A method to determine the world's best batsman across all formats

[kiwiviktor81]

This is my methodology: take the official batting rankings, and assign one penalty point per ranking place. So that first place is one penalty point, tenth place is ten, etc.

Tests have a weighting of 3, ODIs 2, and T20s 1. If a player is not ranked in the top 20 they score a maximum of 20 penalty points (subject to weighting). Thus the minimum possible is 6 and the maximum possible 120.

Some players

Steve Smith (3 Test, 30 ODI, 20 T20) = 53
Joe Root (6 Test, 34 ODI, 20 T20) = 60
Kane Williamson (6 Test, 8 ODI, 6 T20) = 20
Virat Kohli (42 Test, 4 ODI, 2 T20) = 48
Martin Guptill (60 Test, 18 ODI, 5 T20) = 83
AB de Villiers (21 Test, 2 ODI, 20 T20) = 43
Hashim Amla (12 Test, 6 ODI, 20 T20) = 38
David Warner (15 Test, 36 ODI, 12 T20) = 63

 

[Athlai]

Ugh.

 

[Zinzan]

This is my methodology: take the official batting rankings, and assign one penalty point per ranking place. So that first place is one penalty point, tenth place is ten, etc.

Tests have a weighting of 3, ODIs 2, and T20s 1. If a player is not ranked in the top 20 they score a maximum of 20 penalty points (subject to weighting). Thus the minimum possible is 6 and the maximum possible 120.

Some players

Steve Smith (3 Test, 30 ODI, 20 T20) = 53
Joe Root (6 Test, 34 ODI, 20 T20) = 60
Kane Williamson (6 Test, 8 ODI, 6 T20) = 20
Virat Kohli (42 Test, 4 ODI, 2 T20) = 48
Martin Guptill (60 Test, 18 ODI, 5 T20) = 83
AB de Villiers (21 Test, 2 ODI, 20 T20) = 43
Hashim Amla (12 Test, 6 ODI, 20 T20) = 38
David Warner (15 Test, 36 ODI, 12 T20) = 63

Lol, how did I know whatever methodology you'd come up with would see KW come out as the best?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Lol, how did I know whatever methodology you'd come up with would see KW come out as the best?

Haha, but tbf he's the only batsman ranked highly in all formats. Smith and Root are nowhere in the shorter formats, Kohli and Guptill haven't been near as good in Tests as in limited overs. Amla is Clarkesque in T20.

ABdV probably best placed to challenge him using this methodology, as you'd think him not being in the top 20 T20 bats must be an aberration. Warner's probably going to be much higher than 18th in ODIs at some point too.

 

[Zinzan]

Haha, but tbf he's the only batsman ranked highly in all formats. Smith and Root are nowhere in the shorter formats, Kohli and Guptill haven't been near as good in Tests as in limited overs. Amla is Clarkesque in T20.

ABdV probably best placed to challenge him using this methodology, as you'd think him not being in the top 20 T20 bats must be an aberration. Warner's probably going to be much higher than 18th in ODIs at some point too.

Yeah I wasn't very clear, I was questioning whether you would have started the thread period had KW not happened to be right up there. I might be unfair saying it, but it just smacks of yet another 'hey look at little old NZ now we have some decent players' type thread.

 

[MrPrez]

I'd argue that T20i ranking is a pretty crappy way of judging a batsman given that lots of batsmen get rested for the T20s.

 

[MrPrez]

Also if you actually want to see who the best batsman is across all formats, there's no reason to wait Test cricket more than other formats.

 

[Zinzan]

Also if you actually want to see who the best batsman is across all formats, there's no reason to wait Test cricket more than other formats.

You mean 'weight' of course, and on this forum you do as the general consensus here is Test cricket is quite a bit more prestigious than other forms. Although on subcontinent cricket forums you'll often find the shorter forms are valued quite a bit higher. .

 

[MrPrez]

You mean 'weight' of course, and on this forum you do as the general consensus here is Test cricket is quite a bit more prestigious than other forms. Although on subcontinent cricket forums you'll often find the shorter forms are valued quite a bit higher. .

Yeah sorry, my mistake.

I also value Test cricket above the other forms, but the notion of determining the worlds best batsman across all formats implies that you're ignoring the stigmas around the different formats and looking at matters objectively.

 

[Zinzan]

I also value Test cricket above the other forms, but the notion of determining the worlds best batsman across all formats implies that you're ignoring the stigmas around the different formats and looking at matters objectively.

See I don't think it does necessarily imply that.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Yeah I wasn't very clear, I was questioning whether you would have started the thread period had KW not happened to be right up there.

That's fairly paranoid dude. By any weighting or methodology KW is going to be at or near the top. In fact it would probably be more threadworthy if you could think of a methodology that had KW not right up there, but I'm not sure how (perhaps 50% weighting to ODI 50 to 100 conversion rates?)

I agree with MrPrez that if the top batsmen are often rested for T20s it makes having a T20 component not useful. Maybe that's why ABdV is not in the top 20.

 

[Zinzan]

That's fairly paranoid dude. By any weighting or methodology KW is going to be at or near the top. In fact it would probably be more threadworthy if you could think of a methodology that had KW not right up there, but I'm not sure how (perhaps 50% weighting to ODI 50 to 100 conversion rates?)

No you misunderstand, I was implying the realisation that KW according to the current rankings would probably have the lowest (best) combined rankings may have prompted you to start the thread, but I could of course be wrong. Only we've seen a lot of that in recent times.

 

[MrPrez]

See I don't think it does necessarily imply that.

Let's say I'm an Indian IPL fan, who thinks the game's future lies in T20 cricket. I may say that T20 cricket is more relevant than ODI cricket at this point in time. Am I inherently wrong, or am I entitled to my opinion?

If you believe the latter, then the methodology in this post is flawed, or at the very least biased towards Test cricket fans.

 

[Zinzan]

Let's say I'm an Indian IPL fan, who thinks the game's future lies in T20 cricket. I may say that T20 cricket is more relevant than ODI cricket at this point in time. Am I inherently wrong, or am I entitled to my opinion?

If you believe the latter, then the methodology in this post is flawed, or at the very least biased towards Test cricket fans.

Absolutely, it comes down to the interpretation of the individual, that was kind of my point. My 'default' position is to weight in favour of tests. Technically speaking you're correct however.

 

[Gob]

Best bat in tests is the best bat in the world imo

Although i dont have an issue in combining t20s and ODIs to determine the best LO bat cos those two formats have much more in common

 

[Attitude]

I don't see why we need to bring T20 into serious cricket discussions. T20 is not cricket. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but thats how I feel. T20 being played at Int'l level is an even bigger joke.

Cricket remains Tests and ODIs. There is nothing in T20 that resembles anything that cricket should be about. Batsmen are free to come in and swing wildly, its perfectly okay to not put any price on your wicket whatsoever.

One bloke swinging his bat around, gets out to be replaced by another bloke swinging around.

T20 has done some good to cricket, especially in regard to fielding, and some extra-ordinary shots are played every now and then by the batsmen, but thats about all.

Domestic T20 leagues, I get them - they are a good source of money for the boards and above all the players. For once payment is not restricted to the 0.01% in cricket, and even an average player can earn a good living playing these T20 leagues. So yeah thats good, I will always support cricketers earning well.

However as a cricket goes, T20s are a joke.

 

[Flem274*]

Best bat in tests is the best bat in the world imo

Although i dont have an issue in combining t20s and ODIs to determine the best LO bat cos those two formats have much more in common

but then you get players who are good at T20 and tests but not ODIs. Mahela comes to mind but i swear there's a more obvious one.

 

[MrPrez]

but then you get players who are good at T20 and tests but not ODIs. Mahela comes to mind but i swear there's a more obvious one.

Virender Sehwag?

 

[Daemon]

I don't see why we need to bring T20 into serious cricket discussions. T20 is not cricket. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but thats how I feel. T20 being played at Int'l level is an even bigger joke.

Cricket remains Tests and ODIs. There is nothing in T20 that resembles anything that cricket should be about. Batsmen are free to come in and swing wildly, its perfectly okay to not put any price on your wicket whatsoever.

One bloke swinging his bat around, gets out to be replaced by another bloke swinging around.

T20 has done some good to cricket, especially in regard to fielding, and some extra-ordinary shots are played every now and then by the batsmen, but thats about all.

Domestic T20 leagues, I get them - they are a good source of money for the boards and above all the players. For once payment is not restricted to the 0.01% in cricket, and even an average player can earn a good living playing these T20 leagues. So yeah thats good, I will always support cricketers earning well.

However as a cricket goes, T20s are a joke.

Your attitude stinks

 

[91Jmay]

Virender Sehwag?

Sehwag is an ATG ODI player.