DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[ankitj]

Interesting that his only great innings comes as a non opener.

 

[kyear2]

One great innings, that is the number I was looking for with regards to Hobbs. I am familiar with the anecdotal evidence with regard to the great man, no so much the specifics. Great batsman none the less who before the war and at his attacking best was surely the best before Bradman and a contender for the title after him as well.

Wow, two West Indian batsmen in the top three is insane. I think we all tend to forget that he scored hundreds in nearly half of his matches and scored half of the centuries scored by W.Indian batsmen while he played. Wonder which would be next.

 

[bagapath]

Needless post.

DoG knows I don't mean it literally and I am participating in the discussion with all the enthusiasm in the world.

Besides, you can't call it a needless post. There is something in his methodology that allows a guy with 20 odd tests rank above Tendulkar, Lara, Richards, Hutton, Hobbs, Chappell, Hammond and Gavaskar. I am totally in disagreement with that.

 

[The Sean]

Well there was barely a difference between them in this analysis, and DoG's has a great innings function - of which Hobbs only had 1 - so it makes perfect sense to me for Headley to essentially climb him based on that. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with Headley being rated ahead of Hobbs at all. I think Hobbs gets a slight bonus in our minds, perhaps subconsciously, for doing it as an opener while most of the other really great batsmen did it at first or second drop.

0.071 points? That’s a massive difference.

What’s interesting about that analysis is where they gain and lose points over each other. Headley’s average was standardised considerably higher than Hobbs’ in your exercise, but his longevity score was far lower, presumably due to playing so few Tests. DoG’s analysis will give a far higher score to Headley’s longevity due to its focus on career length, but I doubt his standardised average will be as far ahead.

 

[Prince EWS]

0.071 points? That’s a massive difference.

What’s interesting about that analysis is where they gain and lose points over each other. Headley’s average was standardised considerably higher than Hobbs’ in your exercise, but his longevity score was far lower, presumably due to playing so few Tests. DoG’s analysis will give a far higher score to Headley’s longevity due to its focus on career length, but I doubt his standardised average will be as far ahead.

I actually have a new set of batting rankings that incorporate various set peak lengths as well as that career measure that I've been meaning to post for a while but I didn't want to step on DoG's toes until he'd at least finished this great thread. I'll post them up for comparison at the end if he gives his blessing.

 

[Prince EWS]

I actually have a new set of batting rankings that incorporate various set peak lengths as well as that career measure that I've been meaning to post for a while but I didn't want to step on DoG's toes until he'd at least finished this great thread. I'll post them up for comparison at the end if he gives his blessing.

Mahwire ftr.

 

[harsh.ag]

I am curious, how is an opener supposed to have too many great innings? Centuries he scores obviously are a preemptive strike against difficult situations arising. So how is he supposed to get the team out of said difficult situations? Might be wrong on this DoG, but would like an explanation

 

[Viscount Tom]

Maybe we;re missing something and the top rated will in fact be Chris Martin and not Headley.

 

[Prince EWS]

I am curious, how is an opener supposed to have too many great innings? Centuries he scores obviously are a preemptive strike against difficult situations arising. So how is he supposed to get the team out of said difficult situations? Might be wrong on this DoG, but would like an explanation

Well, for a practical example, the score could be 4/4 with an opener still in on 0*; he'd have to build his entire innings under pressure then. I'm not sure if DoG's analysis takes into account FoW during a batsman's time at the crease though, or just the score when he comes in.

Alternatively - second innings runs.

I haven't had a look at the actual innings but a couple of pages back we saw Hutton with six great innings so it's obviously possible.

 

[watson]

Since the Top 3 are now easy to predict then we already have DoG's batting line-up for his ATG XI;

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Don Bradman
4. Brian Lara
5. George Headley
6. Garry Sobers

(Brian Lara's natural position was No.4 where he batted 91 times. Headley rarely batted at No.4 or No.5, but he can't really deprive Bradman of his favoured No.3 spot. Hence, Lara goes in before Headley who will separate the two left-handers from eachother)

I must say that DoG's ATG batting line-up is attractive as it is superb.

 

[bagapath]

Since the Top 3 are now easy to predict then we already have DoG's batting line-up for his ATG XI;

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Don Bradman
4. Brian Lara
5. George Headley
6. Garry Sobers

(Brian Lara's natural position was No.4 where he batted 91 times. Headley rarely batted at No.4 or No.5, but he can't really deprive Bradman of his favoured No.3 spot. Hence, Lara goes in before Headley who will separate the two left-handers from eachother)

I must say that DoG's ATG batting line-up is attractive as it is superb.

You throw in Sangakara as wk, then there is really no hope for any opposition to get them out under 450

 

[watson]

You throw in Sangakara as wk, then there is really no hope for any opposition to get them out under 450

Except that Sangakkara averaged 40.48 during his 48 Tests as the designated wicket-keeper, while Gilchrist averaged higher with 47.60.

In an imaginary 5 Test series against a similar ATG team it is interesting to speculate who would score the most runs for the series - Bradman or Lara? After all, both batsman had a big appetite for staying-in and scoring mega-tons. And batting along side Bradman I doubt very much that Lara would go 'missing in action' as he sometimes did.

 

[harsh.ag]

Since the Top 3 are now easy to predict then we already have DoG's batting line-up for his ATG XI;

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Don Bradman
4. Brian Lara
5. George Headley
6. Garry Sobers

(Brian Lara's natural position was No.4 where he batted 91 times. Headley rarely batted at No.4 or No.5, but he can't really deprive Bradman of his favoured No.3 spot. Hence, Lara goes in before Headley who will separate the two left-handers from eachother)

I must say that DoG's ATG batting line-up is attractive as it is superb.

The only reason to not have Lara and Sobers in the same line-up is that Lara is in many ways a Sobers clone. That is the only reason I don't have Lara in my line-up, but maybe two of a good thing would trump the variation factor

 

[watson]

The only reason to not have Lara and Sobers in the same line-up is that Lara is in many ways a Sobers clone. That is the only reason I don't have Lara in my line-up, but maybe two of a good thing would trump the variation factor

I don't think that having a Sobers clone in the batting line-up is a disadvantage!

I agree that both Sobers and Lara were attacking and flamboyant left handers, but the similarity ends there I think as Lara's periscope like back-lift is quite unique. Sobers was superb against pace, but rarely left his crease against spinners. Lara on-the-other-hand was very light on his feet and was superb against spin bowling.

Also, by his own admission Lara fashioned his batting on Roy Fredericks, not Sobers. Their similarity in foot-work is uncanny;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn4KhOCJQU0

 

[Migara]

Except that Sangakkara averaged 40.48 during his 48 Tests as the designated wicket-keeper, while Gilchrist averaged higher with 47.60.

In an imaginary 5 Test series against a similar ATG team it is interesting to speculate who would score the most runs for the series - Bradman or Lara? After all, both batsman had a big appetite for staying-in and scoring mega-tons. And batting along side Bradman I doubt very much that Lara would go 'missing in action' as he sometimes did.

In that case Sangakkara the batsman should be judged as one with an average of 65+, easily trumping everyone bar Bradman.

 

[kyear2]

In that case Sangakkara the batsman should be judged as one with an average of 65+, easily trumping everyone bar Bradman.

And he's back at that again. Do you believe that Sanga would be rated any differently if he had never kept wicket and his average was indeed 65? Not to mention that he may also have averaged the same while adjusting to test cricket as most young batsmen do even without the gloves

 

[smash84]

And he's back at that again. Do you believe that Sanga would be rated any differently if he had never kept wicket and his average was indeed 65? Not to mention that he may also have averaged the same while adjusting to test cricket as most young batsmen do even without the gloves

if you want to be objective about it, then yes

 

[kyear2]

if you want to be objective about it, then yes

The point is that everyone on this site knows what his average is without the gloves and he still doesn't make any first or second teams. Even as it is his average is literally brilliant, but he still isn't or wouldn't be seen as the best after Bradman.

But we digress.

So who is next Sobers or Headley. Still have to go with Headley at this juncture.

 

[Furball]

Except that Sangakkara averaged 40.48 during his 48 Tests as the designated wicket-keeper, while Gilchrist averaged higher with 47.60.

In an imaginary 5 Test series against a similar ATG team it is interesting to speculate who would score the most runs for the series - Bradman or Lara? After all, both batsman had a big appetite for staying-in and scoring mega-tons. And batting along side Bradman I doubt very much that Lara would go 'missing in action' as he sometimes did.

The vast majority of those Tests were before Sangakkara hit his considerable peak as a batsman.

Being the wicketkeeper hasn't stopped him averaging 50 over the last 4 years in ODI cricket.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Except that Sangakkara averaged 40.48 during his 48 Tests as the designated wicket-keeper, while Gilchrist averaged higher with 47.60.

Given both players undoubted quality with the bat, and that you've got a cast of ATGs ahead of them in the batting order, you'd have to opt for the better keeper.

So.... Mike Garnham it is?