• 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.

All time batting ratings (statistical analysis by Silentstriker)

Fusion

Fusion

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
Retired players only:

  1. Bradman (132.47)
  2. Sobers (90.50)
  3. Sutcliffe (89.16)
  4. Barrington (88.08)
  5. Hobbs (87.80)
  6. Hutton (87.37)
  7. Chappell (84.41)
  8. Hammond (83.46)
    [*]Miandad (81.67)
  9. Richards (81.67)
  10. Gavaskar (80.20)
  11. Waugh (79.53)
Click to expand...

Obviously this list is not the be all or end all of anything, but is Miandad massively under-rated when talking about the retired greats?
 
Fusion

Fusion

Global Moderator
marc71178 said:
Looking at the 2 names just below him, I'd say definitely not.
Click to expand...
Actually I consider the two names below him to be better batsman, and in the case of Viv Richards, by a considerable distance. However, I was just saying that Miandad is rarely mentioned in the same breath as other all time greats. It has always puzzled me as he had a great record and competitive fire. I just think the cricket world a whole under-rates him.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Fusion said:
Actually I consider the two names below him to be better batsman, and in the case of Viv Richards, by a considerable distance. However, I was just saying that Miandad is rarely mentioned in the same breath as other all time greats. It has always puzzled me as he had a great record and competitive fire. I just think the cricket world a whole under-rates him.
Click to expand...
I agree that I am guilty of this as well. The list isn't the be-all and end-all of everything, and doesn't take into account stats such as S/R, and also perhaps places too much importance in average away and average during matches won, but I do think it gives a general guide.

Previously, both Gavaskar and Tendulkar would have made my all time side. Now, I've been forced through stats to look again, and now one or both may miss out in favor of some of the others. Though I always had Hobbs in my all time side, I would now add Sutcliffe to the middle order (Barrington would miss out in favor of a more attacking batsman) in place of either Tendulkar or Richards. Taking into account this list and bowling list, my new XI might be:

  1. Hobbs
  2. Hutton
  3. Bradman
  4. Hammond
  5. Headley/Chappell
  6. Sobers
  7. Gilchrist
  8. Warne
  9. Marshall
  10. McGrath
  11. Barnes

You have NO idea how much it hurts to leave out Gavaskar and Tendulkar...

Previously, I've defended Tendulkar as behind only Bradman and Sobers...now I can't say that with a straight face. Damned stats, I hate them. :ph34r:
 
Last edited:
Fusion

Fusion

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
I agree that I am guilty of this as well. The list isn't the be-all and end-all of everything, and doesn't take into account stats such as S/R, and also perhaps places too much importance in average away and average during matches won, but I do think it gives a general guide.

Previously, both Gavaskar and Tendulkar would have made my all time side. Now, I've been forced through stats to look again, and now one or both may miss out in favor of some of the others. Though I always had Hobbs in my all time side, I would now add Sutcliffe to the middle order (Barrington would miss out in favor of a more attacking batsman) in place of either Tendulkar or Richards. Taking into account this list and bowling list, my new XI might be:

  1. Hobbs
  2. Hutton
  3. Bradman
  4. Hammond
  5. Headley/Chappell
  6. Sobers
  7. Gilchrist
  8. Warne
  9. Marshall
  10. McGrath
  11. Barnes

You have NO idea how much it hurts to leave out Gavaskar and Tendulkar...

Previously, I've defended Tendulkar as behind only Bradman and Sobers...now I can't say that with a straight face. Damned stats, I hate them. :ph34r:
Click to expand...
Ok I'm probably about to contradict my post about Miandad, but SS stats don't mean EVERYTHING. They play an essential part obviously, but they can't tell the WHOLE story. There are numerous intangibles that can't be measured by stats. Look at King Viv for example. If u went by stats alone, there are many batsmen in history that can claim better numbers across the board. However anyone that actually watched him bat would know how dominant and awe inspiring he was and few (maybe just The Don) can match him. So my dear friend, it's ok to have Tendy or Gavaskar in your all time XI, even though stats may not support you. And I know I'm about to incur your anger with this statement, but that's why it's also ok for me to think that Akram > McGrath. You simply can't go by stats ALONE, specially as it relates to all time greats.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
silentstriker said:
I agree that I am guilty of this as well. The list isn't the be-all and end-all of everything, and doesn't take into account stats such as S/R, and also perhaps places too much importance in average away and average during matches won, but I do think it gives a general guide.
Click to expand...
Tbf, a Tendulkar or Lara would always be hurt by criteria like that in comparison to a Dravid or Ponting.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
The average during matches won stat is a funny one. I don't know what it tells us about a player apart from the extent to which a team relies on him. Now, while being in a weak team puts you under more pressure, doesn't it discount the ability of players from strong teams, like a Ponting or a Richards?
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Matt79 said:
The average during matches won stat is a funny one. I don't know what it tells us about a player apart from the extent to which a team relies on him. Now, while being in a weak team puts you under more pressure, doesn't it discount the ability of players from strong teams, like a Ponting or a Richards?
Click to expand...
No, Ponting averages an excellent 67.88 in matches won. It shows you how important you are to your teams victory. And this is exactly right: "I don't know what it tells us about a player apart from the extent to which a team relies on him." It shows how important he is to his team winning a game.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
But my point is - doesn't that punish Ponting (for example, I'm not arguing to try and get him moved up or anything) in comparison to Lara because Ponting plays in the same team as Hayden and Gilchrist?

Also, does this formula take into account anywhere where a player bats in the order? ie. Are runs scored opening, or at first drop valued more than runs made at 5 or 6?
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Matt79 said:
But my point is - doesn't that punish Ponting (for example, I'm not arguing to try and get him moved up or anything) in comparison to Lara because Ponting plays in the same team as Hayden and Gilchrist?
Click to expand...
No, because Ponting averages more than Lara in matches won.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Matt79 said:
Wow - that's a counter-intuitive result isn't it?
Click to expand...
Nope - not really. A lot of the greats in good teams average pretty high. Players average in matches won does not appear to have anything to do with the quality of teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top