DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[mr_mister]

I just noticed recently that Lara's 6 Not outs is insanely low for an ATG middle order bat who played over 100 tests

Viv got 12, Sanga 17 and then it shoots up with other ATGs

I think that would mean a crazy high RPI which would mean Lara's could finish top 3

 

[sunilz]

But not always with their first choice attack. Examples: 98 series in india and the 04 series down under. His record vs an atg Oz attack with at least Warne and especially Mcgrath present is okay. Also, his record when RSA had an atg attack was mediocre. Did very well vs Steyn/Morkel which was a very good attack, so there's that.

But Steve Waugh who was better than Sachin against SA in 90s has ranking even lower than Sachin against quality opposition ( around 80 )

 

[OverratedSanity]

But not always with their first choice attack. Examples: 98 series in india and the 04 series down under. His record vs an atg Oz attack with at least Warne and especially Mcgrath present is okay. Also, his record when RSA had an atg attack was mediocre. Did very well vs Steyn/Morkel which was a very good attack, so there's that.

The formula doesnt work that way. Doesnt matter who is actually in the attack. Its a team rating based on cumulative results.

 

[Slifer]

Viv is the highest on quality for 100+ test players so far I think

Which imo makes sense because Viv has at least one series where he did well (ie averaged 50 +) vs the atg bowlers of his time.

 

[mr_mister]

The formula doesnt work that way. Doesnt matter who is actually in the attack. Its a team rating based on cumulative results.

Explains Barrington quality points doesn't it

 

[OverratedSanity]

I just noticed recently that Lara's 6 Not outs is insanely low for an ATG middle order bat who played over 100 tests

Viv got 12, Sanga 17 and then it shoots up with other ATGs

I think that would mean a crazy high RPI which would mean Lara's could finish top 3

Yup, he averaged ~51 without not outs. He'll definitely be top 5, reckon Sobers and Smith will sneak in ahead of him

 

[Prince EWS]

The formula doesnt work that way. Doesnt matter who is actually in the attack. Its a team rating based on cumulative results.

I actually don't think this is true. It's true for my standardised averages system but I remember when I offered to look into automating DoG's for him, the fact that he looked at attacks as BowlerA+BowlerB+BowlerC+BowlerD rather than TeamX was a major stumbling block that I didn't want to deal with from a programming perspective.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I actually don't think this is true. It's true for my standardised averages system but I remember when I offered to look into automating DoG's for him, the fact that he looked at attacks as BowlerA+BowlerB+BowlerC+BowlerD rather than TeamX was a major stumbling block that I didn't want to deal with from a programming perspective.

The new formula doesnt use that system, DoG only uses that system in his innings ratings, not here. This is a team rating rather than an opposition attack rating. So if a team wins a lot of games on the strength of their insanely powerful batting lineup despite having a relatively poor bowling attack, the team rating would be very high. Like late 2000s- early 2010s India would have a very very high rating and would count as quality opposition despite.having a zaheer + scrubs bowling attack

 

[Slifer]

The formula doesnt work that way. Doesnt matter who is actually in the attack. Its a team rating based on cumulative results.

Oh ok. Ignore what I said then

 

[TheJediBrah]

The formula doesnt work that way. Doesnt matter who is actually in the attack. Its a team rating based on cumulative results.

Well that's a pretty big limitation of the whole idea of "quality points" here if true

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well that's a pretty big limitation of the whole idea of "quality points" here if true

Eh it's just a bit of a quirk. Rating the bowling attack would also take a ridiculous amount of work which might not be worth it.

 

[sunilz]

Yes. And even average attack look extraordinary under scoreboard pressure. Similar quality attack look toothless if batting is failing consistently.

 

[Prince EWS]

Eh it's just a bit of a quirk. Rating the bowling attack would take a ridiculous amount of work.

I would like to see it rate the quality of a team's batting and bowling lineups separately (so not necessarily BowlerA+BowlerB etc, but Bowling Team X rather than Team X) at least. Rating the quality of an opposition bowling lineup based as much on their batting as their bowling is a bit ehh I think.

 

[Days of Grace]

Correct. Without an automated system rating individual bowling attacks for every innings across the history of test cricket would be insane.

Not to mention the stumbling blocks. For example, do you use the career averages of the bowlers? The current averages? A combination of both? Don’t forget that averages are grossly affected by who you play. What about home vs away averages?

What do you do with bowlers who are making their debut and thus don’t have an average?

Or do you use the ICC ratings system?

There are so many factors and I tried it but in the end there was too much work involved.

 

[Days of Grace]

I would like to see it rate the quality of a team's batting and bowling lineups separately (so not necessarily BowlerA+BowlerB etc, but Bowling Team X rather than Team X) at least. Rating the quality of an opposition bowling lineup based as much on their batting as their bowling is a bit ehh I think.

How would you go about doing that?

Bowling team average vs the era?

 

[honestbharani]

TBF, cricket is not played in a vacuum as batsmen or bowlers. A winning team, even with a relatively weak bowling attack, will create its own pressure through their batting strength for the opposition batsmen. So the team rating is reasonable enough IMO to determine the quality factor in such an exercise.

 

[honestbharani]

And coming back to Sachin, the ranking seems somewhat accurate to where I would place him as a test match batsman. But overall, combining two formats and having played through almost 25 years at the international level, he has been the best batsman I have seen across formats and the way he was able to continuously evolve as a batsman is a lesson for any player at any level on how to stay good and relevant at the highest level.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The first time Tendulkar was number 1 in the world was in 1994 and the last time was in 2011. Managing to be the best in the world 17 years apart with very different batting styles is a ridiculous achievement.

Personally, I'd go Viv>Lara=Sachin>Sobers after Bradman. Lara was capable of things Tendulkar wasn't and was better at just pure batting but ultimately Sachin had the more complete career imo. Very hard to split.

 

[steve132]

And coming back to Sachin, the ranking seems somewhat accurate to where I would place him as a test match batsman. But overall, combining two formats and having played through almost 25 years at the international level, he has been the best batsman I have seen across formats and the way he was able to continuously evolve as a batsman is a lesson for any player at any level on how to stay good and relevant at the highest level.

For me he would definitely rank in the top five as a Test batsman. Across all formats, in the half-century since one-day international cricket started, Viv Richards has been the only comparable batsman. Tendulkar is easily the more consistent of the two, although Richards at his peak was more destructive.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Lower than I expected but perhaps makes sense considering he was more excellent and everything without being beastly at any one feature this would be rated by (eg Ponting peak). I’m sure the really bad decline post 2011 didn’t help either.

Curious that the quality opposition is that low? He has a hell of an average vs Australia and England who were both better sides for the majority of his career, and a respectable one vs South Africa, New Zealand and Pakistan