Top 100 Test Batsmen of all time newly revised

[Matt79]

Love how people are missing the point that this is impersonal system based on a set system of weightings and instead highlighting that it disagrees with their existing views - it's no more falliable or infalliable than any other way devised of constructing such rankings, but is interesting precisely because it throws up some interesting results, such as Punter and Barrington being ahead of Richards.

In some cases, you'll disagree, for instance because Richards' average suffered as his last couple of years didn't reflect the player he was before his eyesight deteriorated. In other cases, it will hopefully cause you to re-examine a player previously underrated.

I think its funny that Flower and Gilchrist ended up adjacent given the at times strongly argued and seemingly irresolvable differences as to who was the superior batsman. And Sanga ends up just ahead, adjacent, of both, very funny! Although he's played more games without the gloves.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Love how people are missing the point that this is impersonal system based on a set system of weightings and instead highlighting that it disagrees with their existing views - it's no more falliable or infalliable than any other way devised of constructing such rankings, but is interesting precisely because it throws up some interesting results, such as Punter and Barrington being ahead of Richards.

In some cases, you'll disagree, for instance because Richards' average suffered as his last couple of years didn't reflect the player he was before his eyesight deteriorated. In other cases, it will hopefully cause you to re-examine a player previously underrated.

I don't think anyone's missing any points. As with any list of stats judgements it's relatively meaningless, and the more factors you add in the more meaningless it becomes as it's not based purely on what actually happened. However, the top 10 would be reasonable with a couple of exceptions - Ponting and Barrington.

 

[Matt79]

Barrington averaged 58 over a long career against some decent attacks, albeit not the strongest period of bowling around the world. As you say, always debatable, but not an outlandish claim for mine.

Similarly, Ponting has scored 10,000 runs at an average of 56 - even so 5th is too high for him, but probably reflects that his career is still in progress, and that this exercise has taken place very soon after the end of his peak. In his case, you'd suspect his average and record would probably tail off a bit from here, and he'll find a more realistic ranking.

 

[fredfertang]

One of the most interesting things about these exercises are the absurdities they throw up

Herschelle Gibbs > Herby Taylor !!! - quite absurd

 

[Lillian Thomson]

One of the most interesting things about these exercises are the absurdities they throw up

Herschelle Gibbs > Herby Taylor !!! - quite absurd

Wasn't Taylor the man who exposed SF Barnes as a fraud?

 

[fredfertang]

Wasn't Taylor the man who exposed SF Barnes as a fraud?

There is a story that Barnes got in a strop once and refused to bowl to Taylor because he couldn't get him out but if you look at the scorecards he seems to have dismissed him a fair few times - I'm not sure off hand where the tale originated

 

[Matt79]

The story I heard was that after a match where Taylor did well, Barnes was found throwing a ball repeatedly into a wall for a long time while muttering, "it's always Taylor, it's always Taylor" in some kind of fury/trance/sulk.

 

[Days of Grace]

Taylor only averaged 28 away from home, which is a mark against him.

 

[fredfertang]

The story I heard was that after a match where Taylor did well, Barnes was found throwing a ball repeatedly into a wall for a long time while muttering, "it's always Taylor, it's always Taylor" in some kind of fury/trance/sulk.

OK I have found it now

The story is not from a test but the one game MCC lost on the 1913/14 tour against Natal – in the fourth innings run chase Taylor and Dave Nourse enjoyed a big stand – Nourse was Barnes bunny and was desperate to get away from him so Taylor farmed the strike when necessary playing “tip and run” off the last ball of the over eventually driving Barnes to his “Taylor, Taylor, always bloody Taylor” rant at which he refused to carry on and just stormed off. This story was confirmed by Taylor himself in a letter to Leslie Duckworth who wrote the first full length biography of Barnes but Barnes always denied it.

Where the truth lies we will never know although it may be relevant that in his letter Taylor stated that soon after Barnes stormed off Nourse was out caught on the boundary having a go at Rhodes and that Taylor himself was out to Barnes as soon as Barnes came back out and bowled again – neither assertion would appear to be correct the scorecard in Wisden indicating that Woolley dismissed Nourse and Hearne removed Taylor

 

[Days of Grace]

Could you please tell me where Bert Sutcliffe ranks on your list?

Has 557 points, not sure yet where that would put him in the overall, and the NZ list.

 

[shashy]

Good list, although Greenidge isn't in the top 50.

 

[Jigga988]

G. Smith is a bit low, averaging over 50 Chanders also quite low. No complaints though, if you could be bothered to construct such an exhaustive and creative way of ranking batsman i am in no position to complain.*

 

[Ikki]

I don't think anyone's missing any points. As with any list of stats judgements it's relatively meaningless, and the more factors you add in the more meaningless it becomes as it's not based purely on what actually happened. However, the top 10 would be reasonable with a couple of exceptions - Ponting and Barrington.

That's rather incorrect, I feel. The more things that are quantified in stats the more accurate the analysis may become - and not the other way round.

Barrington is a surprise for me but not Ponting. It's just as easy for me to see Ponting there as it is for the others around his name, above or below. What actually surprises me is statistically Tendulkar being superior to Ponting. I'd like to take a look at the formula.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That's rather incorrect, I feel. The more things that are quantified in stats the more accurate the analysis may become - and not the other way round.

Not true. There's no way to factor in anything without making up a completely artificial and wholely unreliable personal method for doing so. The bare stats are an exact account of what happened but equally unreliable when attempting to judge across different eras.

 

[Ikki]

Not true. There's no way to factor in anything without making up a completely artificial and wholely unreliable personal method for doing so. The bare stats are an exact account of what happened but equally unreliable when attempting to judge across different eras.

No, you can give weightings to different circumstances. Ratings of pitches or extra points for beating a team with a long streak, etc. These things are vastly more accurate than simply having a vague idea in your mind about what you perceive, or think you perceive, things to be.

For example, people know pitches are flatter now and they're right to be skeptical about success happening on these pitches compared to pitches that were more competitive. But people don't really understand that the differences/inflation in averages is a few average points at best.

As aforesaid, the more variables of the game you can quantify the better. Certainly much better than just trying to compute the differences in your own mind - especially considering the rich history of the game - it's players, it's rules, it's conditions, etc. Putting these on paper and trying to be fair and unprejudiced is always better.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I can easily make up a top 10 (or stretch it to 20 or 30.)

1. Bradman
2. Richards
3. Hobbs
4. Tendulkar
5. Sobers
6. Lara
7. Hammond
8. Hutton
9. Gavaskar
10.Chappell

It's no more or less accurate that any fancy manufactured formula is going to come up with. In fact the presence of Barrington in the top 10 suggests that the formula needs a little work.

 

[weldone]

For example, people know pitches are flatter now and they're right to be skeptical about success happening on these pitches compared to pitches that were more competitive. But people don't really understand that the differences/inflation in averages is a few average points at best.

Yes Kazo, you are correct on this point. Some people have this wrong notion that an average of 50 in the 1980's or 1990's is as good as an average of 75 or so today, which is grossly a wrong notion.

 

[Ikki]

I can easily make up a top 10 (or stretch it to 20 or 30.)

1. Bradman
2. Richards
3. Hobbs
4. Tendulkar
5. Sobers
6. Lara
7. Hammond
8. Hutton
9. Gavaskar
10.Chappell

It's no more or less accurate that any fancy manufactured formula is going to come up with. In fact the presence of Barrington in the top 10 suggests that the formula needs a little work.

But your list is subjective whereas the other analysis isn't. Ideally, you want as little subjectivity as possible and if things can be stated plainly for what they are then they should be. Of course, certain things will be impossible to numerate but the great number of things are.

For me, your list is just as inaccurate. How can you have Tendulkar at 4, Lara at 6 and Ponting not even in your top 10? For me that makes little sense, stats or no stats. Logically they are within a breath of each other, whichever way you wish to rate them.

And anyway, if even by your opinion your list is no more or less accurate than the stat generated list, then where is your gripe? You just said they are both as accurate. Some people may disagree, but you just said that yourself.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But your list is subjective whereas the other analysis isn't. Ideally, you want as little subjectivity as possible and if things can be stated plainly for what they are then they should be. Of course, certain things will be impossible to numerate but the great number of things are.

For me, your list is just as inaccurate. How can you have Tendulkar at 4, Lara at 6 and Ponting not even in your top 10.

And anyway, if even by your opinion your list is no more or less accurate than the stat generated list, then where is your gripe? You just said they are both as accurate. Some people may disagree, but you just said that yourself.

The whole point is that my list is just as inaccurate, it's also just as accurate.

I don't have a gripe, if people enjoy this sort of analysis that's up to them. It's still equally subjective however. Whatever points are being awarded for supposed circumstances is completely subjective.

 

[Ikki]

The whole point is that my list is just as inaccurate, it's also just as accurate.

I don't have a gripe, if people enjoy this sort of analysis that's up to them. It's still equally subjective however. Whatever points are being awarded for supposed circumstances is completely subjective.

But here's the thing...it's different when I say I have a gripe with your list as you have a gripe with the list here. I can get into an objective argument as to why Ponting should be there. I can use facts to support my stance.

What I do not understand is your gripe with this formula or statistical analysis that opposes your own arbitrary beliefs? It's certainly not impossible to have Barrington in a top 10. Personally, I only see Chappell and Viv with better cases among the names under him. The others are more or less equal - which I think is the biggest problem, that we have a chunk of batsmen that really were more or less of the same ilk and differ slightly.

Essentially, if you have a gripe with his ratings, at least have the courtesy towards him and state exactly what variables or weightings you do not agree with - instead of trashing it from the get-go. Maybe there are certain things about certain batsmen you do not know of and will only truly appreciate when one makes a fair statistical comparison. Maybe you can find something not considered and tell DOG here. But until you make a decent effort to look into it why dismiss it off the bat? It's something I don't get.