_00_deathscar
International Regular
Because in the future, which hasn't happened yet, he performs better than Dravid. Even though he might not.
-
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.
Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current)
- Thread starter venkyrenga
- Start date
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Why are we arguing about Kane and Dravid? He's been rated lower than Kevin Pietersen and Hashim Amla!
venkyrenga
U19 12th Man
No. 14
Hashim Amla - 130.7
Points: 130.7
Span: 2006-17
Peak: 2010-13
Overall points: 123
Overseas points: 129.9
Best bowling attack points: 135
Peak points: 175.3
Runs: 9282
Average: 46.64
Hashim Amla - 130.7
Points: 130.7
Span: 2006-17
Peak: 2010-13
Overall points: 123
Overseas points: 129.9
Best bowling attack points: 135
Peak points: 175.3
Runs: 9282
Average: 46.64
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
So that means Hussey and Chanderpaul didn't make the 30??!!
Chanderpaul was much better than KP (no 1 in the world for a while) and Hussey was pretty similar to KP (perhaps slightly better).
venkyrenga
U19 12th Man
No. 13
AB de Villiers - 132.5
Points: 132.5
Span: 2005-18
Peak: 2010-13
Longevity Bonus: 1.3
Overall points: 128.8
Overseas points: 122.5
Best bowling attack points: 138.6
Peak points: 158
Runs: 8765
Average: 50.66
AB de Villiers - 132.5
Points: 132.5
Span: 2005-18
Peak: 2010-13
Longevity Bonus: 1.3
Overall points: 128.8
Overseas points: 122.5
Best bowling attack points: 138.6
Peak points: 158
Runs: 8765
Average: 50.66
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, they are both better than some of the batsmen at the bottom of 30.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Both should be top 15, and probably hurt by this:
Which is a very silly metric. Just punishes batsmen who were good enough to be not out and rewards those who batted higher on the order. (Though tbf if anyone deserves to be hurt by this it's Chanderpaul)
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
It feels like the point has been reached where the thread starter says "Damn I knew I'd forgotten someone" and asks for the thread to be deleted.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Is averaging 30 over 10 years worse than sitting at home not playing cricket? Doesn't make much sense to think that way even if you go for a "would the replacement have done better angle". Players shouldn't be rewarded for not playing cricket.
indiaholic
International Captain
Everybody becomes a better player when they are not in the side. It is known.
Coronis
International Coach
As I stated in the rest of the post that part was mentioned as a joke...
But yeah for Bradman you really think he would be rated as high as he is if he played til 1958 and ended up averaging 60?
Flem274*
123/5
First off I'd like to remind certain posters NZ usually dominate or are very credible in every sport we touch outside of inferior sports like soccer, unlike certain countries who spent 70 years or something sucking at their national religion. It's nice NZ cricket is finally catching up to our national sporting standards.
So now that I've actually thought about todays comparison properly.... (tl;dr - I am wrong)
I instinctively thought Williamson was better at first post tbh, and looking back I think it was due to the "watching both play" thing because Kane just looks every inch the God when he gets in and general eye rolling at him being demoted below the likes of Mahela Jayawardene. I posted off the cuff without really thinking about why I thought that way.
I do think Williamson is more adaptable to different game situations (off the top of my head NZ don't win in the UAE or the West Indies without him setting up the game in the 3rd innings), but he's never had a series like Dravid in England, which is the best single series I have seen from an Asian batsman outside the standard Asian batsman's element and accentuates exactly why Dravid was so valuable to an Asian side in particular (he gave us a little preview in NZ 2002 where he and Richardson showed how timeless they both are).
Dravid did have long stretches of meh though along with the bowled meme, which probably played into my initial reaction too.
I think Williamson has a higher era value compared to Dravid, because Williamson stands out from the pack more in his era compared to Dravid in his (regardless of whether you think the average bowler is better or the average batsman is worse, this is a bowling era and decks are less homogenous). Dravid's talent against the moving ball was less valuable in Dravid's era, and I think he would do a lot better in Williamson's era than most of his contemporaries, but on the data we have Williamson walks into every side in the world currently and the World XI and Dravid was a less sure thing in his era.
Overall Dravid has had the better career but I will be mildly disappointed if Williamson does not have the better career when he retires, and Williamson at 30 years old is a better batsman than Dravid at the same age imo. Happy to concede after thinking about it that right now, I am wrong.
Era value is probably the best current argument I can think of for ranking Smith #2 of all time, if you were so inclined. I think it was Teja who posted the 2011 onwards (or maybe 2016 onwards?) bowling statistics a while back. They were ridiculous, and we're seeing it reflected in the records of current batsmen. A good middle order player is back to having a 40+ career average, and if you can scrape above an average of 35 opening then congratulations enjoy 50 test matches. Then over in the corner is Steve Smith, casually averaging 60.
Era value is why I put McGrath #1 of all quicks. I should probably bump my ranking of Shaun Pollock and maybe a few others to be consistent.
So now that I've actually thought about todays comparison properly.... (tl;dr - I am wrong)
I instinctively thought Williamson was better at first post tbh, and looking back I think it was due to the "watching both play" thing because Kane just looks every inch the God when he gets in and general eye rolling at him being demoted below the likes of Mahela Jayawardene. I posted off the cuff without really thinking about why I thought that way.
I do think Williamson is more adaptable to different game situations (off the top of my head NZ don't win in the UAE or the West Indies without him setting up the game in the 3rd innings), but he's never had a series like Dravid in England, which is the best single series I have seen from an Asian batsman outside the standard Asian batsman's element and accentuates exactly why Dravid was so valuable to an Asian side in particular (he gave us a little preview in NZ 2002 where he and Richardson showed how timeless they both are).
Dravid did have long stretches of meh though along with the bowled meme, which probably played into my initial reaction too.
I think Williamson has a higher era value compared to Dravid, because Williamson stands out from the pack more in his era compared to Dravid in his (regardless of whether you think the average bowler is better or the average batsman is worse, this is a bowling era and decks are less homogenous). Dravid's talent against the moving ball was less valuable in Dravid's era, and I think he would do a lot better in Williamson's era than most of his contemporaries, but on the data we have Williamson walks into every side in the world currently and the World XI and Dravid was a less sure thing in his era.
Overall Dravid has had the better career but I will be mildly disappointed if Williamson does not have the better career when he retires, and Williamson at 30 years old is a better batsman than Dravid at the same age imo. Happy to concede after thinking about it that right now, I am wrong.
Era value is probably the best current argument I can think of for ranking Smith #2 of all time, if you were so inclined. I think it was Teja who posted the 2011 onwards (or maybe 2016 onwards?) bowling statistics a while back. They were ridiculous, and we're seeing it reflected in the records of current batsmen. A good middle order player is back to having a 40+ career average, and if you can scrape above an average of 35 opening then congratulations enjoy 50 test matches. Then over in the corner is Steve Smith, casually averaging 60.
Era value is why I put McGrath #1 of all quicks. I should probably bump my ranking of Shaun Pollock and maybe a few others to be consistent.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Cant speak for others, but yeah I would rate him just as high if not marginally higher. Particularly when you consider his post 1948 runs would be in his mid/late 40s which no other cricketer has done (apart from rhodes I guess). What you're describing is pretty much WG grace's FC career. An insane bradman-esque run of a decade and a half, but played far longer in his 40s and 50s, so his overall average is 37. Within that is a decade long period where he averaged twice what everyone else did. You'd never find me saying grace is overrated because he only averaged 37.
So yeah, I think punishing players for playing longer is insane. Overall average can hide one's actual production in case the career is abnormally long.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Teja.
Global Moderator
Overall I think Williamson/Kohli are about 3-4 years of maintaining a 50+ average type of standard away from overtaking Dravid.
I fully expect KW to get there considering he's young relatively and is not having a major form dip. Kohli a much bigger question due to those two issues.
I fully expect KW to get there considering he's young relatively and is not having a major form dip. Kohli a much bigger question due to those two issues.
Interesting opinion. I wonder what the data has to say about that.
tbf, Williamson only just played his best innings in the WTC finals. You could extend the date by a year to see what happens.
venkyrenga
U19 12th Man
I don't get why anyone is upset about seeing Mahela over Kane. If you ignore the longevity points Kane comfortably sits above him. Mahela has had a quality run for 13 years compared to Kane who has only 8 years. In another 3-4 years Kane should comfortably move a few spots above him provided he doesn't have any major slump in his form which I doubt he would.
Gob
International Coach
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I don't see this as any kind of given. And I read Virat's current run more like Sachin's run between 2002-2006 or whatever and then he came out and had another peak 2007 onwards.