Top 100 Test Batsmen countdown (revised and updated)

[Johan]

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.

Putting aside the fact this is a statistical analysis for a minute. Being injured is much more qualitatively related to your ability as a Cricketer than not being selected due to selection mishaps is related to your ability as a Cricketer.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Putting aside the fact this is a statistical analysis for a minute. Being injured is much more qualitatively related to your ability as a Cricketer than not being selected due to selection mishaps is related to your ability as a Cricketer.

Qualitatively, yesish. Like, you can't control a freak injury too. But yeah, get what you mean

 

[Johan]

Qualitatively, yesish. Like, you can't control a freak injury too. But yeah, get what you mean

Yup, that's why we call it "durability".

 

[Days of Grace]

Adjusting longevity by number of matches played / number of matches your team played wouldn't work for ODIs, especially in today's world, where the best players hardly play ODIs anymore outside of the world cup.

I also think Trueman et al are being punished enough because they would get a lot more points for wickets taken / runs scored if they had been selected more.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Adjusting longevity by number of matches played / number of matches your team played wouldn't work for ODIs, especially in today's world, where the best players hardly play ODIs anymore outside of the world cup.

I also think Trueman et al are being punished enough because they would get a lot more points for wickets taken / runs scored if they had been selected more.

I don't think its necessary to maintain complete uniformity across formats. Put Trueman as an example aside, I dont think its right to not include availability in the analysis whatsoever. It gives a misleading picture of longevity.

 

[HimeshChaturvedi]

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

Can someone tell me which positions have changed?

 

[Qlder]

Can someone tell me which positions have changed?

Changes to top 20:

5. Smith (was 6)
6. Lara (5)
10. Barrington (11)
11. Richards (10)
13. Sutcliffe (15)
15. Weekes (13)
18. Border (19)
19. Chappell (18)
20. Williamson (21)
22. Walcott (20)

 

[HimeshChaturvedi]

Barrington (11 to 10)
Richards (10 to 11)

 

[Johan]

Can someone tell me which positions have changed?

Earlier the weightage for 4 for average, 2 for RPI and 1 for scoring rate, now it is 6 for average, 3 for RPI and 1 for scoring rate.

 

[Qlder]

I'm thinking the first weighting gave better results on top 20, specifically:

Lara > Smith, Richards > Barrington and Chappell > Border

 

[ImpatientLime]

		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​

WG a confirmed fraud

 

[Johan]

Grace's peak predates Test Cricket.

 

[Jane Austen]

Changes to top 20:

5. Smith (was 6)
6. Lara (5)
10. Barrington (11)
11. Richards (10)
13. Sutcliffe (15)
15. Weekes (13)
18. Border (19)
19. Chappell (18)
20. Williamson (21)
22. Walcott (20)

So rejoice all ye Barringtons,Boycotts and Bill Lawrys from long ago!
How long before Alec Bannerman and Trevor Francklin make the top fifty,Nazar Mohammad and son Mudassar Nazar are in the top twenty and John Wright is a top ten contender!

In general,the changes referenced above reflect the demotion of stroke-players in favour of other great batters but more of whom favour a more accumulative style of playing.

Days of Grace has considered the views of the manority which,of course is justifiable.
However the election of Trump,and much more so,a man who considerably interrupted the Test careers of Bradman and Compton,to name but two great cricketers,is clear evidence that the opinion of the majority is not always correct!

 

[Johan]

Days of Grace has considered the views of the manority which,of course is justifiable.
However the election of Trump,and much more so,a man who considerably interrupted the Test careers of Bradman and Compton,to name but two great cricketers,is clear evidence that the opinion of the majority is not always correct!

He didn't really, He went with the logical middle ground of a heated debate and got those results, a pretty good approach to any heated debate I'd say

 

[Jane Austen]

He didn't really, He went with the logical middle ground of a heated debate and got those results, a pretty good approach to any heated debate I'd say

Days of Grace justifiably chose to to go with the majority concensus of opinion which is,as often the case,the middle ground.
One only has to to consider the government which is invariably elected by the democratic system of the UK.
However,anticipating your riposte,which,if I guess correctly,will win me another £10 bet,I'll refrain from making any additional comment now.

 

[The Sean]

		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​

By happy coincidence, this table all-but answers my first query about how far down the list from Hobbs you need to go to equal the gap at the top from Bradman to Hobbs. We can now see:

1. Bradman 1296
2. Hobbs 895
385. Fry 495

So, the gap from Bradman to number 2 is virtually the same as (in fact slightly bigger than) the gap from number 2 to number 385.

 

[Johan]

Days of Grace justifiably chose to to go with the majority concensus of opinion which is,as often the case,the middle ground.

Well, look at it from this perspective. The poll was split in maintaing the original weightage (4:2:1), reducing the weightage (6:3:1) or completely removing scoring rate from consideration ( 2:1:0 ). DoG's original formula gave scoring rate about 14.3 percent weightage, which you and many others voted to maintain, while I and many others advocated for 0 percent weightage to scoring rate. The final compromise and methodology grants scoring rate 10 percent weightage, which is a lot closer to 14 than it is to 0, so if anything, DoG's judgement fell in your favour.

 

[Bolo.]

I would be interested in seeing the 0 weight scoring list too.

 

[Jane Austen]

Well, look at it from this perspective. The poll was split in maintaing the original weightage (4:2:1), reducing the weightage (6:3:1) or completely removing scoring rate from consideration ( 2:1:0 ). DoG's original formula gave scoring rate about 14.3 percent weightage, which you and many others voted to maintain, while I and many others advocated for 0 percent weightage to scoring rate. The final compromise and methodology grants scoring rate 10 percent weightage, which is a lot closer to 14 than it is to 0, so if anything, DoG's judgement fell in your favour.

OH DEAR! I've got to pay my psychology and mathmatics-led colleague £20 because ,not only did I fail to to correctly predict your reply,but they sustantially assessed the essence of what you would say.
Again,I prefer that you look at it from my perspective because I am of the view that yours says nothing more than that which I have already answered.

 

[Johan]

OH DEAR! I've got to pay my psychology and mathmatics-led colleague £20 because ,not only did I fail to to correctly predict your reply,but they sustantially assessed the essence of what you would say.

Oh wow! Apologies, I'll try to be more predictable next time.