DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[Malcolm]

Kallis made it into the top 10 in ODIs? Ok.

 

[Coronis]

For all the talk on Barrington, it is easy to forget that Wisden actually ranked him #7 in their all time top 10 in 2002. The list:

1. Don Bradman
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Viv Richards
4. Garry Sobers
5. Allan Border
6. Jack Hobbs
7. Ken Barrington
8. Sunil Gavaskar
9. Greg Chappell
10. Brian Lara

Am shocked.

 

[honestbharani]

I thought that entire Wisden list was an apology for Sachin not featuring in the top 100 knocks list?

 

[bagapath]

I thought that entire Wisden list was an apology for Sachin not featuring in the top 100 knocks list?

dont know about that. but it was the first of its kind and we now know it is just one such analysis by ananth narayanan who has published scores of such lists and rankings since. because this was the first list produced by wisden (by one statistician) it got all the attention. not saying it is a bad list. but a few variations in the arbitrary parameters would produce a different ranking for sure. this was a good coffee table conversation starter... but why not? coz nothing can be definitive in this topic anyways.

 

[honestbharani]

Its not that. I felt the parameters were almost set up a certain way to ensure certain ratings. I would not have had this opinion had this come out first and then the top 100 innings list. But I definitely remember the innings list came out first, there was absolute hue and cry even in the pre-twitter days ( or at least the days it was not this popular) and within a few months they came up with this criteria and this list.

 

[harsh.ag]

Its not that. I felt the parameters were almost set up a certain way to ensure certain ratings. I would not have had this opinion had this come out first and then the top 100 innings list. But I definitely remember the innings list came out first, there was absolute hue and cry even in the pre-twitter days ( or at least the days it was not this popular) and within a few months they came up with this criteria and this list.

Nah, Tendulkar was averaging 59 at that time with a buckload of runs. Had to finish in the top 5 regardless of method.

 

[honestbharani]

Top 5 yes. #2, unsure.

 

[TestMatch]

Sobers traveled to the Chessington Cricket Club, my local cricket club in England, about 8 or 9 years ago. Someone had arranged for him to chat with the young players there, all little boys who had no idea who he was. He spent hours talking to everyone, and I always thought it was very gracious of him to spend time with such an in-the-middle-of-nowhere club, and with such a lowly group of cricket fans.

Bradman's stats don't make sense to me. I just tend to ignore them and put them in their own little subcategory.

Smith is confusing as well. I imagine a Black Swan/Showgirls styled jealous vendetta (between him and Labuschagne) being the only thing than can stop his further rise.

 

[Slifer]

Sobers traveled to the Chessington Cricket Club, my local cricket club in England, about 8 or 9 years ago. Someone had arranged for him to chat with the young players there, all little boys who had no idea who he was. He spent hours talking to everyone, and I always thought it was very gracious of him to spend time with such an in-the-middle-of-nowhere club, and with such a lowly group of cricket fans.

Bradman's stats don't make sense to me. I just tend to ignore them and put them in their own little subcategory.

Smith is confusing as well. I imagine a Black Swan/Showgirls styled jealous vendetta (between him and Labuschagne) being the only thing than can stop his further rise.

Smith can and certainly has been contained at times (see his last two outings vs RSA and NZ recently). Bradman is just a myth afaic....jk of course but seriously.....99.94!!

 

[marc71178]

Its not that. I felt the parameters were almost set up a certain way to ensure certain ratings.

From Narayanan? Never!

 

[honestbharani]

From Narayanan? Never!

From Wisden.

 

[ankitj]

How Viv Richards finished at #3 was also interesting. Left behind Hobbs, Sobers and a host of others. In purely statistical exercises, he generally doesn't finish that high.

 

[honestbharani]

Side effect of the parameter setting being what it was. Won't rule out if that was somewhat intentional too, given how worshipped he is by the next genreation of fans as well as players.

 

[pardus]

Side effect of the parameter setting being what it was. Won't rule out if that was somewhat intentional too, given how worshipped he is by the next genreation of fans as well as players.

Border's high ranking (above Hobbs) seems strange too. Nevertheless as the original poster pointed out Barrington being in the top 10 in that list too, proves his high ranking in DoG's list wasn't an anomaly.
Viv Richards being in the top 10 in DoG's current list as well as DoG's previous list (as well as most other lists) surprises me as well. Stats were more like "side-effect" for him, rather than the primary goal (which was domination).
He rarely stuck around once he thought he made his statement, and given the bowling attack his side had at the time, he could usually afford to do that.

https://youtu.be/m-GybmVI9_g

 

[Logan]

How Viv Richards finished at #3 was also interesting. Left behind Hobbs, Sobers and a host of others. In purely statistical exercises, he generally doesn't finish that high.

Some great cricketers are forgotten. Some great cricketers become even bigger legends and become almost mythical figures.

 

[Logan]

Viv Richards being in the top 10 in DoG's current list as well as DoG's previous list (as well as most other lists) surprises me as well. Stats were more like "side-effect" for him, rather than the primary goal (which was domination).
He rarely stuck around once he thought he made his statement, and given the bowling attack his side had at the time, he could usually afford to do that.

Scoring 32 runs off 28 balls with seven boundaries when the target was 183 in 60 overs in a World Cup final was foolish.

Being dominating is good. But not always.

 

[pardus]

Scoring 32 runs off 28 balls with seven boundaries when the target was 183 in 60 overs in a World Cup final was foolish.

Being dominating is good. But not always.

Yes, but I was talking about Test cricket. ODI is another ball game. Yes, Viv was overconfident in that WC Final innings, and paid for it.

 

[Logan]

Yes, but I was talking about Test cricket. ODI is another ball game. Yes, Viv was overconfident in that WC Final innings, and paid for it.

Viv had the benefit of playing for a very strong WI team. Maybe that’s why his great innings are more remembered while his failures are rarely spoken about since WI would have won the match anyway.

 

[Days of Grace]

I am thinking of making two changes for the next version:

1. Reducing the rating of the peak from 20% to 12.5%.

Then the weightings of each measure would be as follows:

Career 12.5
Overall 50
Peak 12.5
Non-Home 12.5
Quality Opposition 12.5

I think that Peak should have same weighting as non-home and quality opposition. For the bowler's list, Imran Khan and Waqar Younis would drop down slightly.


2. In addition, I think that 50 innings for overall and 25 innings for non-home and quality opposition is not enough for a batsman to get the full allotment of points. At the moment the penalties for overall points are:

50 innings: full allotment
40 innings: 90% of full allotment
30 innings: 80%
20 innings: 70%
10 innings: 50%

I am thinking about raising the standard to 100 innings and 50 innings each for peak, non-home and quality opposition. This would make the penalties for overall as follows:

100 innings: full allotment
50 innings: 90% of full allotment
40 innings: 85%
30 innings: 80%
20 innings: 60%
10 innings: 40%

This works especially well in ODI ratings where players such as Babar Azam and Rashid Khan are rated in the top 10 on current criteria. Also, Pat Cummins is currently ranked at no.13 in the bowler's ratings and I don't think he deserves to be so high up the list at this stage.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Spark]

I'd definitely support a 100 innings peak rather than 50. 50 innings is simply not enough to be definitive IMO, but 100 innings is the core of an outstanding Test career.