Top 20 greatest batsmen of all time

[Coronis]

It's a personal ranking, but a lot of that is informed by my standardised averages project. Knowing where it has flaws I kind of make some manual mental adjustments. Dempster's averaging being standardised up to 83 because it thinks those attacks were better than they really were is a perfect example. I also think that Barrington was lucky to basically only play Tests during his absolute peak and Chanderpaul was a deliberate red-inker who refused to go up the order and whose value was less than his average (standardised or otherwise). Extra points to Chappell for WSC.

Standardised Averages - updated 15/8/2019

docs.google.com

I'm sure you'll enjoy that Sutcliffe > Hutton on that spreadsheet.

Anyone else having Sutcliffe > Hutton, even a spreadsheet, is a huge friend of mine.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Where's KW Crowe and Turner?

In the upper tier of their own.
These are the top 20 of the 2nd tier.

 

[ashley bach]

Nah I don't think strike rate really matters tbh. If you're in a below median team then having a worse strike rate may actually be an advantage.

Unless we're talking about Kallis right?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Fuller forgot which account he was logged into

I've got too many multis, so can't keep up.

 

[Prince EWS]

Unless we're talking about Kallis right?

No? I love Kallis. See above!

 

[trundler]

I had Kallis in my top 15 but I'm tempted to go full Subshakerz in protest

 

[cnerd123]

This is always an interesting topic

ATM I think I can name my top 4 fairly comfortably and in order - Bradman, Sachin, Sobers, Hobbs

After that it's ****ing tough. My gut says Smith, Lara, Gavaskar and Headley in some order for positions 5 to 8.

Then I would like to include Hutton, Hammond, Barrington, Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Viv and Chapple somehow as 9 to 16.

No idea at all who I'd include ATM to round out the 20. And I'm sure if I dig into it, I might find some names worth displacing those in 9-16.

Some interesting lists here.

 

[Prince EWS]

There is something to be said about this being wildly untrue much like libertarianism but I'm too triggered right now to think of it.

Scoring the same amount of runs more slowly helps outplayed teams draw matches. Drawing matches you're behind in wins series.

Obviously scoring the same amount of runs faster helps you win when you're on top too, so I'd never argue that batsmen with lower SRs were better - but I just don't think the opposite is true either. It depends on context really.

And you still arouse me even though you're wrong about this (and libertarianism) btw. One of my favourite posters in these threads, even if you pick on my boy GAS.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yeah I probably should have included Jadeja tbh.

Legit question - what’s Jadeja’s standardised average post 2016 and does the formula account for the fact that post 2019 has been tough run scoring wise, and Jadeja’s often coming in at 140/5 or something and taking the team to a respectable 250-300, whereas otherwise they’d probably collapse to 180 all out cos apart from the freak odd innings, the guys coming in after him can barely hold a bat (although Bumrah is great now!).
And same question applies for Pant.

 

[Prince EWS]

Legit question - what’s Jadeja’s standardised average post 2016 and does the formula account for the fact that post 2019 has been tough run scoring wise, and Jadeja’s often coming in at 140/5 or something and taking the team to a respectable 250-300, whereas otherwise they’d probably collapse to 180 all out cos apart from the freak odd innings, the guys coming in after him can barely hold a bat (although Bumrah is great now!).
And same question applies for Pant.

Cricinfo changed their formatting shortly after my August 2019 update so I can't datamine them properly without changing my code. No prospect of me really having the time to do it before April either, and even then if my boss gets elected I'll probably never have the time.

 

[_00_deathscar]

This is always an interesting topic

ATM I think I can name my top 4 fairly comfortably and in order - Bradman, Sachin, Sobers, Hobbs

After that it's ****ing tough. My gut says Smith, Lara, Gavaskar and Headley in some order for positions 5 to 8.

Then I would like to include Hutton, Hammond, Barrington, Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Viv and Chapple somehow as 9 to 16.

No idea at all who I'd include ATM to round out the 20. And I'm sure if I dig into it, I might find some names worth displacing those in 9-16.

Some interesting lists here.

Steve Waugh is better than a fair few in your list.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Legit question - what’s Jadeja’s standardised average post 2016 and does the formula account for the fact that post 2019 has been tough run scoring wise, and Jadeja’s often coming in at 140/5 or something and taking the team to a respectable 250-300, whereas otherwise they’d probably collapse to 180 all out cos apart from the freak odd innings, the guys coming in after him can barely hold a bat (although Bumrah is great now!).
And same question applies for Pant.

Really not leaning a certain way here are you haha

 

[OverratedSanity]

1)Bradman
2)Viv
3)Sachin
4)Hobbs
5)Sobers
6)Lara
7)Smith
8)Hutton
9)Hammond
10)Border
11)Gavaskar
12)Sutcliffe
13)Ponting
14)Kallis
15)Sangakkara
16)Dravid
17)Waugh
18)Younis
19)Miandad
20)Chappell

 

[cnerd123]

Steve Waugh is better than a fair few in your list.

yea good shout, I don't think he's Top 8 material but definitely can slot in somewhere from 9-17.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

1 Bradman
2 Hobbs
3 Sobers
4 Hutton
5 S Smith
6 Tendulkar
7 Lara
8 Hammond
9 Sutcliffe
10 Gavaskar
11 Sangakkara
12 Headley
13 Pollock
14 Chappell
15 Kallis
16 Border
17 S Waugh
18 Trumper
19 Miandad
20 Barrington

Just realised I forgot Viv! I'd probably put him 7th. Forgot Ponting too!

 

[_00_deathscar]

Really not leaning a certain way here are you haha

Haha I’m genuinely curious how these formulas would account for it - a % of team runs or something? And overall team totals plummeting as well.
Jadeja’s overall average probably flatters him (as does his post 2016/2017 average of 45-50 or whatever) but those were some seriously invaluable runs. We’ve seen it when he’s taken us to a competitive total from a **** position - that’s more post 2019 relevant I think. The odd 30 here and there doesn’t sound great, but its given our bowlers something to work with instead of trying to defend 180.
2016-2019 we had a strong enough batting line up that he’d generally come in and try to accelerate our score to something unassailable, probably scoring at a much higher clip too.

Same but much more applies to Pant.

 

[cnerd123]

Just realised I forgot Viv! I'd probably put him 7th.

your list is garbage, but i am surprised you had the restraint to not put Martin Crowe in it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha I’m genuinely curious how these formulas would account for it - a % of team runs or something? And overall team totals plummeting as well.
Jadeja’s overall average probably flatters him (as does his post 2016/2017 average of 45-50 or whatever) but those were some seriously invaluable runs. We’ve seen it when he’s taken us to a competitive total from a **** position - that’s more post 2019 relevant I think. The odd 30 here and there doesn’t sound great, but its given our bowlers something to work with instead of trying to defend 180.
2016-2019 we had a strong enough batting line up that he’d generally come in and try to accelerate our score to something unassailable, probably scoring at a much higher clip too.

Same but much more applies to Pant.

Yeah I think it'd be quite favourable to them in the time period especially given how much of a 'bowling era' it's been in the last 3 years. I don't have an answer for you yet though. If you see me posting updates etc in April or May then feel free to remind me to answer your question!

 

[OverratedSanity]

Scoring the same amount of runs more slowly helps outplayed teams draw matches. Drawing matches you're behind in wins series.

Obviously scoring the same amount of runs faster helps you win when you're on top too, so I'd never argue that batsmen with lower SRs were better - but I just don't think the opposite is true either. It depends on context really.

And you still arouse me even though you're wrong about this (and libertarianism) btw. One of my favourite posters in these threads, even if you pick on my boy GAS.

In most scenarios for a top order batsman, if the batsman ends up with a small-medium range score of say 40-60 odd, I'd prefer it if he took more balls to do it. But once we go lower down the order and get into bigger scores of 100+, the value of a higher strike rate obviously goes up quite a bit and the value of consuming deliveries goes down (no new ball to see through anymore etc.).

It's tough to gauge overall tbh, because those small scores are actually the majority of a batsman's performances. Overall career strike rate as a stat is too arbitrary. It's all about gears. The best batsmen have all of them, the others don't.

 

[ashley bach]

your list is garbage, but i am surprised you had the restraint to not put Martin Crowe in it.

Mate you're in a funny mood today, your not normally like this are you?