• 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)

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
The real question is do retired hurts inflate batting averages? :ph34r:
Potentially. Colin Cowdrey once retired hurt and came back at 9 down with a broken arm for two balls at the non strikers end. That gave him a Not Out instead of a completed innings and made his average higher than it would have been. :angel:
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
"And once again", you're just giving all the weight to batting position. Some of the best players batted 4 or 5, and of course will have more not outs than your openers. Doesn't make them less valuable.

Because realistically the only thing that's going to be affecting # of not outs among these guys is batting position. It's not like you're going to have 2 #4 batsman and one of them will have double the not outs.
 

Slifer

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

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)
Yeah but if memory serves me correctly, he was only part of ONE losing series ie away to India in 1979ish. Don't think he toured NZ in 1980.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Potentially. Colin Cowdrey once retired hurt and came back at 9 down with a broken arm for two balls at the non strikers end. That gave him a Not Out instead of a completed innings and made his average higher than it would have been. :angel:
He would have been not out (retired - not out) if he stayed in the hut anyway though.
 

venkyrenga

U19 12th Man
My mistake, it still disadvantages players that had a good start in comparison though.
Then you basically disagree with this entire methodology. Because you could say the same thing when I chose to consider only the best 12-year period for the batsmen.

Makes more sense than randomly adjusting for not outs or arbitrarily cutting off the initial bad years for some players.
I am not arbitrarily cutting off the initial bad years for some players. It is done systematically. It is cut off only when the numbers say so.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Then you basically disagree with this entire methodology.
Oh yes absolutely. I think the end rankings here will probably be a less accurate ranking of player quality than if you just ranked them by career batting average (if it's even much different). But it's still an interesting exercise.
 

Bolo.

International Captain
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.
A simple, general ranking system should give Hussey no chance for the reasons you mention. Pretty much ever team has a player or 3 pushed in too early because they are talented with the understanding that they will improve as they go. Almost nobody is kept out when they have the talent a-la-hussey by ridiculous batting lineups.

It isnt as if Hussey is getting penalised by having his first couple of years chopped anyway. Just chopping the first couple of years off of others, which, while it boosts their average, also damages their longevity. Its weird, but it is a really neat idea, even if, like all other ways of generalising stats, it doesnt work 100% for everyone.
 

Bolo.

International Captain
I wonder if it isnt possible to weight not outs by batting position. If you are an opener with a not out, it will almost always come in a win/draw or decleration. This innings is worth more than the addition of the runs as you can be expected to average more than your career average once your eye is in.

A number 11 basically has the job of hanging around while someone else scores. A not out is also likely to be more valuable from them.

Number 7 could frequently remain not out by playing safe and allowing the tail to collapse around them, while contributing little. A not out from them is more likely to be a result of failure to maximise expected team runs than the other 2 examples.
 

venkyrenga

U19 12th Man
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.
This exactly it. I think for some it is not clear as to why the first 2 years are excluded for some players. Younis didn't have the first 4 years included, for Inzi it's the first 2, for Mahela it's the first 2 and so on. Because the initial years were bad. Now how would it be a fair comparison if we included the initial 2 bad years for all the current players?
 

sunilz

International Regular
This exactly it. I think for some it is not clear as to why the first 2 years are excluded for some players. Younis didn't have the first 4 years included, for Inzi it's the first 2, for Mahela it's the first 2 and so on. Because the initial years were bad. Now how would it be a fair comparison if we included the initial 2 bad years for all the current players?
Which year you took for
a) Dravid
b) Sangakkara
C) Younis khan
 

Top