DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[Cabinet96]

The 20th century Kallis, except for the fact that he was a ****.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is there anyone else who could reasonably be expected to be this high?

There's a tiny part of me that thinks that DoG has been trolling us all along with this Headley thing but there's absolutely no-one else that fits is there?

Watson.

 

[The Sean]

Is there anyone else who could reasonably be expected to be this high?

There's a tiny part of me that thinks that DoG has been trolling us all along with this Headley thing but there's absolutely no-one else that fits is there?

Ha ha nah it's definitely George. IIRC in DoG's original list of the greatest innings, Headley's innings worth score is second only to Bradman. That's got to be what is pushing him so high.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah for sure, and he felt it very keenly too. One of the greatest, and yet also most unfulfilled, cricketers of all time.

For all that though and leaving aside the Bradman comparisons which haunted his career, there can have been few better batsmen in the history of the game to watch in full flight than Walter Reginald Hammond. Sheer magisterial dominance.

His bowling was rated highly too, wasn't it?

 

[The Sean]

The 20th century Kallis.

There's a comparison I'd never have made in a million years. How do you figure?

 

[Furball]

Ha ha nah it's definitely George. IIRC in DoG's original list of the greatest innings, Headley's innings worth score is second only to Bradman. That's got to be what is pushing him so high.

I know what's throwing me, it's no Grace (unless I'm much mistaken.)

 

[Prince EWS]

There's a comparison I'd never have made in a million years. How do you figure?

Nah I can see it. Scored mountains of runs despite being forever in a competitor's shadow with the bat, was an under-stated fast-medium partnership breaker and an amazing slipper. Obviously their batting styles were very different but if you look at them as overall cricketers and I guess how their career panned out, there are some obvious similarities.

 

[The Sean]

His bowling was rated highly too, wasn't it?

He was a very useful, if not truly world class, medium-pacer - and according to a number of observers could have been much more had he taken his bowling more seriously. Additionally, he has a claim to be the greatest slip fieldsman of all time. A magnificent cricketer.

 

[The Sean]

Nah I can see it. Scored mountains of runs despite being forever in competitor's shadow with the bat, was an under-stated fast-medium partnership breaker and an amazing slipper. Obviously their batting styles were very different but if you look at them as overall cricketers and I guess how their career panned out, there are some obvious similarities.

Ah, fair play - I was seeing it in terms of their batting styles (which of course are nothing alike), but yeah taken like that there are certainly similarities. Apologies Cabinet.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Although tbh, from what I've read, their batting styles don't sound that different. Obviously Hammond had more flair, but they're both physically imposing batsman who would come in at first or second drop and be most remembered for their cover driving, off front and back foot.

 

[Singh Is King]

Chill guys I was only stating what DOG was stating himself thay he was lower because Indias win rate. If India had had at least average bowlers he would been where he deserves which is top 3, just a shame there ain't a way to incorporate indias rubbish bowling lol. thanks for your response DOG keep up the good work.
and yes dravid would of been higher in India didn't have crap bowlers to!

 

[Howe_zat]

Has DoG explained somewhere how his innings rating system values opposition bowling? Is it based on team or individual records, for example?

 

[GIMH]

Been following this thread for the past few weeks and its brilliant. Hats off to DoG; best posting in CC since The Sean's original CW50 (not to knock its follow up which was good too).

Sean's posting all gold in here really too. Burgey's presence the only blight on the thread.

Good stuff.

 

[kyear2]

Chill guys I was only stating what DOG was stating himself thay he was lower because Indias win rate. If India had had at least average bowlers he would been where he deserves which is top 3, just a shame there ain't a way to incorporate indias rubbish bowling lol. thanks for your response DOG keep up the good work.
and yes dravid would of been higher in India didn't have crap bowlers to!

That he belongs in the top three is very subjective and not one that many would endorse. Right now I an thinking that the top three might be Bradman, Sobers and Hobbs.

 

[Jarquis]

****ing love Hammond. Headley a personal fave too so hope he's at #2 to piss off all the moaners

 

[morgieb]

I'm telling you, Lara to be number 2.

They lost too many games during his career for him to be that high IMO.

Great innings factor will help heaps though.

Interested to see how far ahead of the pack #1 is ahead of #2.

 

[kyear2]

Fully expect Hutton and Lara to be next, no idea in what order though. Would love to see Headley at 4. Will see though.

 

[NUFAN]

BTW DoG, earlier on there were a couple of players such as Basil Butcher that made your top 100 late as you hadn't researched him enough, is there any possibility that there are a couple of other cricketers similar?

For instance what ranking point would the following players receive Jack Ryder, Colin Bland, Stanley Jackson, Arthur Shrewsbury, John F Reid and Vinod Kambli? I don't really expect you to work them out immediately, but when thinking about Headley likely being rated so high, I'm just surprised that the group I've named aren't in the top 100 (unless I'm mistaken, which isn't that unlikely).

 

[Riggins]

So how come batsmen nowadays don't tend to score lower than in say the 1980s? Computer analysis is just one way in which the game changes, you could just as easily turn that on its head and claim that batting nowadays is much easier due to bigger bats, flatter pitches, more matches etc etc. Equally analysis can have positive effects on a batsman just as much as negative.

There as a huge number of factors going into changes in the game and differences between eras that picking out just one as an explanation of why one player should be rated above others leads to so many counter-points that it is barely valid.

It really annoys me when people talk about how the advent of video analysis has made it harder to be a batsman. The batters have access to the video too, they can learn just as much about the bowler as vice versa.

Sorry for staying vaguely off topic.

 

[kyear2]

Grimmett had O'Reilly supporting/leading the attack. Still averaged 5.82 wpm. Gonna cut off that .82? Kinda hurts Barnes too, the bowlers he played with were no slouches iirc. Excellent to see Hammond above Viv and Sachin.

Doesn't necessarily make him better, also still not conceived that he demonstrated at Test level to ability to handle high quality pace bowling.