Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of batsmen poll

[centurymaker]

Aus- Dravid faced stronger Aus attacks
Pak- Dravid faced stronger Pak attacks
SA- Both have faced similar quality SA attacks
Eng- Both have faced similar quality Eng attacks.

KW has faced stronger Indian attacks, while Dravid had it easier against NZ. (But Dravid faced stronger SL and WI too). Even if you subtract a little from Dravid to account for era, at best it would only balance out Dravid facing better attacks.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Aus- Dravid faced stronger Aus attacks
Pak- Dravid faced stronger Pak attacks
SA- Both have faced similar quality SA attacks
Eng- Both have faced similar quality Eng attacks.

KW has faced stronger Indian attacks, while Dravid had it easier against NZ. (Dravid faced stronger SL and WI too). Even if you subtract a little from Dravid to account for era, at best it would only balance out Dravid facing better attacks.

Yes you’re right Dravid is a tier above. My bad I apologize.

 

[centurymaker]

Yes you’re right Dravid is a tier above. My bad I apologize.

No need to apologise, please.

 

[Prince EWS]

No need to apologise, please.

Sorry.

 

[Line and Length]

With Williamson already ranked and Root and Kohli about to join him in the Top 30 of our Top 50 poll it might be appropriate to look at the career records of the lesser 3 of the Big 4 on a country by country basis.

If we judge purely on averages, and disregard countries in which a player has played fewer that 4 Tests we can see where players have an excellent record (50+ average), a very good record (45-49.99) a good record (40-44.99) and where they have been fair (35-39) poor (30-24.99) or failures (less than 30).

KOHLI: Excellent in Australia and India; Very good in South Africa; Good in Sri Lanka and West Indies; Fair in New Zealand;
Poor in England.

ROOT: Excellent in England, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies; Very Good in India; Fair in Australia.

WILLIAMSON: Excellent in Bangladesh, New Zealand, U.A.R. and West Indies; Good in Australia; Poor in England and India; Failure in South Africa and Sri Lanka.

While Williamson may have the superior overall average, his stats are heavily reliant on performances at home and has sub-standard performances in 4 countries. On this basis, it is hard to justify ranking him above the other pair. No doubt Kohli's form in England and New Zealand would see members from those countries downgrade him while Root's repeated lack of success in Australia counts strongly against him.

Country	Kohli	Root	Williamson
Australia	54.08	35.68	42.85
Bangladesh	14.75*	24.50*	55.57
England	33.21	53.44	30.53
India	60.06	45.43	33.53
New Zealand	36.00	52.53	66.86
Pakistan	n.a.	25.00*	138.50*
South Africa	49.50	50.21	21.17
Sri Lanka	43.78	65.50	26.71
UAR	n.a.	57.40*	64.70
West Indies	44.00	51.50	51.33
Zimbabwe	n.a.	n.a.	97.25*
Overall	49.16	49.73	54.99
* Fewer than 4 Tests

 

[honestbharani]

I honestly don't think u can call averaging 30-35 in this era away from home, "poor".

 

[Socerer 01]

I honestly don't think u can call averaging 30-35 in this era away from home, "poor".

Root’s average for instance puts him @ 21st on the best averages in Australia among away batsmen since 2013, clearly not the best but its not lolworthy like some Aussie fans claim, especially when he’s been the best in his team in that period. a 50 every 3rd innings but no 100s is what is impacting it more than it should ideally

i dont think people on this forum consider switching between formats today or playing in three of them as a factor for rating players when it plays a big role given how different they’ve become now. in the past you could still play in odis and be a good player with a few adaptations from tests but you would look completely out of touch today in odis let alone t20s. like Flem says the standards for what constitutes a test atg has to change in the coming years or the cross format records of players must be considered going forward but knowing the forum its likely there’ll just be eulogising of the past and worshipping of those cricketers until or unless more zoomers join here

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kohli’s record in Eng isn’t that bad either considering the conditions and quality of bowling he faced there

 

[Line and Length]

I honestly don't think u can call averaging 30-35 in this era away from home, "poor".

"Fairly poor" then.
We are talking about potential ATGs and this would be poor by ATG standards.

 

[OverratedSanity]

i dont think people on this forum consider switching between formats today or playing in three of them as a factor for rating players when it plays a big role given how different they’ve become now. in the past you could still play in odis and be a good player with a few adaptations from tests but you would look completely out of touch today in odis let alone t20s.

I don't think this matters does it? Just because a player is worse in tests because he plays more formats, it doesn't disprove that he's worse in tests. It's just an explanation for why he's worse in tests.

 

[Xix2565]

When it comes to average watch, I find it strange that older players get far more benefit of the doubt with the conditions they faced and the quality of bowling every match they played in compared to the most modern players. Feels weird to sort of indulge in the idea that the past was the best and everyone sucks now idea to rate players.

 

[Socerer 01]

I don't think this matters does it? Just because a player is worse in tests because he plays more formats, it doesn't disprove that he's worse in tests. It's just an explanation for why he's worse in tests.

it does matter when you’re doing a direct comparison between them and the vast majority of players from the past who never had to contend with something like that

 

[Socerer 01]

When it comes to average watch, I find it strange that older players get far more benefit of the doubt with the conditions they faced and the quality of bowling every match they played in compared to the most modern players. Feels weird to sort of indulge in the idea that the past was the best and everyone sucks now idea to rate players.

thats just nostalgia blinding, failures or struggles dont tend to stand out when seeing scorecards or numbers from the past and they certainly dont stick in memory years down the line

 

[_00_deathscar]

thats just nostalgia blinding, failures or struggles dont tend to stand out when seeing scorecards or numbers from the past and they certainly dont stick in memory years down the line

I would understand nostalgia for the 90s, or for a few the 80s etc

But some of that nostalgia is for some guy in the 1920s there’s barely any clips of and no one really watched play

 

[centurymaker]

I would understand nostalgia for the 90s, or for a few the 80s etc

But some of that nostalgia is for some guy in the 1920s there’s barely any clips of and no one really watched play

I personally have a hard time rating anything pre1960s highly tbh. We had a 6 year long world war which devastated the whole world (starvation, poverty, loss of life) and people think it didn't have any impact on quality of cricket in the years that followed? I bet cricket standards fell in the 40s. Then you had the baby boomers phase which would have kick-started the growth in all domains.

Is it any surprise that we experienced higher quality of cricket from 1970s onwards as the huge number of babies born in 1950s would have grown up into adults by the 1970s. So we suddenly saw a big spike in number of great cricketers produced. Cricket became more and more competitive. So for me cut off is more or less 1960s. Cricket prior to that I treat as semi-professional (less competitive/less evolved).

 

[Line and Length]

When it comes to average watch, I find it strange that older players get far more benefit of the doubt with the conditions they faced and the quality of bowling every match they played in compared to the most modern players. Feels weird to sort of indulge in the idea that the past was the best and everyone sucks now idea to rate players.

If nostalgia means older players get less scrutiny than modern players then the likes of Barrington, Weekes, Walcott and Compton would be rated more highly than more recent batsmen. A look at the polls reveal the majority of CW members aren't blinded by impressive averages alone.

 

[Xix2565]

If nostalgia means older players get less scrutiny than modern players then the likes of Barrington, Weekes, Walcott and Compton would be rated more highly than more recent batsmen. A look at the polls reveal the majority of CW members aren't blinded by impressive averages alone.

Aren't they? I mean considering the list it's not like they're being overlooked.

 

[Line and Length]

But some of that nostalgia is for some guy in the 1920s there’s barely any clips of and no one really watched play

I guess you are referring to the likes of Hobbs whose sheer weight of performances can't be overlooked. Can you name any others?
Going back further, players like Grace rarely get mentioned in polls while players such as Trumper and Hill only have a small group of fans/supporters.

 

[ankitj]

I honestly don't think u can call averaging 30-35 in this era away from home, "poor".

Ok Kohli

 

[Burgey]

but its not lolworthy like some Aussie fans claim,

Yes it is. People are ranking him in the top 50 batsmen of all time and he's averaging in the 30s in the benchmark country for touring players which is also his most important rival. And he's doing it after 14 tests and without a ton. It's laughable he's being considered for inclusion in this list.

Ponting was woeful in India but at least he had one 50+ average series there and managed a ton as he went on. Root's numbers in Australia are the batting equivalent of Murali's bowling here, and they aren't getting any better. His last tour he averaged 30 someting and he's meant to be in his prime ffs. Just deplorable. Wouldn't give you two bob for him.

Watched him play against Aus for over a decade and never felt in the least bit threatened by him as an Australian supporter. At best he's a bloke who might jag a ton at home against you but for the most part will just get out in his usual ways for moderate outputs. Barely give him a second's thought as an opponent (or person, come to that) worthy of respect, let alone wariness.

Spud

S P U D
P
U
D

Ordinary.