DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[Migara]

No cap for career points and that will bring Lara to 950 and SRT to 916

 

[kyear2]

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

I guarantee you he will not regardless of average. People will see him below even a Lara with an average of 52 and some probably still below G Pollock who only played 24 tests. I personally would still have him below Ponting as well. If average was everything Kallis would also be an automatic first team selection. Thankfully it's not.

 

[akilana]

Only WI players should be rated higher.

 

[Prince EWS]

Only WI players should be rated higher.

No you've got that wrong.

Players with similar statistical claims to ATG WI players should also be rated higher, for the sake of the argument. They shouldn't be rated higher than the WI players themselves though because West Indies never lost a series when Malcolm Marshall opened the bowling and the average global temperature has risen as the amount of sea-dwelling pirates has fallen.

 

[Migara]

I guarantee you he will not regardless of average. People will see him below even a Lara with an average of 52 and some probably still below G Pollock who only played 24 tests. I personally would still have him below Ponting as well. If average was everything Kallis would also be an automatic first team selection. Thankfully it's not.

Yeah, we know you have rose tinted views. But there are many who are reasonable.

 

[MW1304]

Yeah, we know you have rose tinted views. But there are many who are reasonable.

 

[Flem274*]

No you've got that wrong.

Players with similar statistical claims to ATG WI players should also be rated higher, for the sake of the argument. They shouldn't be rated higher than the WI players themselves though because West Indies never lost a series when Malcolm Marshall opened the bowling and the average global temperature has risen as the amount of sea-dwelling pirates has fallen.

You forgot that a higher strike rate renders all other factors irrelevant

 

[kyear2]

Only WI players should be rated higher.

Do you even come here to contribute and construct posts or just to make snarky responses to mine.

No you've got that wrong.

Players with similar statistical claims to ATG WI players should also be rated higher, for the sake of the argument. They shouldn't be rated higher than the WI players themselves though because West Indies never lost a series when Malcolm Marshall opened the bowling and the average global temperature has risen as the amount of sea-dwelling pirates has fallen.

Less said to that the better.

But I have posted many positive comments here for many non west indian players and critised many west indian players, but feel free to harp on about one post.

Yeah, we know you have rose tinted views. But there are many who are reasonable.

Really?

From you thats rich.

 

[honestbharani]

You forgot that a higher strike rate renders all other factors irrelevant

If you had posted this as a reply to BeeGee's post, it would have been gold..

 

[Riggins]

Especially if the game's at the SSC.

 

[Dan]

Let's leave the discussion there. Family forum etc.

 

[Days of Grace]

3. George Headley (West Indies) (1930-1954)

Career Length (Days): 8770
Percentage of team's matches played: 49%
Career Average: 60.83
Adjusted career average: 67.61 (rank 2nd)
Adjusted away average: 55.91 (rank 9th)
Adjusted top-opposition average: 67.85 (rank 2nd)
Top Tier centuries: 9 (rank 3rd=)
Second tier centuries: 1
Third tier centuries: 0
Significant innings: 7
Significant innings per match: 0.32

Great innings: 3
4th Test: West Indies v England at Kingston, Apr 3-12, 1930 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 14.87
3rd Test: Australia v West Indies at Brisbane, Jan 16-20, 1931 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 13.57
4th Test: West Indies v England at Kingston, Mar 14-18, 1935 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 17.28


Innings worth average: 4.66 (rank 2nd)


Quality Points: 767 (rank 2nd)
Career Points: 77
Peak Points: 91
TOTAL POINTS: 935


The wait is finally over. The wailing and gnashing of teeth and general bitching can come to a close. George Headley finally makes an appearance in this list at no.3. Why so high? Well, for one, he averaged over 60 with no consistent support and he never played against any minnows. His quality points, career average, and innings worth average are all second only to the Don. Having said all of that, I too believe that Headley is a bit too high in this list. As some posters have stated, it is a little weird having a batsman who averaged 67 over only 22 matches above a batsman who averaged 50+ having played more than 100 tests. I also think that some of the opposition that Headley played against should not be deemed top tier opposition and the second edition of this list will go some way towards rectifying that. My second edition will also involve a capping of quality points for batsmen who played less than 25 matches. If the maximum points allowed are 750 and 15 points are subtracted from this for every match less than 25, then Headley receives 705 quality points, which drops him to 12th in this list between Ponting and Chappell. This appears much more reasonable. Having said all that, Headley's outstanding record definitely deserves much respect and no one should begrudge him a place somewhere near the top of a list of the greatest test batsmen of all-time.

 

[Flem274*]

Top **** DoG. This list has definitely been food for thought.

 

[The Sean]

Fair play DoG, the ratings as they stand hold up and make sense and I've got no complaints about that. Love that you're always looking at ways to update your model too.

Phenomenal average and quality points - whatever exact position we might think Headley should be ranked, he was obviously an extraordinary player.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

a great write up as well. Another guy who drops into the list of how great he could have been if not for a war

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Love that 270 against England and then their whole team come out and only make 271. That would have been great to see that innings.

 

[The Sean]

I also think that some of the opposition that Headley played against should not be deemed top tier opposition and the second edition of this list will go some way towards rectifying that.

Out of interest DoG, what does this mean? If you don't think they were top tier opposition, how were they designated as such and what would change in the second edition?

 

[Prince EWS]

Out of interest DoG, what does this mean? If you don't think they were top tier opposition, how were they designated as such and what would change in the second edition?

It's something my ratings system has problems with too from those early years of Test cricket - teams on simultaneous tours or sending out near second XIs etc. The records of the teams overall in that period suggest that they were top quality but the lineups being sent out often weren't and it's hard to statistically differentiate, especially since the "Second XI" type players in question often ended up with good records owing to only playing weaker opposition.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah would've been nice to have my top 3 as the top 3, but oh well. What a talent Headley was. Definitely one of the most talented of all time, its unfortunate we don't live in a perfect world, where everyone gets the same opportunities etc.

 

[Days of Grace]

Out of interest DoG, what does this mean? If you don't think they were top tier opposition, how were they designated as such and what would change in the second edition?

Yeah, what PEWs said basically. I will fix that by taking into account who actually bowled in the matches played, rather than just taking the average of the entire team for a certain period of time.