DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[kyear2]

a guy scores 34 centuries; 10000+ runs; maintains 50+ average for 125 tests. a guy who played only 22 tests gets ranked above him. there is no justice in this world.

Think that is a bit harsh, if we are going to use that exact argument one could argue a guy with 52 tests should be behind him as well. Headley is to me without doubt the most under rated player on CW, considering he is seen by most to be the second best player of his era behind only Bradman and ahed of even Hammond.

On topic, surprised that Barrington and Sutcliffe still around considering that strike rate is a factor in the scoring. But it proves for me at least that stats can never tell the entire story.

Great effort DoG, also love the pics you are using.

 

[Coronis]

Think that is a bit harsh, if we are going to use that exact argument one could argue a guy with 52 tests should be behind him as well. Headley is to me without doubt the most under rated player on CW, considering he is seen by most to be the second best player of his era behind only Bradman and ahed of even Hammond.

On topic, surprised that Barrington and Sutcliffe still around considering that strike rate is a factor in the scoring. But it proves for me at least that stats can never tell the entire story.

Great effort DoG, also love the pics you are using.

Ah yes, we all know how important strike rate is. Personally I consider Headley to be one of the top 5 middle order batsmen of all time, its a shame he doesn't fit into my XI. Barrington and Sutcliffe are both underrated simply because they weren't brilliant strokeplayers and quick scorers.

 

[The Sean]

Gavaskar going now also means that - as far as this study is concerned - the top three Test openers of all time are English.

 

[The Sean]

Think that is a bit harsh, if we are going to use that exact argument one could argue a guy with 52 tests should be behind him as well. Headley is to me without doubt the most under rated player on CW, considering he is seen by most to be the second best player of his era behind only Bradman and ahed of Hammond.

Headley has always felt to me like he was rated pretty fairly on CW, certainly not wildly underrated IMO. I've always felt it was very close between him and Hammond as to who was number two of that era - most rankings I've seen tend to have Hammond slightly ahead (as I do myself), but it's also fair to say that those rankings have often been compiled from a more Anglo-centric perspective as well.

 

[marc71178]

I've often considered him if anything to be over-rated because of the quality of bowlers he faced not quite matching up to the reputations of the teams he played against.

Still not sure why strike rate should have a huge effect either personally - a game lasts 5 days.

 

[honestbharani]

Shame there isn't any empirical evidence available to measure that, as it would make an interesting stat, well entertaining anyway, and doubtless result in a few amusing tantrums from the more fanatical amongst us

You mean like GF himself?

 

[Migara]

So Sangakkara, Barrington, Suttcliffe all going to be ahead of Gavaskar. Not many lists will do that. Interesting!

By end of Sanga's career many will have. If played as a pure batsman from the start would have been averaging 62-64 by now and would have been considered only second to Bradman at #3

 

[Migara]

Ok this means Sanga is the second best batsman out of Asia?

 

[ankitj]

I think it's more than just strike rate. Why does Dravid get away with a fairly low strike rate, and not a very attacking style? It's more than that to the reputation of likes of Barrington and even Kallis. Not sure what it is. Lack of heroic back of the wall efforts?

 

[Spark]

I don't think it's "slow" that gets up people's nerves. It's being one-paced, not adapting to the match situation.

 

[Furball]

I'm stealing that next time I slag off Kallis.

 

[Garson007]

His highest score should be rated the greatest innings ever, by my calculations.

DoG to confim.

This makes me think. Can we get a list of 100 worst test batsmen (that have played 25 tests)?

 

[bagapath]

Think that is a bit harsh, if we are going to use that exact argument one could argue a guy with 52 tests should be behind him as well.

not if that guy averages 99.94 after 52 tests

Headley is to me without doubt the most under rated player on CW, considering he is seen by most to be the second best player of his era behind only Bradman and ahed of even Hammond.

well, it is possible that he was better than hammond. ranking them on par for that era seems to be a fair call anyways. but in the overall scheme of things... I guess I have made my point already

 

[kyear2]

I've often considered him if anything to be over-rated because of the quality of bowlers he faced not quite matching up to the reputations of the teams he played against.

Still not sure why strike rate should have a huge effect either personally - a game lasts 5 days.

Headley faced Grimmett, Ironmonger, Verity, Rhodes, Allen and Voce, missing only Larwood, whose test record was comparable to Allen's and Voce's, and O'Reilly. Headley also doubled as the defacto opener for his team and never benefitted from any middle order support of note that most other ATG batsman had the luxury of. Headley also never had the fortune to play againts any of the monnows of his time during his prime that Hammond and Bradman took full advantage of and only played agints the top two teams of his era playing both of them away from home as well.

An attractive free flowing batsman, who was said to be more attractive and better to watch than Bradman who bore the sole responsibility of keeping a poor batting line up and team competitive, thus his name, Atlas. Once he fell the fight was over, and he and his opponents knew it. He was the first player in the West Indies to challenge the rule that white man bat and black man bowl and our first great batsman and still seens as the equal to Sobers, Richards and Lara in our pantheon.

 

[smash84]

not if that guy averages 99.94 after 52 tests



well, it is possible that he was better than hammond. ranking them on par for that era seems to be a fair call anyways. but in the overall scheme of things... I guess I have made my point already

Do you mean to say that he is a case like Barry Richards?

 

[bagapath]

Do you mean to say that he is a case like Barry Richards?

no. i think headley deserves to be placed in a different bracket from barry since he maintained his excellent average over several years even though the number of matches he got to participate in those years was small. with changing bowling line-ups and different batting conditions maintaining such a high average is a great achievement indeed. but remember, Len Hutton averaged 61 after playing 70 tests. his career was split by the second world war. after a break of six years, he resumed his stellar career, played all over the world, for a long time, in changing conditions, against different opponents and yet managed to keep scoring at the best average in history bar bradman. doing the same over 22 tests is a much easier task. that is why i think headley should be ranked below gavaskar, border etc who scored at 50+ for 100 odd tests in at least 5 different countries against three generations of bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

are we missing some other batsman? do you think headley is not on this list at all?

 

[kyear2]

By end of Sanga's career many will have. If played as a pure batsman from the start would have been averaging 62-64 by now and would have been considered only second to Bradman at #3

Don't think would have made a difference and also don't believe that he would have been rated above the likes of Headley, Hammond, Ponting and Richards.

I don't think it's "slow" that gets up people's nerves. It's being one-paced, not adapting to the match situation.

Agree, take no risks and play for yourself regardless of the situation. Barrington was actually dropped once for scoring too slowly.

Additionally it's considerably easier to leave everything alone and place pressure on your team mates to score than to take on the bowlers and make things easier for your teams mates and in the preocess turn the tide of a game or just take it over completely.

There is a reason people rate Viv over Barrington dispite the numbers and likewise Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar over Dravid and Kallis.

 

[ankitj]

Headley basically did **** all after returning to cricket post WWII. So I don't get what it is about him maintaining high standards over a long time. He did not do that.

 

[kyear2]

The first 10 years of his career still counts for a long time, especually playing tests as rarely as he did.