DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[honestbharani]

This does not mean what you think it means.

Someone having a different opinion to you is not evidence of bias ffs. It's literally only evidence of that person having a different opinion.

Recency bias is still a bias. And Logan has a very specific Sachin sized bias which can cause him to under-rate achievements of others' at the same level.

 

[honestbharani]

Two things.

1. When Perera is in that mood, bowlers don't matter. Philander was lucky not to get annihilated. If we get another half good innings as such would take with both hands, but even that may hot happen.
2. MacGill is trash against good players of spin. Maharaj >>> MacGill against better players of spin.

Yet MacGill and Warne blanked SL in SL. There is no honest way you can argue Maharaj at this stage of his career being better than MacGill in 1999. And Perera mood argument is silly unless he shows he can do it more often. I mean, no one can bowl at Afridi when he was in the mood either.

 

[_00_deathscar]

You and I have very different definitions of prodigy then. Kaif was always considered someone who can play international cricket and so was Kohli. But that alone does not make them prodigies to me. Sachin was expected to dominate even when he debuted in 16. Closest I can think of since, was when DK made those twin 100s in Ranji in the semis and finals and looked every bit an international quality batsman as well as keeper. I don't think either Kaif or Kohli were expected to dominate the way a Sachin or Yuvraj or even Laxman were expected to, when they debuted. Prithivi Shaw is the more recent example.

IMO Kohli was considered a prodigy, certainly for the shorter forms of the game. But there were question marks, or certainly doubts, about how he would do in tests (as late as England 2014 series) - which actually played out just that way in the sense that he had spurts or great occasional innings, but took a long time to get a 40/45+ average, never mind 50+z

 

[Dan]

If you're getting fast-tracked into international cricket - as Kaif and Kohli were - you're hardly proving the doubters wrong when you succeed.

 

[_00_deathscar]

If you're getting fast-tracked into international cricket - as Kaif and Kohli were - you're hardly proving the doubters wrong when you succeed.

Not exactly (tests only). Kohli was probably expected to be, at best, Laxman level (or thereabouts - say where Pujara is right now, albeit maybe Pujara is a bit better than Lamax. I’d say that’s a best case scenario in terms of realistic expectations of Kohli - he was given chances, sure, but I don't think anyone expected him to become an ATG). I don't think Kohli was expected to really get to where he currently is in, certainly not in tests. I think he was always destined to be a T20/ODI great.

That he’s more likely to reach Sachin and Gavaskar heights in tests proves that he’s exceeded expectations there.

Sachin was expected, from a young age, to be where he ended up.

 

[stephen]

I'd like to address one point that has been bothering the hell out of me for a while now. It's the myth that Ponting was bad vs spin.

He played 9 tests in Sri Lanka and averaged 48 there. He averaged over 50 against Sri Lanka and scored a butt ton of runs everywhere in Asia except India. Sri Lanka had better spinners and prepared turning decks whenever Australia toured and Ponting had little trouble against them.

Even in India it was mostly just Harbhajan that troubled him. At other times against India it was Ishant who troubled him (in fact he occasionally had issues against young, new tearaway quicks).

And even then Ponting conquered India in his final series there, scoring that massive ton (a double if memory serves).

Ponting was not weak against high quality spin, but he did have issues against a couple of specific bowlers who happened to be Indian.

 

[ImpatientLime]

i saw ashley giles dismiss him once

check mate

 

[Migara]

Yet MacGill and Warne blanked SL in SL. There is no honest way you can argue Maharaj at this stage of his career being better than MacGill in 1999. And Perera mood argument is silly unless he shows he can do it more often. I mean, no one can bowl at Afridi when he was in the mood either.

MacGill was taken to cleaners whether it was in SL or in Australia. Maharaj did much better than MacGill against us. MacGill vs SL averages 55.8, in SL averages 46.4. In contrast, Maharaj averages 27.5 vs us and 24.4 in SL. Not even a contest.

Perera argument is THE argument as it is, when he is in zone, bowlers don't matter. Issue is he gets in to that zone once in hundred innings.

 

[ma1978]

First of all, thank you DoG for the fantastic thread. It's a very compelling piece of analysis.

The thing I am struggling with here (And in much of the assessment) is peak vs career value.

Take Smith who is likely to be top five in this analysis. Assume from tomorrow on, he played another seven years of above average but not great cricket (say a 45 average). In this anakysis, this would take away from his ranking / greatness, which makes no sense as in addition to his ATG period, he still added seven years of above average value.

Similarly, I'm sure if Tendulkar retired in 2001, his rating would be higher despite providing at least ten more years of considerable value, one year where he was probably average and one below average year.

Baseball analysis does this well with the WAR and WAA metric (wins above replacement and wins above average), where one's performance is assessed against a "replacement player" and an "average player". It's considered the appropriate metric for year on year and career value. Would be interesting to translate this to cricket.

That said, I also get the purpose of this exercise is also to give value to the Headleys and Pollocks who had shorter careers.

 

[ma1978]

People give way too much weight to small sample sizes on this board.

Ponting was a fantastic player of spin. He had a couple bad series in India, and then a decent one. Even taking all three together it's too small a sample size to make any judgment without looking at his career as a whole in context.

That's also why this average against ATG analysis is generally bollocks.

 

[Coronis]

I agree with everything you said except Steve Waugh being mentally far tougher
1. His 4 th innings average being 25 . Graeme Smith is the most mentally tough player since 90s imo.
2. He got so annoyed when Ganguly came late for toss in 2001 . How can you can be annoyed by such a trivial thing
@ Pardus

Did you really just compare an opener and someone who batted at 5/6 his whole career based on 4th innings average?

i saw ashley giles dismiss him once

check mate

Bradman dismissed Wally Hammond once. What of it?

 

[stephen]

Did you really just compare an opener and someone who batted at 5/6 his whole career based on 4th innings average?



Bradman dismissed Wally Hammond once. What of it?

Hey Sunilz will do whatever mental gymnastics is necessary to discredit an Australian player.

 

[stephen]

Actually I was wrong about Ponting scoring a double in India. He did that in Australia, but he still scored a ton and averaged 38 and 56 in his final two series there with 5 50+ scores in 6 tests.

 

[Flem274*]

ponting has left the greatest lasting impression on me from childhood. the second ever test series i watched involved the hyped indian batsmen flailing about on our decks after a sulk at the airport and then ganguly had a sulk about the pitches. i remember thinking mark richardson and rahul dravid were two of the best batsmen in the world haha. after rewatching that series as an adult i can assure you all ganguly is indeed a total spud as is sehwag when it moves around. the balls they got were hardly the pitch being way too mean. too much is made of the holy crater of hamilton. no worse than some south african or plunket shield decks. grow a ****ing pair you cowards.

brian lara also seemed to disappear whenever i watched him bat.

ponting kept ****ing scoring runs whenever i watched tv. just seemed like a god. it wasn't until i hit my mid teens that i realised sachin and lara were on his level.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

That NZ series owned, getting to 20 was a monumental achievement.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Remembering Ganguly having a cry about pitches then proceeding to nick an outswinger 5m outside off.

 

[Flem274*]

it certainly was if you were a bit **** defensively (most of our lot) or got scared if it bounced above hip height (india).

how ****ing good was dravid though? deadset the guy i'd choose to bat at #3 for my life on a green deck. i love that series for showing the value of him and richardson. i think sachin and fleming made useful contributions as well, and our spuds held it together better than their spuds. i suppose the indians weren't helped by sharing a dressing room with ganguly, the biggest whiner i've ever seen captain a cricket side. imagine him captaining jofra archer? there would be a walk off after 2 overs without a pole.

 

[srbhkshk]

Ganguly has a pretty solid record in England though.

 

[stephen]

Ganguly was one of those players who was absolutely test class and one of his side's best batsmen but simply wasn't an ATG. Just like M Waugh really.

 

[Flem274*]

england isn't nz, as both sides demonstrate on the regular when they tour each other