Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current)

[Victor Ian]

ODI might be able to give us some idea here. In the early days, players scored much less, until over time they have realised that they could actually speed up and score a larger result, achieving a more probable win than what they were, because a hard set deadline was looming. It is still going up. In tests, draws have diminished in proportion because of the flow on of more aggressive batting.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The second part is not bonkers at all. He is looking at their peak 12 years, so all the long career players, imagine if Steve Waugh would Qualify here, have had their ****ty bedding in days removed. I think this part is fair enough.

It's bonkers because sucking for your first 2 years is not a universal situation. You're artificially giving huge favour to players that had a crappy start and giving no credit to players that had a great start. Hussey is better than half the players on this list but is nowhere to be seen because his first 2 years were just cut out for no good reason.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

It's bonkers because sucking for your first 2 years is not a universal situation. You're artificially giving huge favour to players that had a crappy start and giving no credit to players that had a great start. Hussey is better than half the players on this list but is nowhere to be seen because his first 2 years were just cut out for no good reason.

OP clarified that this isn't the case. He only cut off the first 2 years for players if those years dragged their score down. If those years helped then he left them in (so will have for e.g. Hussey).

 

[TheJediBrah]

OP clarified that this isn't the case. He only cut off the first 2 years for players if those years dragged their score down. If those years helped then he left them in (so will have for e.g. Hussey).

My mistake, it still disadvantages players that had a good start in comparison though.

 

[venkyrenga]

I think the methodology and the logic behind it is not clear to some. So let me explain a bit. Lets consider the below example.

	Inn	No	Runs	Avg	SR
A	100​	0​	5000​	50​	60​
B	100​	20​	4000​	50​	60​

There is not one metric in which B is better than A. One might argue that B has been dismissed 20 times lesser but that is because he has faced less number of deliveries. Their balls faced per dismissal is the same. Whereas A has scored more runs than B hence deserving of more points. Whether A is really better than B is another matter but clearly he is deserving of more points because he has scored more runs.

Another way of wording 'batting avg. adjusted for not outs' would be 'runs per innings adjusted for not outs'. A batsman with an avg. of 50 means each time he ended up not out he would have scored 50 more runs. I am knocking off 25% of it because he did not actually score those runs.

I know that batting avg and not outs can be an endless debate. But I will get back to the countdown now.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Someone like Hussey loses out because of his shorter career. But 79 Tests with an average over 50 with 19 centuries is Top 30 in any era.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There is not one metric in which B is better than A. One might argue that B has been dismissed 20 times lesser but that is because he has faced less number of deliveries. Their balls faced per dismissal is the same. Whereas A has scored more runs than B hence deserving of more points. Whether A is really better than B is another matter but clearly he is deserving of more points because he has scored more runs.

This is very debatable. Definitely not "clearly the case". It generally just means they batted higher in the order. If you want to reward players for batting up the order that's fine and reasonable. Makes more sense than randomly adjusting for not outs or arbitrarily cutting off the initial bad years for some players.

 

[Bolo.]

My mistake, it still disadvantages players that had a good start in comparison though.

This is probably a good thing though. Guys with better starts tend to come into a side more developed, which penalises the generational talents who got in really young... there is a reason voges averages more than sachin.

This said, there may be a form of double counting on the go with longevity already factoring in.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is probably a good thing though. Guys with better starts tend to come into a side more developed, which penalises the generational talents who got in really young... there is a reason voges averages more than sachin.

This said, there may be a form of double counting on the go with longevity already factoring in.

Yeah definitely. It's really giving someone like Hussey no chance. He was a victim of being from a country with a very strong side. It's not like he didn't debut until 30 because he was no good, he was a gun 5-6 years before 2006. He could very well have had double the career length at a similar average in different circumstances.

 

[Coronis]

Just for some real life example.. (not arguing either side here)
Bradman’s 10 not outs:
37* 4th Innings, Timeless Test, successful run chase (8 in his next innings)
299* 2nd Innings, Day 3, No.11 run out after 14 runs from Bradman since the last dismissal (0 in his next innings)
103* 3rd Innings, Day 3, No.11 run out after 5 runs from Bradman (8 in his next innings)
144* 3rd Innings (following on), Day 4 (4 day match), Bradman helps save a match where England almost scored 700 in the first innings (18 in his next innings)
102* 4th Innings, Day 4 (4 day match), 102*(135) of 204/6 chasing a total of 315, runs out of time (103 in his next innings)
56* 4th Innings, Day 6 (6 day match), 56*(102) of 215/1 chasing a total of 314, runs out of time (12 in his next innings)
127* 3rd Innings, Day 4 (6 day match), 127*(178) of 255/4, declares after rain on the rest day, India make 125 chasing 359 (201 in his next innings)
57 retired hurt (Day 1, 1st Innings) (138 in his next innings)
30* 4th Innings, Day 5, 30*(164) of 92/1 chasing 317 (Australia given 2.5 hours after rain to try and chase down the target whilst already leading the series 2-0) (33 in his next innings)
173* 4th Innings, Day 5, 173*(292) of 404/3 chasing 404, wins Australia the match. (gets a duck in his next and final innings)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Probably sounds a bit callous but retired hurt should be considered out imo.

 

[Victor Ian]

It's bonkers because sucking for your first 2 years is not a universal situation. You're artificially giving huge favour to players that had a crappy start and giving no credit to players that had a great start. Hussey is better than half the players on this list but is nowhere to be seen because his first 2 years were just cut out for no good reason.

If I understand correctly, only those players who sucked in their first two years are gaining the benefit of not recording this. Again, if Steve Waugh's period was in this excercise, and because he had a career significantly longer than 12 years, his sucky first years would not count. The same for Tendulkar. Though he started great, he had an even better 12 year period that counts for his stats. When it comes to Steve Smith, I imagine his first 2 years will be ignored, which will put him on a fair comparison with Waugh, though he will then suffer the not yet 12 years penalty.

Also Venky mentioned that he is only removing those 2 years when it benefits the batsman. In Hussey's case, his first 2 years would be included. He made this very clear a few pages back.

 

[Teja.]

The real question is do retired hurts inflate batting averages?

 

[honestbharani]

That's just another way of saying that McGrath and Marshall are the two best batsman ever.

*cries in Murali*

 

[Victor Ian]

Probably sounds a bit callous but retired hurt should be considered out imo.

100% agreed on this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The real question is do retired hurts inflate batting averages?

I'm with OS on this one. Retired hurt is usually a failure on the batsman's part.

*cries in Murali*

Don't think Murali won as many Tests as the other 2 (edit: actually he won more than Marshall, but half of Murali's wins were Zim or BD. Interestingly Marshall only won 43 of his 81 Tests played. I found this surprising)

 

[venkyrenga]

No. 7

Younis Khan - 139.2



Points: 139.2
Span: 2004-15
Peak: 2004-07

Overall points: 142.2
Overseas points: 130.1
Best bowling attack points: 151.9
Peak points: 149.1

Runs: 10099
Average: 52.05

 

[honestbharani]

The debate over not outs and batting averages is all a bit superfluous coz there are good arguments on both sides and unless someone can compile a completely unbiased list of the "type" of not out each red ink inning was, this just goes around in circles.

But at a higher level, batting average is basically runs per dismissal. But cricket matches are not played on that basis, they are played on the basis of innings. So when you are discussing the value of the batsman and his runs to a side, to me, RPI is slightly less flawed than batting average as an indicator of said value.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The debate over not outs and batting averages is all a bit superfluous coz there are good arguments on both sides and unless someone can compile a completely unbiased list of the "type" of not out each red ink inning was, this just goes around in circles.

But at a higher level, batting average is basically runs per dismissal. But cricket matches are not played on that basis, they are played on the basis of innings. So when you are discussing the value of the batsman and his runs to a side, to me, RPI is slightly less flawed than batting average as an indicator of said value.

Nah, RPI is much more flawed. It's heavily reliant on batting position. Batting average is a much fairer and more accurate measure of a batsman's skill and performance, with the possible exception of extreme examples like Chanderpaul

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, RPI is much more flawed. It's heavily reliant on batting position. Batting average is a much fairer and more accurate measure of a batsman's skill and performance, with the possible exception of extreme examples like Chanderpaul

Its not like the best batsmen in the side bat in the top 6 or anything in test cricket, amirite?

And once again, the bolded can very possibly have no bearing on the value of said batsman to the team and therefore, not pertinent to what I was talking about.