Top 100 Test Batsmen of all time newly revised

[Lillian Thomson]

It's something I don't get.

Then don't trouble yourself with it. If you're seeking a circular slanging match in Richard's absence then you're going to be unlucky.

If DOG wishes to publish his entire formula then he will do and we can discuss it, until then I'll stick with my own opinion that these sorts of analysis are not an accurate reflection of a players status.

 

[Jigga988]

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.

there could also be a certain amount of bias in that raw figures, however manipulated they may be cannot have bias.

 

[archie mac]

Then don't trouble yourself with it. If you're seeking a circular slanging match in Richard's absence then you're going to be unlucky.

If DOG wishes to publish his entire formula then he will do and we can discuss it, until then I'll stick with my own opinion that these sorts of analysis are not an accurate reflection of a players status.

I still think the only way to rate a player is to compare them to their contemporaries, but first remove Bradman from any comparison, or otherwise all the players from his era are marked well down

 

[Days of Grace]

Then don't trouble yourself with it. If you're seeking a circular slanging match in Richard's absence then you're going to be unlucky.

If DOG wishes to publish his entire formula then he will do and we can discuss it, until then I'll stick with my own opinion that these sorts of analysis are not an accurate reflection of a players status.

When I have time, I will write a feature article on this.

But for now, I will give you the things that I used to rate the batsmen.

The whole thing is based on comparing batsmen across eras, thereby adjusting their batting averages depending on opposition faced.

I took the number 32.50 as the runs per wicket average across the history of cricket. After that, I got each teams RPW vs. non-minnows home and away for each of my self-appointed eras of test cricket.

Here are the eras:

1877-1896
1897-1914
1920-1939
1946-1959
1960-march 1970 (when South Africa were forced out)
April 1970-1979
1980-1994
1995-2003 (until the world cup)
2003-present day

I will give you an example of 1980-1994 RPW for each bowling team, home and away.
In brackets is the average RPW divided by that number 32.50, thus giving an indication of each team's bowling strength relative to the history of Test cricket, together with the pitch conditions in their home country (e.g. you could have a good bowling attack, but have flat pitches in your home conditions, like the West Indies before the 1980s, when despite the flatness their bowling attack was devastating)

Australia 30.20 (1.08) 35.20 (0.92)
England 35.80 (0.91) 37.49 (0.87)
India 33.69 (0.96) 41.59 (0.78)
New Zealand 30.81 (1.05) 35.87 (0.91)
Pakistan 28.23 (1.15) 33.67 (0.97)
South Africa 28.25 (1.15) 32.52 (1.00)
Sri Lanka 33.51 (0.97) 45.88 (0.71)
West Indies 26.82 (1.21) 26.40 (1.23)
Zimbabwe 43.96 (0.74) 38.85 (0.84)

So, with any batsmen playing from 1980-1994, each series he played in I take his runs scored and adjust it according to the opposition he faced, home or away.

His away average and top opposition averages are also adjusted accordingly.

His top opposition average is his average against the top three bowling attacks of his era. In the example above, the top three bowling attacks of 1980-1994 were 1. West Indies 2. Pakistan 3. Australia. I discount South Africa because obviously they only came back into test cricket in 1991/92.

If you were Viv Richards and happened to play for the West Indies, then only his average against Australia and Pakistan is taken.

So, there we have it. That's a sample of what I have been working on.

I will close by saying that, as you can imagine, it takes an eternity to do 100 batsmen, adjusting their runs scored for every single series he played in. Asian batsmen post 1980 in particular are a nightmare, since they tend to play in many little 2 match series.

So, you can criticise this and call it a load of old rubbish if you want, but keep in mind how long I spent working on this.

Cheers, and I will write a feature article after I have returned from travelling early next year.

 

[bagapath]

dont like azharuddin above greenidge. but cant get subjectivce here, i understand. good job d.o.g. hope you are able to do one for bowlers soon.

 

[susudear]

Joke or what?

Ponting is above Tandulkar. And Richards above them two.

Only agree with Bradboy at top.

 

[Days of Grace]

The only joke here is you, my friend.

Learn to respect an analysis that may suggest (repeat: only suggest) that your opinions may be subjective or bias, and not fact, or STFU.

 

[Evilhoopler]

hobbs is not worth number 2.

 

[fredfertang]

Odd comment - the bloke averaged 56 over a 22 test year career and played two thirds of his games aginst Australia - well worth second place

 

[Ikki]

Odd comment - the bloke averaged 56 over a 22 test year career and played two thirds of his games aginst Australia - well worth second place

Funny enough, that actually might be a reason for him not to be rated 2nd.

 

[Migara]

hobbs is not worth number 2.

Possibly Sobers?

 

[Evilhoopler]

yer. he plays the same bowlers. that would be way easier

 

[Burgey]

Thanks for posting this DOGgy. Good read.

Loving the gap between 1 and 2 being nearly twice as big as the gap between 2 and 100.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Funny enough, that actually might be a reason for him not to be rated 2nd.

Not necessarily - it means he played primarily against the strongest opposition of his time.

 

[Ikki]

Not necessarily - it means he played primarily against the strongest opposition of his time.

Yes, so? Playing them often could mean he had become specialised to them and found it less difficult considering he was concentrating/training for the same side.

Players like Tendulkar faced the best of their time and did just as well. But what they also did was face many many more opponents over many more varying conditions.

 

[Harry Harrison]

As many of you know, in my free time I have been working on a rating formula for batsmen and bowlers since around 1998. Every year it gets more detailed, and thus more realistic or in tune with general opinion.

Around August I came up with the idea that each batsmen or bowlers' series runs/wickets would be adjusted according to the strengh of the opposition. I did this by taking an a runs per wicket number that I thought was genuine across the history of the game: 32.5, and then getting each batting and bowling teams runs per wicket averages across a certain era.

Thus I have adjusted averages for batsmen, together with adjusted averages for away matches, and against the top opposition of the time. I also take into account a players peak period of 20 matches. I am quite pleased with the results.

Anyway, I would like to write a feature article on this, so could someone please show me how to do this? I have been to the features webpage but I can't see any link that allows me to write a feature.

Cheers.

Until then, a sample of the top 50 Test batsmen from my new system:

Adj. Ave. Rating
1 DG Bradman 88.14 1452
2 JB Hobbs 58.84 951
3 L Hutton 54.98 934
4 SR Tendulkar 52.82 921
5 RT Ponting 50.70 919
6 WR Hammond 51.23 907
7 GS Sobers 54.55 903
8 BC Lara 50.86 889
9 SM Gavaskar 50.67 879
10 KF Barrington 55.21 860
11 GS Chappell 53.46 856
12 IVA Richards 49.30 849
13 AD Nourse 53.35 846
14 SR Waugh 48.47 842
15 JH Kallis 48.86 834
16 ED Weekes 54.31 831
17 H Sutcliffe 52.89 830
18 AR Border 50.42 829
19 ML Hayden 46.60 823
20 GA Headley 56.11 821
21 CL Walcott 53.18 819
22 DCS Compton 48.32 816
23 R Dravid 49.15 811
24 Javed Miandad 50.02 803
25 Mohammad Yousuf 49.66 802
26 V Sehwag 48.85 796
27 RG Pollock 60.24 795
28 KC Sangakkara 46.98 791
29 A Flower 49.09 782
30 AC Gilchrist 43.36 776
31 RN Harvey 46.51 769
32 Inzamam-ul-Haq 46.48 760
33 DPMD Jayawardene 45.49 756
34 S Chanderpaul 46.36 749
35 CH Lloyd 45.77 749
36 G Boycott 46.85 748
37 KP Pietersen 45.71 748
38 B Mitchell 45.76 741
39 AR Morris 45.30 738
40 FMM Worrell 49.22 733
41 MEK Hussey 53.64 732
42 GA Faulkner 49.28 731
43 CG Macartney 43.14 730
44 KD Walters 46.81 730
45 Younis Khan 45.21 730
46 C Hill 49.48 729
47 MD Crowe 44.25 727
48 JL Langer 41.69 725
49 VS Hazare 49.43 725
50 KS Ranjitsinhji 55.05 723

Surprised to see that there is mot many greats like Gooch, Mark Waugh, Haynes and Dean Jones.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, so? Playing them often could mean he had become specialised to them and found it less difficult considering he was concentrating/training for the same side.

Players like Tendulkar faced the best of their time and did just as well. But what they also did was face many many more opponents over many more varying conditions.

The point is that this "scientific" analysis gives extra points for strength of opposition, therefore in his circumstances he's likely to acquire more points than if the opposition had been varied.

 

[fredfertang]

Yes, so? Playing them often could mean he had become specialised to them and found it less difficult considering he was concentrating/training for the same side.

Players like Tendulkar faced the best of their time and did just as well. But what they also did was face many many more opponents over many more varying conditions.

Over 22 years Hobbs faced all the best bowlers who played in that period - no he never played on the sub-continent but then how many times has Sachin been caught on a sticky?

 

[Ikki]

The point is that this "scientific" analysis gives extra points for strength of opposition, therefore in his circumstances he's likely to acquire more points than if the opposition had been varied.

Oh yes, for sure. I thought you meant in the realms outside of this statistical analysis.

Still, that brings up a good criticism of this analysis. Should not the likes of Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara get more points for playing more opponents over more conditions?

 

[Ikki]

Over 22 years Hobbs faced all the best bowlers who played in that period - no he never played on the sub-continent but then how many times has Sachin been caught on a sticky?

That's a fair question. How many times did Hobbs play on them? Maybe he should get some extra points for that.

However, there is still no doubting that the others have had to tick more boxes merely to be in the same caliber. That seems wrong. Hobbs faced the best bowlers of his time, where there were, relatively/comparatively, very few and so he faced fewer "tests".