• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Following up on a request, top 10 greatest batsmen of all time in tests (not including the Don)

Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
Zinzan said:
His high-point average wise was 58.72 in his 93rd.
Click to expand...
Think he's referring to the period after his teenage years to 2010. For instance, between 1993-2010, Sachin averages 58.97 in 156 tests over 18 years with 46 centuries. That is when he was between 20 and 38.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Teja. said:
Think he's referring to the period after his teenage years to 2010. For instance, between 1993-2010, Sachin averages 58.97 in 156 tests over 18 years with 46 centuries. That is when he was between 20 and 38.
Click to expand...
19 year period from 1993-2011. 157 tests avg 59.41.


His peak cumulative average was 58.9 after 90 tests.
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
Zinzan said:
This ^, and a reason I'm not yet prepared to categorically put Smith even ahead of Ponting, let alone other top 10 all-time great test bats.

Ponting's Test match average peaked at 59.99 in his 107th Test in 2006 https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...emplate=results;type=allround;view=cumulative

Smith has played 77 test to date. Come back to me if his average is as high as Ponting's 59.99 after even 100 tests, and we'll talk.
Click to expand...
This is also a really bad way of looking at this.

EDIT suppose i would have to reply to this so anyway the problem with picking a stretch from some one which is roughly the career of Smith to suggest that they have averaged 60 is you are comparing someone's peak years to Smith's career which includes ups as well as downs. If I do the same and pick Smith's record from September 2014 to September 2019, he scored 5600 runs at 76 over 50 tests and over 3000 runs at 65 away from home.

We already know great players can have purple patches where their average exceeds the base line significantly and troughs where the deviation is towards the opposite direction which is why they are called peaks and troughs and over a long period they even out and settles in the range of mid 50s. If Smith's form falls off a cliff and wanes towards the end and end up averaging in the mid 50s, we can simply call him just another average ATG but we don't know that yet. He could just be the first person to break away from the pack towards Bradman
 
Last edited:
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
One other thing to be noted is the vast difference in the type of pitches and run scoring between the 00s and 2010s. Smith, and to a lesser extent, the other fab 4 as well, should not be marked down coz they are doing their averages in an altogether tougher era for batsmen. That needs to be kept in mind when comparing them with the 00s stars.

I would still wait for these guys to finish before I rank them. Best way these comparisons work IMO are when you take retired players against retired players and current players against current players.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gob said:
suppose i would have to reply to this so anyway the problem with picking a stretch from some one which is roughly the career of Smith to suggest that they have averaged 60 is you are comparing someone's peak years to Smith's career which includes ups as well as downs.
Click to expand...
Not quite. By comparing Smith's career average to other past greats, you're ignoring the potential downs (or ups?) that might come in the future. It doesnt include his ups and downs. Thats the problem with comparing with current players who are at (or close to) their peak isnt it.
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
Gob said:
This is also a really bad way of looking at this.

EDIT suppose i would have to reply to this so anyway the problem with picking a stretch from some one which is roughly the career of Smith to suggest that they have averaged 60 is you are comparing someone's peak years to Smith's career which includes ups as well as downs. If I do the same and pick Smith's record from September 2014 to September 2019, he scored 5600 runs at 76 over 50 tests and over 3000 runs at 65 away from home.

We already know great players can have purple patches where their average exceeds the base line significantly and troughs where the deviation is towards the opposite direction which is why they are called peaks and troughs and over a long period they even out and settles in the range of mid 50s. If Smith's form falls off a cliff and wanes towards the end and end up averaging in the mid 50s, we can simply call him just another average ATG but we don't know that yet. He could just be the first person to break away from the pack towards Bradman
Click to expand...
Yeah but if someone plays, for instance, 12 years and and averages 60 v a batsman who plays 24 years and averages 54 but has a 12 year period averaging 60, the latter is contributing more to his side through playing at ages where they were still very good but not 60 average level. Would you say someone who plays for 3 years and averages 80 and retires is comparable/better to Smith?
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
OverratedSanity said:
Not quite. By comparing Smith's career average to other past greats, you're ignoring the potential downs (or ups?) that might come in the future. It doesnt include his ups and downs. Thats the problem with comparing with current players who are at (or close to) their peak isnt it.
Click to expand...
Potential downs yes but you are still considering the downs which all ready occurred in Smith career to some one else's peak run. I mean you don't have to look beyond Smith him self because his current average of 62 includes his time in the Aust team as an all rounder so its not fair to compare that with say peak Ponting's record from 02 to 06 just because he must have scored as many runs as Smith. In that case you have to look at Smith's peak (or something that resembles a peak) that i mentioned earlier.
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
Teja. said:
Yeah but if someone plays, for instance, 12 years and and averages 60 v a batsman who plays 24 years and averages 54 but has a 12 year period averaging 60, the latter is contributing more to his side through playing at ages where they were still very good but not 60 average level. Would you say someone who plays for 3 years and averages 80 and retires is comparable/better to Smith?
Click to expand...
Yes Voges

But in more serious note, you need to draw the line somewhere in the longevity terms and i would draw the line around 50 (52 to be precise) tests and if you are playing for a major test playing nation it will take around 5 years to play 50 tests so no 3 years won't be enough but if someone averages 70 over five years/50 tests, id consider them very highly indeed
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Zinzan said:
This ^, and a reason I'm not yet prepared to categorically put Smith even ahead of Ponting, let alone other top 10 all-time great test bats.

Ponting's Test match average peaked at 59.99 in his 107th Test in 2006 https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...emplate=results;type=allround;view=cumulative

Smith has played 77 test to date. Come back to me if his average is as high as Ponting's 59.99 after even 100 tests, and we'll talk.
Click to expand...
The reason why this is useful is because the suspicion is that Smith is currently in mid to late peak, and like most batsman, will experience a downturn late in his career.

Basically, you had cricketers like Viv Richards, Tendulkar and Ponting who at different points were recognized as by far the best batsmen in the world and had averages touching 60, only for them to return back to Earth at the end of the day. What is unusual about Smith is that he has sustained an average above 60 for so long.

In fact though, if you ask me, Smith hasn't looked anywhere near his dominant self since the 2019 Ashes. I expect his average to settle around the late 50s in 4-5 years. At that point, he would likely break into maybe top five of all-time.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
The thing that sets Smith apart imo, is the absurd amount of runs he's managed to churn out against very good to great attacks. India, NZ and RSA, have all arguably had their best bowling attacks during Smith's career and he's done well (for me averaging 40+) over the course of several series vs all these teams.

And even away to England where Anderson is a beast and ditto Broad he's done well. No cheap runs there. He's hardly played the lesser teams like WI, SL, and Bangladesh. Imagine him playing a handful of home series vs those teams.

Ponting, Sachin, Lara etc imo just haven't churned out the types of series Smith has (except for Lara '99 and '01) vs very very good to great attacks on such a consistent basis.

I think this is best reflected in his ranking points on several occasions where he's crossed 900+. Those rankings take into consideration match situations, strength of attacks etc. I'm not even a Smith/Australia fan but you have to give the devil his due. I will however, like everyone else wait until his career is truly over to properly rank him.
 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Gob said:
Yes Voges

But in more serious note, you need to draw the line somewhere in the longevity terms and i would draw the line around 50 (52 to be precise) tests and if you are playing for a major test playing nation it will take around 5 years to play 50 tests so no 3 years won't be enough but if someone averages 70 over five years/50 tests, id consider them very highly indeed
Click to expand...
50 tests is nowhere near long enough in the modern game for longevity. More like double that, near to 100 tests or a ten year career to properly judge a cricketer. I mean, watching Kohli for example, here is a guy who has played 90 odd tests yet I still get a sense that his best is yet to come, he will scale more peaks and eventually dip, and it is too soon to judge him.

I can't imagine giving a cricketer with Tendulkar's record and abilities yet only playing 50 tests the same ranking as Tendulkar who played 200.
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
subshakerz said:
50 tests is nowhere near long enough in the modern game for longevity. More like double that, near to 100 tests or a ten year career to properly judge a cricketer. I mean, watching Kohli for example, here is a guy who has played 90 odd tests yet I still get a sense that his best is yet to come, he will scale more peaks and eventually dip, and it is too soon to judge him.

I can't imagine giving a cricketer with Tendulkar's record and abilities yet only playing 50 tests the same ranking as Tendulkar who played 200.
Click to expand...
Goes without saying that the 50 tests should go along with an average of 75
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top