DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[fredfertang]

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?

Tonker Taylor, surely?

 

[morgieb]

Interesting Hobbs only had one great innings during his career.

 

[Flem274*]

Reckon we're going to get

3. Sobers
2. Headley
1. Dempster

Sachin and Viv have already been named so I doubt Bradman is in this list.

 

[Jarquis]

Where's SJS, would imagine his thoughts on this exercise would make for interesting reading.

 

[Flem274*]

He would certainly contribute plenty of fancy font and colour changes in his essays.

 

[Coronis]

I'm very interested to see the gaps between who is left.

Also, DoG's second XI?

Sutcliffe
Gavaskar
Hammond
Tendulkar
Richards
Kallis

Then what, Flower or Gilly as wicketkeeper. If we're taking Sanga in the first XI.

 

[watson]

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

Well that's a convenient either/or, black/white assessment, but as we all know counterfactual thinking is rarely that straightforward.

It is possible that Sangakkara would have averaged 65 during his first 48 Tests, but of course we cannot know that with any certainty. All that we know with certainty is that when wicket-keeping during the former part of his career he averaged 41, and when not wicketing during the latter part if his career he averaged 65. But to 're-wind the tape' back to his very first Test match and assume that Sangakkara would be averaging 65 by 2013 if he never kept wicket cannot be done with any reasonable certainty. It is not something that we can ever know.

However, what we can know is that Gilchrist is probably the superior keeper (the key point), and that he is an excellent batsman befitting the No.7 spot in an ATG team.

 

[smash84]

Well that's a convenient either/or, black/white assessment, but as we all know counterfactual thinking is rarely that straightforward.

It is possible that Sangakkara would have averaged 65 during his first 48 Tests, but of course we cannot know that with any certainty. All that we know with certainty is that when wicket-keeping during the former part of his career he averaged 41, and when not wicketing during the latter part if his career he averaged 65. But to 're-wind the tape' back to his very first Test match and assume that Sangakkara would be averaging 65 by 2013 if he never kept wicket cannot be done with any reasonable certainty. It is not something that we can ever know.

However, what we can know is that Gilchrist is probably the superior keeper (the key point), and that he is an excellent batsman befitting the No.7 spot in an ATG team.

But you see there is a problem then. If you point out his batting as wk for having a lower average (40.48) then why is his specialist batting not called out for its avg of 66? Which is the point that Migara makes, and a valid one at that.

 

[watson]

But you see there is a problem then. If you point out his batting as wk for having a lower average (40.48) then why is his specialist batting not called out for its avg of 66? Which is the point that Migara makes, and a valid one at that.

I thought I'd explained that. But anyway, the fact remains - as keeper Sangakkara averaged 41, but Gilchrist averaged 47. So which ever way you cut it, Gilchrist is the better wicketkeeper-batsman.

But OK, assuming that Sangakkara would have averaged 65 from Test No.1 to the present - where are you going to place him on DoGs ladder? Ahead of Sobers perhaps?

 

[smash84]

I will wait for the end of his career to give Sanga his final place in the pantheon of batting greats. As things stand currently I think I really don't see anybody from Asia (other than SRT) who I would clearly rank above Sangakkara. If I have to be objective I will also say that of all the top 1,2 tier batsmen, batsmen from SL would be farthest from the top of my mind so Sangers definitely suffers from that in a lot of people's minds. Sanga will suffer because he is not from the top test playing nations. As GF once said, quite succinctly, "Murali would be rated the greatest bowler if anybody gave a **** about SL vs Bangladesh". Substitute Bangladesh with any team and the point stands.

BTW I don't rely only on stats only, for me intangibles matter as well which is why I prefer to have watched the players in question (unless they have had a huge reputation in the past and a lot is available on them). As I mentioned earlier that of all the batsmen that i have seen Viv is the best. And in my list he would rank below Bradman.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I don't rely only on stats only, for me intangibles matter as well which is why I prefer to have watched the players in question (unless they have had a huge reputation in the past and a lot is available on them). As I mentioned earlier that of all the batsmen that i have seen Viv is the best. And in my list he would rank below Bradman.

Must be some intangibles! Also though if you're going to say a ranking based on what you've seen then unless you saw Bradman bat I don't think you should rate anyone against him or anyone else by that measure.

 

[Coronis]

Must be some intangibles! Also though if you're going to say a ranking based on what you've seen then unless you saw Bradman bat I don't think you should rate anyone against him or anyone else by that measure.

He said he prefers to have seen them. Obviously its not possible to have seen every test player play. But not ranking Bradman the number 1 batsman is just wrong.

 

[smash84]

Must be some intangibles! Also though if you're going to say a ranking based on what you've seen then unless you saw Bradman bat I don't think you should rate anyone against him or anyone else by that measure.

Clearly you didn't bother reading my post properly. I say in parenthesis "unless they have had a huge reputation in the past". Bradman and Sobers certainly fit that description.

 

[smash84]

He said he prefers to have seen them. Obviously its not possible to have seen every test player play. But not ranking Bradman the number 1 batsman is just wrong.

Thank you

 

[The Battlers Prince]

He said he prefers to have seen them. Obviously its not possible to have seen every test player play. But not ranking Bradman the number 1 batsman is just wrong.

Of course anyone would rather see everyone bat. But basing one guy off his stats and a few articles and another off of what you've seen isn't right.

 

[smash84]

Of course anyone would rather see everyone bat. But basing one guy off his stats and a few articles and another off of what you've seen isn't right.

 

[watson]

Of course anyone would rather see everyone bat. But basing one guy off his stats and a few articles and another off of what you've seen isn't right.

BTW I don't rely only on stats only, for me intangibles matter as well which is why I prefer to have watched the players in question (unless they have had a huge reputation in the past and a lot is available on them). As I mentioned earlier that of all the batsmen that i have seen Viv is the best. And in my list he would rank below Bradman.

There is no either/or here. The algorithm is:- 'REPUTATION' (eye witness accounts) + 'A LOT AVAILABLE' (statistical accounts) then +/- WATCHED THE PLAYERS (video evidence).

This is how all of us go about assessing cricketers. The reason that video evidence is nice is that it adds extra weight to the eyewitness and statistical accounts and confirms what we already know after reading books and articles. It is the reason that we would love to see film of players like SF Barnes bowling.

 

[Migara]

Out of the 100 how may have got any of the scores capped? IS it only SRT and BCL? If that is the case, I suggest to uncap the parameters.

 

[Migara]

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?

Healy or PJ then if last 30 years considered.

 

[Migara]

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.

IF he averages even 60 with the bat when he retires, he will be sure pick for ATG XI, just based on his average.