DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[Logan]

Suttcliffe was ranked somewhere in 25 to 30.

I am talking about the top 100 list out of which they voted top 25. I think even likes of Mohd. Azharuddin were there in the top 100 shortlist.

Edit: Rank 1 to 50 in that exercise are mentioned here: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/16644-espn-s-legends-cricket.html

My Top 12 peeves in that list. The list happened in 2000.

1. Warne at number 4.

2. No Barrington

3. Lillee ahead of Marshall

4. Botham ahead of Hadlee

5. Walsh ahead of Holding, Garner and Roberts.

6. Barry Richards who played a total of 4 Tests ahead of Brian Lara

7. Greame Pollock who played a total of 22 Tests is ahead of Len Hutton

8. Mike Procter who played a total of 7 Tests is ahead of Allan Donald and Curtly Ambrose

9. George Headley who played a total of 22 Tests is ahead of Allan Border.

10. Bishan Singh Bedi being Top 50 is a joke

11. Viv Richards was great. But not Top 3.

12. The order of Garner-Roberts-Holding-Ambrose.

 

[Logan]

Doesn't Warne count as a bowler?

I meant fast bowler

 

[ankitj]

According to Wikipedia:
His batting improved with the quality of the opposition; he averaged 39.87 in the County Championship, 45.63 in first-class cricket, 58.67 in Test cricket and 63.96 against Australia.

I'm quite sure he didn't purposely raise his game depending on the competition, but his first-class record should be looked into. Someone who has access to the stats can do it. But does it really matter that much? Noone cares that much about the first-class stats of modern cricketers, for example.

Is it simply because he played first class cricket in formative years, and test in latter years? He became a regular member of the test team when he was 28+ in age.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My Top 12 peeves in that list. The list happened in 2000.

1. Warne at number 4.

2. No Barrington

3. Lillee ahead of Marshall

4. Botham ahead of Hadlee

5. Walsh ahead of Holding, Garner and Roberts.

6. Barry Richards who played a total of 4 Tests ahead of Brian Lara

7. Greame Pollock who played a total of 22 Tests is ahead of Len Hutton

8. Mike Procter who played a total of 7 Tests is ahead of Allan Donald and Curtly Ambrose

9. George Headley who played a total of 22 Tests is ahead of Allan Border.

10. Bishan Singh Bedi being Top 50 is a joke

11. Viv Richards was great. But not Top 3.

12. The order of Garner-Roberts-Holding-Ambrose.

Yeah Warne probably should have been 1 or 2 but ranking him 4 is at least reasonable, if slightly low

 

[mr_mister]

Is it simply because he played first class cricket in formative years, and test in latter years? He became a regular member of the test team when he was 28+ in age.

533 FC games so that's what at least 350 county games? I'm not sure how many tour games he'd play

But yeah youd think he played plenty after he turned 28 too unless he was literally a ~33 avg scrub like Labuschagne pre 25 so could never grind that FC average up to 50 no matter how much he improved. That would explain it actually. No way is Lab getting his FC average to 50

 

[ma1978]

Ken Barrington, who passed away unexpectedly and well before his time, was also known universally as an absolutely fantastic human being who was seen as a mentor for a whole generation of crickets. Its good to see someone with that reputation get some recognition. I suspect that had he lived for another 30 years, people would have a lot more to say about him today.

 

[Coronis]

And would we hold it against Labuschagne if he ended up averaging 55+ in tests and ~45 in first class?

 

[TheJediBrah]

And would we hold it against Labuschagne

If he keeps batting like he is I'll put it wherever he wants me to

 

[mr_mister]

And would we hold it against Labuschagne if he ended up averaging 55+ in tests and ~45 in first class?

Time will tell. If he plays 3 shield games a year from here on out itl be a non issue

 

[_00_deathscar]

So 4 out of top 7 are batsmen who played their entire careers in last 30 years. Over representation for this generation?

No. The game has gotten tougher, there are more ATGs on either side of the spectrum, and even the 'lesser' teams and/or minnows have players who are in contention for ATVG (or level below that) spots.

Playing v India in the early 1900s is very different to playing Bangladesh in 2010.

 

[morgieb]

True because I feel a giant chunk of Steve Smith's FC cricket these days are tests. How much shield cricket has he even played since turned unstoppable in 2014

Barrington played a **** ton of county so averaging 39 in it is just odd.

One thing I read about the Barrington gap is that The Oval tended to be a dog track during the 1950's with Lock, Laker and Bedser in their primes, so wasn't easy for batting.

 

[ankitj]

No. The game has gotten tougher, there are more ATGs on either side of the spectrum, and even the 'lesser' teams and/or minnows have players who are in contention for ATVG (or level below that) spots.

Playing v India in the early 1900s is very different to playing Bangladesh in 2010.

Sure. But in a purely statistical exercise, batting and bowling cannot together appear to have strengthened (or weekend) in an era. Qualitative improvement in both disciplines will cancel each other out in statistics. More cricket being played by a larger pool of cricketers might be the explanation.

 

[ankitj]

533 FC games so that's what at least 350 county games? I'm not sure how many tour games he'd play

But yeah youd think he played plenty after he turned 28 too unless he was literally a ~33 avg scrub like Labuschagne pre 25 so could never grind that FC average up to 50 no matter how much he improved. That would explain it actually. No way is Lab getting his FC average to 50

Which shows how much career averages are impacted by when a player played cricket and when they didn't. This is why longevity points matter -- they compensate for negative impact of long careers on career averages. Although that may only work on average, but not in each and every case.

 

[Migara]

According to Wikipedia:
His batting improved with the quality of the opposition; he averaged 39.87 in the County Championship, 45.63 in first-class cricket, 58.67 in Test cricket and 63.96 against Australia.

I'm quite sure he didn't purposely raise his game depending on the competition, but his first-class record should be looked into. Someone who has access to the stats can do it. But does it really matter that much? Noone cares that much about the first-class stats of modern cricketers, for example.

You will find that Sangakkara also has the same trend. Mediocre in school cricket, average in U19, 44ish in FCC and 57 in tests.

 

[ankitj]

BTW Barrington has the highest quality points of all batsmen so far (825). No reason for not rating him really.

 

[Malcolm]

My prediction

7. Sangakkara
6. Smith
5. Lara
4. Tendulkar
3. Hobbs
2. Sobers
1. Bradman

 

[ankitj]

Lara is going to come in next. Wanna bet?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Lara is going to come in next. Wanna bet?

Lara's RPI is very high. He'll be top 5 imo.

 

[vcs]

According to Wikipedia:
His batting improved with the quality of the opposition; he averaged 39.87 in the County Championship, 45.63 in first-class cricket, 58.67 in Test cricket and 63.96 against Australia.

I'm quite sure he didn't purposely raise his game depending on the competition, but his first-class record should be looked into. Someone who has access to the stats can do it. But does it really matter that much? Noone cares that much about the first-class stats of modern cricketers, for example.

That statement sounds weird and redundant. Don't the County cricket and Test cricket averages get combined to obtain the FC cricket average?

 

[OverratedSanity]

That statement sounds weird and redundant. Don't the County cricket and Test cricket averages get combined to obtain the FC cricket average?

First class would include away tour games as well