DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[bagapath]

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



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. .

Don't know who DoG is talking about here!!

We mere mortals can't even imagine how difficult - and ultimately how fulfilling -it must be for one world class batsman to represent a team of not so professional cricketers (with due apologies to Constantine), take on stronger opposition and play like no one before him, and very few after him, have managed to do for his country. Headley and Andy Flower are extra special cricketers for this reason.

What a beautiful feeling it must have been to give hope to - and spread joy among - marginalised people through a very special talent only you possess. Great batsman. Hero. Legend.

Respects to Headley - the one and only.

 

[morgieb]

That is some serious numbers for quality points.

 

[uvelocity]

typical pews always harping on about his ratings system :rolleyes:

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Think you still might encounter some issues with it as some of those players only played a few Tests, all against weak opposition and had good averages anyway. Let me know how it goes anyway. I ended up in a bit of an infinite loop when I wanted to tackle this as I wanted to standardise the bowling averages as per the standardised batting averages of the opposition batsmen but I also wanted to standardise the batting averages as per the standardised bowling averages of the opposition bowlers. You can't do both simultaneously; you need final figures for one lot of them to start the process so I just abandoned it.

 

[hendrix]

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

just look at this stylish mofo wearing Yohji before Yohji's time.

Should be number one.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Without doubt an ATG batsman and for me definitely a top 10 batsman and top 6 middle order batsman. No other batsman in this list faced the challenges and pressures that he faced as a defacto opener for the weakest team of his era with virtually no support. He was magnificent in a crisis and supposed better than Bradman on sticky wickets and generally more attractive to watch. He payed his 2nd overseas tour in Australia and after being observed and scouted in the tour matches, Grimmett and Ironmonger targeted his leg stump and they asserted that there was his Achilles Heel and they initially successfully exploited that weakness. Headley went into the nets and worked on his legside play up to the point where he ended the series with 2 hundreds and with Grimmett proclaiming him as the best legside player that he had seen. That was the greatness of the man who once batted his team to safety in a timeless test to score 223 hold England at bay until they had to catch the boat home while scoring at strike rate of 57 and scoring more than half of the runs scored by the team. Definitely one of the big four of West Indies batting and one who o this day remains an icon of the Caribbean who was known as the Black Bradman and possibly more suitably Atlas.

Great work DoG.

 

[Days of Grace]

Also worth noting that Headley averaged an adjusted 74.46 before the war so even if you take away his career points after the war, he more than makes up for it with his average.


Can some of you please post where you think Headley should be rated? No.3, bottom of the top 10, 10-20, etc.

 

[Days of Grace]

Think you still might encounter some issues with it as some of those players only played a few Tests, all against weak opposition and had good averages anyway. Let me know how it goes anyway. I ended up in a bit of an infinite loop when I wanted to tackle this as I wanted to standardise the bowling averages as per the standardised batting averages of the opposition batsmen but I also wanted to standardise the batting averages as per the standardised bowling averages of the opposition bowlers. You can't do both simultaneously; you need final figures for one lot of them to start the process so I just abandoned it.

I've already started it. Headley's average has dropped to 65 and his top tier centuries have been reduced to 7. This is much more reasonable, IMO.

I use the non-adjusted averages for bowlers. If a bowler played less than 10 matches than the lowest he can average is 32.50 (which is near enough the RPW average for all test cricket history). On the other end of the spectrum, the highest a bowler can average is 65. The team's bowling average is simply a result of multiplying the bowlers' career averages by the % of overs they bowled in the innings. This team bowling average is then added to the overall bowling average over a 5 year period and averaged out. I'll stop now in case I'm providing a new cure for insomnia!

P.S. I might appreciate some help in recording the team bowling averages. It is a simple task but it takes a lot of man hours. I would love it if some folk volunteered to help me with it.


I've attached the document to this post if anyone is interested in taking a look.

 

[The Sean]

Also worth noting that Headley averaged an adjusted 74.46 before the war so even if you take away his career points after the war, he more than makes up for it with his average.

Can some of you please post where you think Headley should be rated? No.3, bottom of the top 10, 10-20, etc.

Personally, my most recent rankings exercise placed Headley just outside the top 10 at either number 12 or 13 (depending on Test-specific criteria and thus whether or not I counted WG). There is, however, a compelling case that I may have been underrating him slightly and that he is deserving of being ranked a little higher.

 

[The Sean]

I've already started it. Headley's average has dropped to 65 and his top tier centuries have been reduced to 7. This is much more reasonable, IMO.

I use the non-adjusted averages for bowlers. If a bowler played less than 10 matches than the lowest he can average is 32.50 (which is near enough the RPW average for all test cricket history). On the other end of the spectrum, the highest a bowler can average is 65. The team's bowling average is simply a result of multiplying the bowlers' career averages by the % of overs they bowled in the innings. This team bowling average is then added to the overall bowling average over a 5 year period and averaged out. I'll stop now in case I'm providing a new cure for insomnia!

P.S. I might appreciate some help in recording the team bowling averages. It is a simple task but it takes a lot of man hours. I would love it if some folk volunteered to help me with it.

I've attached the document to this post if anyone is interested in taking a look.

Would be happy to help you out with that if I can mate.

 

[Days of Grace]

I reckon no.12 behind Chappell and ahead of Sutcliffe is perfect.

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Lara
Richards
Hutton
Hammond
Tendulkar
Ponting
Kallis
Chappell
Headley

would be my perfect top 12.

 

[kyear2]

But then aren't you designing the system to give you a pre conceived result?

Regarding where Headley is generally ranked, the cricinfo exercise had him barely missing the first team by one vote to IVA. The actual order that they had the middle order ranked was Bradman, Sobers, Sachin, Richards, Headley, Lara, Hammond, Pollock and Chappell. Basically what I am saying is that even though three may have been seen to be a tad high, he is in that ball park for most and similarily nothing wrong or historically misleading or disingenuous with him holding a place in the top ten. The man was seriously good and a similar issue may arise with the man similarly perceived as the 3rd best spinner who payed only 27 tests. Would we have a similar issue if O'Reilly is ranked in the top 10?

That being said, it is your ratings and you certainly deserve and have earned the right to have them in what ever order you desire. Seriously, massive respect for the effort you have obviously invested in this exercise. Great work sir.

As to your question as to where he should be ranked, for me about #8 is where I normally rate him. Anywhere between there and 10 would be fair though.

 

[kyear2]

I reckon no.12 behind Chappell and ahead of Sutcliffe is perfect.

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Lara
Richards
Hutton
Hammond
Tendulkar
Ponting
Kallis
Chappell
Headley

would be my perfect top 12.

Good list though, generally not a fan of Kallis ahead of Chappell, Headley or Pollock but in the grand scheme of things, small issue.

Also looking at Headley's strike rate. In one Aussie test scored 105 in 145 mins and the one hundred when the deliveries were counted he scored at a rate of 57. Really hope his scoring rate really wasn't as low as your estimate listed in a previous post. Would be somewhat understandable considering the situations he was sometimes in, but was always under the impression he was a more attacking player.

 

[Migara]

Lara may have been 'at sea against Vaas' but the records will show that Vaas dismissed him only once during the 372 balls that he bowled to him. In turn Lara piled on 233 runs at a SR of 62.6.

And incidentally;

Completely irrelevant data that you have given. Lara did master Murali, it;s fact and we both agree. But the series in SL Vaas was the man, easily out bowling Murali. The particular series was the one Vaas let his reverse swing go wild. Saying Lara was not having difficulties against him by just stating the number of dismissals is a very crude way to judge it unless you've seen the series. The problem was Vaas was not getting lbw's from the umpires for his inswingers. The number of times Lara was hit on pads was just mind numbing, beaten by the reverse swing. And incidentally it was other bowlers line Nuwan Zoysa, Sajeewa Silva etc kept dismissing Lara for low or high scores most of the time. But it was Vaas who gave Lara most trouble during his career when he played against SL. (And If I ma not mistaken Vaas did not play two series where Lara was involved against SL as well

 

[BeeGee]

Can some of you please post where you think Headley should be rated? No.3, bottom of the top 10, 10-20, etc.

Just outside the top ten, 11-12ish, imo. Top class player.

 

[BeeGee]

DoG, you should modify your rating system for T20 to make it commercially viable. It could be the cricket equivalent of Bill James' Sabermetrics. Then sell it to the various professional cricket franchises as an empirical analysis tool for domestic players.

 

[marc71178]

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?

I suspect it's because although the team he played against was called for instance England, in a lot of cases it was relatively speaking a weaker England team than the team that was selected in Ireland yesterday was relative to a full strength team.

Probably what I'd call the only real flaw in the ranking system, not taking into account the actual ability of bowlers faced. One reason I always like the ICC ratings (where incidentally Headley rates as 21st

 

[Burgey]

Also worth noting that Headley averaged an adjusted 74.46 before the war so even if you take away his career points after the war, he more than makes up for it with his average.


Can some of you please post where you think Headley should be rated? No.3, bottom of the top 10, 10-20, etc.

Definitely below Samaraweera, Dilshan and Jayawardene.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

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.

Few drinks, didn't read thoroughly enough and thought that you meant you were putting him above Bradman clearly. It's all good

 

[Garson007]

I think it's difficult to compare cricketers of the era. Bradman and Headley was just head and shoulders better than anyone else. That doesn't make for a great comparison with professional cricket as it is today. They're ATG talented players that played in an era where not all the potentially talented players did play.