DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[Coronis]

I know 90% is still pretty good but it does seem a little harsh on players from earlier eras to not get full points, due to less tests being played during their eras. Take Bradman as one example (obviously it won’t affect his lead that much) but should he really be punished like that despite having a 20 year career?

 

[honestbharani]

I'd definitely support a 100 innings peak rather than 50. 50 innings is simply not enough to be definitive IMO, but 100 innings is the core of an outstanding Test career.

I know 90% is still pretty good but it does seem a little harsh on players from earlier eras to not get full points, due to less tests being played during their eras. Take Bradman as one example (obviously it won’t affect his lead that much) but should he really be punished like that despite having a 20 year career?

Call a truce and take 75 innings peak.

 

[stephen]

Why not make the weighting based on years? With 10 giving the full allotment.

 

[Spark]

10 years feels too long for a "peak". 5-7 years, maybe?

 

[stephen]

10 years feels too long for a "peak". 5-7 years, maybe?

Probably fair.

 

[Prince EWS]

A bit of both IMO. Minumum five years with also a minimum amount of Tests (15 perhaps? 20?) to stop some of the players who played one Test a year trolling their way in. I'm actually working on something similar and came to the conclusion that for a peak of X years, 3X Tests as a minimum was needed to stop true samplesizelol from countries not playing many Tests popping up. You definitely need to make sure you don't give people credit for missed Tests too -- ie. a period of four years in which someone played half his country's Tests should be treated as two years.

 

[ataraxia]

A bit of both IMO. Minumum five years with also a minimum amount of Tests (15 perhaps? 20?) to stop some of the players who played one Test a year trolling their way in. I'm actually working on something similar and came to the conclusion that for a peak of X years, 3X Tests as a minimum was needed to stop true samplesizelol from countries not playing many Tests popping up. You definitely need to make sure you don't give people credit for missed Tests too -- ie. a period of four years in which someone played half his country's Tests should be treated as two years.

And of course Ricky Ponting's 7 year peak from December 12, 1988 to December 12, 1995 may need to be cautioned against.

 

[Victor Ian]

Why not use the Bradman standard of 80 innings?

 

[Days of Grace]

I’m adverse to basing the whole system on one player.

 

[Days of Grace]

Here are the 100 innings peaks of the top 25 (ranked how they would be if the 100 innings peak is put into place)

1 DG Bradman 91.96 80.47 65.73
2 SPD Smith 69.82 59.34 52.40
3 JB Hobbs 60.28 56.06 53.28
4 GS Sobers 65.90 57.33 63.00
5 SR Tendulkar 60.34 53.10 55.28
6 KF Barrington 61.00 53.07 48.60
7 KC Sangakkara 61.61 54.84 48.62
8 BC Lara 57.15 55.44 56.20
9 L Hutton 59.57 51.82 44.41
10 RT Ponting 67.91 57.05 54.67
11 JH Kallis 64.41 53.46 44.17
12 WR Hammond 57.29 50.42 47.04
13 IVA Richards 57.09 53.66 67.23
14 S Chanderpaul 68.31 49.87 40.81
15 H Sutcliffe 56.51 50.46 39.99
16 R Dravid 61.85 51.34 40.83
17 SM Gavaskar 55.42 51.54 47.88
18 GS Chappell 55.17 48.00 53.61
19 V Kohli 55.71 52.37 54.82
20 AB de Villiers 59.92 52.13 50.66
21 AR Border 58.84 48.25 41.64
22 SR Waugh 62.95 49.10 47.58
23 Younis Khan 56.28 48.97 47.88
24 V Sehwag 53.32 50.65 76.77
25 ED Weekes 54.17 50.82 66.30

Steve Smith is insane. Barrington will not go away. Chanderpaul's 100 innings peak was also unexpected. Ponting gains ground whilst Richards and Waugh drop a few places.

I'm not sure that 100 innings is a fair reflection of a player's "peak". For most batsmen, that's more than 50% and sometimes more than 75% of their entire career.

 

[Logan]

Surprised that Chanderpaul is ranked so closely to Richards.

Ever since I said Barrington is just as good as Sobers, he is being mentioned a lot in the forum. I am happy a great batsman is remembered a lot more often now.

ABD is amazing. Can score a 100 in 75 balls and also scores 33 (220) to save a match.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not surprised by Chanders peak at all. He was undismissable for a few years there, always thought he was underrated. Could argue he was a bit selfish, batting 5 and 6 for most of that time IIRC and often played for the not outs.

 

[Logan]

Shivnarine played for a failing team. He was the only hope for the team. By staying till the end, he ensured more runs for the team and trying to ensure at least a draw rather than a loss.

If Richards played for Chanderpaul’s WI, would he have been considered foolish for trying to score quick runs and getting out quickly?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Here are the 100 innings peaks of the top 25 (ranked how they would be if the 100 innings peak is put into place)

1 DG Bradman 91.96 80.47 65.73
2 SPD Smith 69.82 59.34 52.40
3 JB Hobbs 60.28 56.06 53.28
4 GS Sobers 65.90 57.33 63.00
5 SR Tendulkar 60.34 53.10 55.28
6 KF Barrington 61.00 53.07 48.60
7 KC Sangakkara 61.61 54.84 48.62
8 BC Lara 57.15 55.44 56.20
9 L Hutton 59.57 51.82 44.41
10 RT Ponting 67.91 57.05 54.67
11 JH Kallis 64.41 53.46 44.17
12 WR Hammond 57.29 50.42 47.04
13 IVA Richards 57.09 53.66 67.23
14 S Chanderpaul 68.31 49.87 40.81
15 H Sutcliffe 56.51 50.46 39.99
16 R Dravid 61.85 51.34 40.83
17 SM Gavaskar 55.42 51.54 47.88
18 GS Chappell 55.17 48.00 53.61
19 V Kohli 55.71 52.37 54.82
20 AB de Villiers 59.92 52.13 50.66
21 AR Border 58.84 48.25 41.64
22 SR Waugh 62.95 49.10 47.58
23 Younis Khan 56.28 48.97 47.88
24 V Sehwag 53.32 50.65 76.77
25 ED Weekes 54.17 50.82 66.30

Steve Smith is insane. Barrington will not go away. Chanderpaul's 100 innings peak was also unexpected. Ponting gains ground whilst Richards and Waugh drop a few places.

I'm not sure that 100 innings is a fair reflection of a player's "peak". For most batsmen, that's more than 50% and sometimes more than 75% of their entire career.

I don't understand how you've ranked it. Why is Ponting that low when he's better at every peak stat than the guys above him.

 

[Days of Grace]

I don't understand how you've ranked it. Why is Ponting that low when he's better at every peak stat than the guys above him.

That is how the FULL ranking order would look if I implemented a 100 innings peak.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ah that makes sense, cheers.

 

[harsh.ag]

That is how the FULL ranking order would look if I implemented a 100 innings peak.

With a 20% weight on peaks or 12.5%?

 

[jaideep]

That is how the FULL ranking order would look if I implemented a 100 innings peak.

100 innings for peak is too long.Why not take 80 innings?

 

[Days of Grace]

With a 20% weight on peaks or 12.5%?

20% weight.

My idea is that if peaks are to be 20% weight and non-home and quality opposition 10%, then you should require double the amount of innings to qualify for full points in peak performance compared with non-home and away.

In summary, as it currently stands:

Overall 50% (50 innings to qualify for full rating)
Peak 20% (50 innings to qualify for full rating)
Non-Home 10% (25 innings to qualify for full rating)
Quality Opp 10% (25 innings to qualify for full rating)

25 innings for non-home and quality opposition is not enough in my opinion.

I'm thinking of changing it to:

Overall 50% (100 innings to qualify for full rating)
Peak 12.5% (50 innings to qualify for full rating)
Non-Home 12.5% (50 innings to qualify for full rating)
Quality Opp 12.5% (50 innings to qualify for full rating)

Or, opinion C

Overall 50% (80 innings to qualify for full rating)
Peak 20% (80 innings to qualify for full rating)
Non-Home 10% (40 innings to qualify for full rating)
Quality Opp 10% (40 innings to qualify for full rating)

 

[Coronis]

So of the top 50 batsmen, these played under 100 innings. Bradman, Sutcliffe, Weekes, Pollock, Headley, Walcott, Nourse and Hill. Of these, all bar Pollock had careers lasting at least 10 years. I think some sort of system (not sure of specifics) should be put in place so these players involving a lower innings threshold with a years played qualifier so they don’t lose out again for not having played in a more modern era where they would surely have played 100+ innings in their career length.

I also think the career rating should have some basis in years played as well as matches/runs scored. For example (poor example but I cbf thinking of another right now) Headley should have more career points than Pollock (poor because post war Headley missed a lot of tests before his last). But basically if a 2 batsmen play the same amount of matches/innings and one does it over 15 years rather than 10 (assuming both aren’t missing matches), he should have a higher rating.