enough, but at the mercy of selectorial policies.

 

[mr_mister]

Harry Brook still sky high.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes, I have toyed with the idea of decreasing the weight for years played compared to runs scored (currently 1:1), or only giving full credit for years played if they played all their team's matches during that time. Headley only played 50% of West Indies matches from 1930-1954 so perhaps he should only be credited with 12 or 13 years. However, I think this is unfair for many other players, such as Fred Trueman, who were available and obviously good enough, but at the mercy of selectorial policies.

I don't really think it's unfair tbh. Trueman was an edge case and players shouldn't get extra points in this metric when they aren't even playing cricket regardless of the reason , be it injury or war or unjust selection. Ultimately you're not on the field.

% of the team's matches you play in should definitely also be accounted for imo. It's essential to what we value in longevity.

 

[Johan]

Longevity is something that needs case by case examination, really hard to account for things like a poor selection policy or wars, where there is really nothing to fault for in the player and it's hard for any statistical formulae to perfectly handle longevity.

Personally, I won't give Hammond or Headley much longevity points for their post war returns, all three were finished after the war and played more on reputation than anything else. People like Compton, Hutton, Bradman etc who returned strongly after the war deserve as much longevity points as their career length.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Longevity is something that needs case by case examination, really hard to account for things like a poor selection policy or wars, where there is really nothing to fault for in the player and it's hard for any statistical formulae to perfectly handle longevity.

Personally, I won't give Hammond or Headley much longevity points for their post war returns, all three were finished after the war and played more on reputation than anything else. People like Compton, Hutton, Bradman etc who returned strongly after the war deserve as much longevity points as their career length.

Poor selection does not need to be accounted for. If you arent being selected (even if unfairly) and arent playing games how do you deserve longevity points?

Aspects like the war would somewhat be accounted for by taking a % of matches the player played that were available to his team as a parameter in the career/longevity formula.

 

[ataraxia]

Poor selection does not need to be accounted for. If you arent being selected (even if unfairly) and arent playing games how do you deserve longevity points?

Aspects like the war would somewhat be accounted for by taking a % of matches the player played that were available to his team as a parameter in the career/longevity formula.

I do agree that players shouldn't be punished for not being selected, but that can't be accounted for in a test-only analysis.

 

[Johan]

Poor selection does not need to be accounted for. If you arent being selected (even if unfairly) and arent playing games how do you deserve longevity points?

Aspects like the war would somewhat be accounted for by taking a % of matches the player played that were available to his team as a parameter in the career/longevity formula.

If you are available for a match and have been established on the Test level but are being overlooked due to factors beyond your control, is it really a fair analysis of your career to give you the same points for those matches as someone who isn't good enough to play Tests or is out injured? I don't think so.

Availability rate is a decent metric, but it'll be hard to tell why someone is sitting a match out. You can very much be available but sitting out for a plethora of reasons, how is DoG supposed to denote if someone is sitting out injured or if it's because the selectors decided to experiment in a dead rubber against a minnow side?

 

[Days of Grace]

Can you give for some 19th century players please.

Tom Hayward, Archie Maclaren, Bobby Abel, Bill Murdoch, Stanley Jackson, Arthur Shrewsbury, CB Fry, KS Ranjitsinhji, WG Grace.

And 4 ARs in Monty Noble, AG Steel, Warwick Armstrong and Frank Woolley. Thanks

		Runs	Years	Ave.	Adj. Ave.	RPI	Adj. RPI	S/R	Adj. S/R	Rating
121​	WW Armstrong	2863​	21​	38.69​	42.12​	34.08​	37.11​	48.18​	44.44​	648​
140​	AC MacLaren	1931​	16​	33.88​	39.01​	31.66​	36.45​	44.73​	48.54​	628​
152​	A Shrewsbury snr	1277​	13​	35.47​	46.13​	31.93​	41.52​	34.25​	39.87​	622​
170​	TW Hayward	1999​	14​	34.47​	39.44​	33.32​	38.12​	36.48​	38.42​	609​
171​	FE Woolley	3283​	26​	36.08​	34.96​	33.50​	32.46​	60.18​	59.55​	608​
179​	Hon. FS Jackson	1415​	13​	48.79​	54.87​	42.88​	48.22​	49.60​	51.05​	605​
180​	R Abel	744​	15​	37.20​	52.07​	33.82​	47.34​	42.34​	43.63​	605​
193​	KS Ranjitsinhji	989​	7​	44.95​	51.43​	38.04​	43.52​	52.49​	56.03​	598​
225​	PS McDonnell	955​	9​	28.94​	42.63​	28.09​	41.38​	58.91​	74.07​	585​
232​	WL Murdoch	908​	16​	31.31​	43.09​	26.71​	36.76​	33.54​	41.48​	584​
233​	WG Grace	1098​	20​	32.29​	44.58​	30.50​	42.11​	42.97​	48.87​	583​
291​	AG Steel	600​	9​	35.29​	49.89​	30.00​	42.41​	47.09​	54.01​	548​
298​	MA Noble	1997​	12​	30.26​	36.02​	27.36​	32.57​	38.54​	38.26​	542​
385​	CB Fry	1223​	17​	32.18​	38.09​	29.83​	35.30​	41.93​	42.59​	495​

 

[OverratedSanity]

how is DoG supposed to denote if someone is sitting out injured or if it's because the selectors decided to experiment in a dead rubber against a minnow side?

He's not. I'm arguing the reason you're not playing matches available to you is irrelevant. At least when it comes to the career/longevity metric. End of the day, you're missing games that your team is playing.

I do not think an unjust non selection is any more "unfair" than a freak injury that rules you out for a year. There are things out of your control that affect everything. This isn't something unique that deserves special consideration in the formula.

 

[capt_Luffy]

		Ave.	Adj. Ave.	RPI	Adj. RPI	S/R	Adj. S/R	Rating
121​	WW Armstrong	38.69​	42.12​	34.08​	37.11​	48.18​	44.44​	648​
140​	AC MacLaren	33.88​	39.01​	31.66​	36.45​	44.73​	48.54​	628​
152​	A Shrewsbury snr	35.47​	46.13​	31.93​	41.52​	34.25​	39.87​	622​
170​	TW Hayward	34.47​	39.44​	33.32​	38.12​	36.48​	38.42​	609​
171​	FE Woolley	36.08​	34.96​	33.50​	32.46​	60.18​	59.55​	608​
179​	Hon. FS Jackson	48.79​	54.87​	42.88​	48.22​	49.60​	51.05​	605​
180​	R Abel	37.20​	52.07​	33.82​	47.34​	42.34​	43.63​	605​
193​	KS Ranjitsinhji	44.95​	51.43​	38.04​	43.52​	52.49​	56.03​	598​
225​	PS McDonnell	28.94​	42.63​	28.09​	41.38​	58.91​	74.07​	585​
232​	WL Murdoch	31.31​	43.09​	26.71​	36.76​	33.54​	41.48​	584​
233​	WG Grace	32.29​	44.58​	30.50​	42.11​	42.97​	48.87​	583​
291​	AG Steel	35.29​	49.89​	30.00​	42.41​	47.09​	54.01​	548​
298​	MA Noble	30.26​	36.02​	27.36​	32.57​	38.54​	38.26​	542​
385​	CB Fry	32.18​	38.09​	29.83​	35.30​	41.93​	42.59​	495​

Gracious!!! I am the most surprised by Percy McDonnell. Didn't expect for him to take such a hike!!! Perhaps I should rate him higher

 

[Johan]

I do not think an unjust non selection is any more "unfair" than a freak injury that rules you out for a year. There are things out of your control that affect everything. This isn't something unique that deserves special consideration in the formula.

Really? unjust selection means you'd be selected ideally if the selector was different or you played for a different country, it means in most contexts you would play but either a silly policy or an idiotic selector happens to be hindering you. A freak injury means you can't play for a given amount of time and that's a much bigger factor than just not being selected for reasons that have nothing to do with you.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Really? unjust selection means you'd be selected ideally if the selector was different or you played for a different country, it means in most contexts you would play but either a silly policy or an idiotic selector happens to be hindering you. A freak injury means you can't play for a given amount of time and that's a much bigger factor than just not being selected for reasons that have nothing to do with you.

I think I agree with OS here. At the end of the day, the thing you are being ranked for us getting out in the field and perform. If a selectorial mishap happens, that still means you didn't play in those games, didn't take any wickets/scored any runs, didn't impact the result, had no contribution. Ofc being injured is different, but the result is the same.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Really? unjust selection means you'd be selected ideally if the selector was different or you played for a different country, it means in most contexts you would play but either a silly policy or an idiotic selector happens to be hindering you. A freak injury means you can't play for a given amount of time and that's a much bigger factor than just not being selected for reasons that have nothing to do with you.

Nah sorry , the end result is you're not playing games and are unable to contribute. How much you play is central to what we value in longevity . It makes no sense to not take this into account because trueman was stupidly not selected. The end result was he played fewer games. His quality will reflect in the games he did play. He shouldn't get longevity points for games he didn't play.

 

[Johan]

Nah sorry , the end result is you're not playing games and are unable to contribute. How much you play is central to what we value in longevity . It makes no sense to not take this into account because trueman was stupidly not selected. The end result was he played fewer games. His quality will reflect in the games he did play. He shouldn't get longevity points for games he didn't play.

If we are to put longevity into a statistical formula, guess it makes sense.