DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[_00_deathscar]

Did Jayasuria come up?

In a test 100 top batsmen list?

 

[Days of Grace]

DoGGo, where did Lindsay Hassett finish in this exercise please?

No. 101. Just missed the cut.

 

[Days of Grace]

I held off on this one, not wanting to spoil Burgey's Christmas. As it is, he may spit out his leftover xmas pud when he sees this...

No.24

Allan Border (Australia) 810

Quality Points: 724
Career Points: 86

Career/Runs: 1978-1994, 11174 (rank 11)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 49.36 (50.56) 41.17 (42.17) 40.25 (40.98) (rank 49)
50 Innings Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1982-1986): 64.37 52.78 42.16 (rank 37)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 54.68 43.75 40.82 (rank 14)
Quality Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 51.86 42.99 39.83 (rank 31)

And so the great man, the quintessential Aussie battler, the only and only AB, finishes in 24th place. He came very close to averaging over 50 in all the measures and he ranks in the top 50 for all of them, his record away from home being a stand-out. He loses points due to his low strike-rate and relatively low runs per innings, due to a high number of not-outs. Suffice to say, if only average were used to rank test batsmen, then AB would be well ensconced in the top 20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGlmr2d5qeQ

 

[sunilz]

So quality points of Sehwag > Border . Perfect

This also proves that Devilliers is the true AB

 

[honestbharani]

Best Boxing Day post in CW history IMO.


But for all the stuff we end up saying due to him being massively over rated by a couple of posters here, he is without a doubt the main reason Australia are where they are today in the cricketing world. Have heard in so many places that he adapted his game from being an elegant stroke maker into the "over my dead body" batsman who just figured out a way to score runs, irrespective of how good he looked while doing so. His batting was almost always a study in efficiency. He did just what was needed and how much was needed to score the runs his team needed from him. He was a good reader of the game and hence utilized his bowling attacks (including his own bowling) most efectively and brought the best out of so many who were seemingly destined for mediocrity. Great batsman, great captain, an absolute legend of the game.

His most impressive achievement will still be the 1987 WC triumph for me. Its a rather under rated underdog story there. We tend to romanticize the Indian win in 83, which was spectacular for sure but Australia being India in the semis and then a more fancied and experienced England in the finals in hostile conditions in the sub-continent was an excellent achievement too. And one I think that basically pioneered sides picking players specifically for one day cricket.

 

[stephen]

Oh dear me. This is the problem with automated stats systems, they don't account for the true impact a player had.

 

[honestbharani]

Yep.. Sehwag definitely should have made top 20.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Woah definitely thought he'd be higher

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

23 batsmen were better than Allan Border. Hmm

 

[ankitj]

Of the remaining batsmen to come, following are ones that almost no one puts above Border:

Chanderpaul
Weekes
De Villiers
Younis

Everyone else can be debated.

 

[honestbharani]

AB, Weekes for me are > Border. Agree about Younis and Chanders though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Younis is not as inarguable as you might think. Incredible player.

 

[h_hurricane]

Oh dear me. This is the problem with automated stats systems, they don't account for the true impact a player had.

His impact has been fairly calculated here. See the non-home metric. What let him down, I feel, is his runs per innings, around 42. Very good in that metric but certainly not top tier.

By the way, how do we quantify impact ? It is an intangible metric isn't it ?

 

[trundler]

Younis > De Villiers and Chanders for me. Weekes definitely benefits from nostalgia imo. Bit of an HTB and minnow basher. Still an ATG, mind.

 

[trundler]

Any way of accounting for not outs was always going to throw to some seemingly iffy results.

 

[honestbharani]

Younis is not as inarguable as you might think. Incredible player.

Yeah, me agreeing with that post perhaps made it seem that way, but to me all 4 have arguable cases to be better than Border and Border has an arguable case to be better than those 4 too, depending on what parameters you think are most important. But for me, I would put Border above Chanders and Younis but below Weekes and AB. But all 5 are indeed incredible players.

 

[trundler]

De Villiers is a weird one for me. Picking and choosing tours leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Plus, I think he should've averaged closer to 55 given how good his technique was. I mean, Graeme Smith averaged marginally less with his technique so someone as gifted, versatile and compact as ABdV should've averaged more. That's just a personal gripe. He did play over a 110 tests, which is a lot, but most of the guys up ahead would've averaged a lot more if they'd retired after a similar duration. I mean, those 54 extra tests Ponting played made a lot of difference. I'd say the same about some guy like Sanga who played for longer but didn't play as frequently. So, ABdV loses some points on longevity imo and there will always be an air of underachievement around his test record to me. Still a mind-blowingly uniform record though. Especially that away average.

 

[trundler]

Don't get me wrong, I love him. He possibly had the most gears out of any batsman I've seen. It's just that I'm not sure if he's in that exclusive Lara/Tendulkar/Sobers etc club when he really could've been there without doubt based on ability.

 

[honestbharani]

He also kept for his team that obviously handicapped his longevity as a batsman. I feel that counteracts him picking and choosing which he only started doing post 2015. So, it plays no part in my judgement of him as a batsman. He was just freakishly awesome.

 

[AndrewB]

Best Boxing Day post in CW history IMO.


But for all the stuff we end up saying due to him being massively over rated by a couple of posters here, he is without a doubt the main reason Australia are where they are today in the cricketing world. Have heard in so many places that he adapted his game from being an elegant stroke maker into the "over my dead body" batsman who just figured out a way to score runs, irrespective of how good he looked while doing so. His batting was almost always a study in efficiency. He did just what was needed and how much was needed to score the runs his team needed from him. He was a good reader of the game and hence utilized his bowling attacks (including his own bowling) most efectively and brought the best out of so many who were seemingly destined for mediocrity. Great batsman, great captain, an absolute legend of the game.

His most impressive achievement will still be the 1987 WC triumph for me. Its a rather under rated underdog story there. We tend to romanticize the Indian win in 83, which was spectacular for sure but Australia being India in the semis and then a more fancied and experienced England in the finals in hostile conditions in the sub-continent was an excellent achievement too. And one I think that basically pioneered sides picking players specifically for one day cricket.

Australia beat Pakistan in the semis; England beat India.