DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[mr_mister]

4th rank in the first category is awesome

 

[Logan]

My guess for Top 15

Bradman, Smith and Ponting

Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Barrington

Sachin, Gavaskar

Sobers, Richards and Lara

Sangakkara

Kallis

I expect at least 12-13 of the 15 names to be in Top 15 with Pollock or Headley surprising me.

Looks my prediction was correct. Expected around 12 but got 15. Much better than what I expected.

 

[Slifer]

No.16

Sir Everton Weekes (West Indies) 833

Quality Points: 794
Career Points: 39

Career/Runs: 1948-1958, 4455 (rank 147)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 54.17 (58.61) 50.82 (55.00) 66.30 (58.77) (rank 4)
50 Innings Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1948-1955): 61.61 57.91 64.92 (rank 26)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 45.99 45.99 65.49 (rank 25)
Quality Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 40.98 38.19 72.72 (rank 74)

The great man is still with us and he finishes above his great contemporaries as the highest ranked W. What separates him from Walcott and Worrell, and indeed from any other batsman of his era, is his phenomenal scoring rate. The adjustment upwards in his strike-rate is reflective of this. Weekes scored a lot of his runs at home or against the weaker opponents of his day (his adjusted average is only 0.92% of his original), but the runs were still there to be made and he was utterly merciless, almost becoming the only batsman in history to score 6 consecutive test centuries. After 38 test matches and up to the tour of England in 1957, he had scored 3805 runs at 59.56 (64.49). This was after 8 years of test cricket, about the same stage that Steve Smith is at now. He retired near his peak after a thigh injury and thus he benefits in this list from having no drop-off in the twilight of his career. In addition, Weekes finished unbeaten only 5 times in 81 innings and this boosts his runs per innings average. He was the right-handed Brian Lara of his time and it is truly regrettable that almost no footage exists of him playing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1NVLefUG14

The Three W's Comparison

Career
Weekes 39
Walcott 38
Worrell 43

Overall
Weekes 471 (54.71)
Walcott 453 (53.06)
Worrell 402 (47.59)

Peak
Weekes 175 (61.61)
Walcott 173 (61.69)
Worrell 146 (52.08)

Non-Home
Weekes 77 (45.99)
Walcott 61 (37.29)
Worrell 72 (44.81)

Quality Opposition
Weekes 71 (40.98)
Walcott 80 (48.73)
Worrell 66 (40.40)

Final Points
Weekes 833
Walcott 806
Worrell 728

You said he'd be the only batsman to score 6 hundreds in a row. But isn't his 5 in a row already a record??

 

[honestbharani]

60 odd matches are more than enough to understand the quality of a player.
He had every shots in his repertoire, played them with flamboyance, did well at both home and away, played spin and pace with ease, and was extremely consistent.
So yea, I stand by my opinion that Sachin is the most complete batsman I've ever seen and he was a tier above the rest in the 90s.



Yes.

Well, that puts the other post in perspective then.

 

[honestbharani]

Where does this Kohli not being a prodigy thing come from? He was the U-19 India captain for a reason.

So was Mohammed Kaif. Was he a prodigy?

 

[sunilz]

Kohli probably deserves to be ahead of him on career but as a batsman Waugh was a decent way ahead of Dravid and about equal with Border in my mind. In fact he was the successor to Border in many ways. He was the captain Border could have been with a better side. He was very similar in batting ability to Border as well.

ABSOLUTELY NO ( I am putting it in caps )

1. Dravid's record against WI is as good as Waugh if not better. Dravid averaged around 65 against WI and 50+ in every series he played against WI. He averaged 72 in WI when both Ambrose and Walsh played (1996) . His twin knocks in 4th test in 2006 series was as good as any Waugh's knock in WI ( Check Lara's post match comments about that pitch)

2. Dravid is the best player of moving ball in last 30 years imo . AUS might have won a series in ENG since 2001 if they had batsman like Dravid because their pace attack has always been much better than IND (except since 2017)

3. A number 3 batsman averaging 50 is always much better than a number 5 batsman averaging 50 boosted with not outs.

4 . I rate them almost equal because of Dravid' poor record against AUS + SA otherwise it would have been no contest

5. Ponting is marginally better than both because he was attacking batsman.

 

[stephen]

Dravid's career was later than Waugh's and so he benefited more from flatter pitches than Waugh did.

Waugh averaged 53 in the 90s which is incredible. Only Tendulkar and Lara were anywhere near that.

Dravid was very very good but there's no way I can rate him ahead of Waugh. Waugh just impacted world cricket more. And I don't need cherry picked stats to prove it. I saw both careers and the impact they had and Waugh's was way more than Dravid's.

 

[Slifer]

ABSOLUTELY NO ( I am putting it in caps )

1. Dravid's record against WI is as good as Waugh if not better. Dravid averaged around 65 against WI and 50+ in every series he played against WI. He averaged 72 in WI when both Ambrose and Walsh played (1996) . His twin knocks in 4th test in 2006 series was as good as any Waugh's knock in WI ( Check Lara's post match comments about that pitch)

2. Dravid is the best player of moving ball in last 30 years imo . AUS might have won a series in ENG since 2001 if they had batsman like Dravid because their pace attack has always been much better than IND (except since 2017)

3. A number 3 batsman averaging 50 is always much better than a number 5 batsman averaging 50 boosted with not outs.

4 . I rate them almost equal because of Dravid' poor record against AUS + SA otherwise it would have been no contest

5. Ponting is marginally better than both because he was attacking batsman.

Sunilz I respect some of your arguments regarding Waugh vs Sachin but please don't use dravids record vs wi and Waugh's as any serious measure. Waugh literally always faced an atg wi attack whenever he came up vs the wi. The one time he didnt in 2000 he was already on his way out. Dravid faced one great wi attack but thereafter they were all rubbish tbh. Not remotely comparable.

And you keep going on with this not out stuff. Ok without not outs Sachin averages 48 vs Lara who averages 51. But even I wouldn't use this as an argument to rate Lara over sachin because Lara simply is not.

 

[h_hurricane]

ABSOLUTELY NO ( I am putting it in caps )

1. Dravid's record against WI is as good as Waugh if not better. Dravid averaged around 65 against WI and 50+ in every series he played against WI. He averaged 72 in WI when both Ambrose and Walsh played (1996) . His twin knocks in 4th test in 2006 series was as good as any Waugh's knock in WI ( Check Lara's post match comments about that pitch)

2. Dravid is the best player of moving ball in last 30 years imo . AUS might have won a series in ENG since 2001 if they had batsman like Dravid because their pace attack has always been much better than IND (except since 2017)

3. A number 3 batsman averaging 50 is always much better than a number 5 batsman averaging 50 boosted with not outs.

4 . I rate them almost equal because of Dravid' poor record against AUS + SA otherwise it would have been no contest

5. Ponting is marginally better than both because he was attacking batsman.

Yeah, people are talking as if Waugh was in a different class to Dravid. Personally I would put both in the same tier, nothing much between them.

Also, Dravid scored some 2K runs more than Waugh in around same number of test matches, while playing quite a few more innings. Easily the player with the better output.

 

[Logan]

Ponting wasn’t marginally ahead of Dravid and Waugh. He was ahead of both of them by a comfortable margin.

 

[honestbharani]

1. Lara’s 153 was against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and McGill.

Perera’s 153 was against Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Oliver and Maharaj.

SA’s attack was better.

P.S : In case you were wondering if Steyn was injured, Steyn took 4 wickets in the first innings.

2. A worse pitch? No.

A total of 1276 runs and 5 centuries(including Lara) were scored in Bridgetown that match.

A total of 989 runs and 1 century(by Perera) were scored in Durban that match.

3. More pressure?

Lara played at home. Perera’s was in away conditions.

An Asian team winning a test series for the first time in SA is much bigger deal IMO.



You are free to rate Lara’s innings as better. Just pointing out a few stats.

1. Philander was injured and did not bowl for the most part of Perera's innings. And even otherwise McGrath, 99 Gillespie, Warne, MacGill >>>>> 2019 Steyn, Maharaj and Olivier. I mean, it is an absolute no contest, even with a fit Philander. To say otherwise only shows bias and lack of knowledge, honestly.

2. The 99 Barbados wicket was tougher to bat in the fourth innings while it is a well known fact that Durban wickets usually get better for batting progressively. The 98 test in Barbados ended with India shot out for 81 chasing 120 and the 2018 Durban test saw RSA score almost 300 chasing 400 odd. And again, just seeing the game, it was obvious the wicket was so much worse for batting at Barbados. Also, Australia with an ATG batting line up were just rolled for 146 on the same track. Again, pretty basic.


3. And yes easily way more pressure. As I said, Perera had zero expectations and nothing to lose. Lara was up against it all day and even the simplest of mistakes would have cost them the game.

You can go by numbers without context all you want, I am just pointing out the facts why Lara's knock was easily better.

 

[sunilz]

Dravid's career was later than Waugh's and so he benefited more from flatter pitches than Waugh did.

Waugh averaged 53 in the 90s which is incredible. Only Tendulkar and Lara were anywhere near that.

Dravid was very very good but there's no way I can rate him ahead of Waugh. Waugh just impacted world cricket more. And I don't need cherry picked stats to prove it. I saw both careers and the impact they had and Waugh's was way more than Dravid's.

Dravid has higher RPI than Steve Waugh in 90s although he scored less than half of total runs of Steve Waugh because he debuted later. There is absolutely nothing to suggest he wouldn't be as successful as Waugh in 90s .

Steve Waugh impacted World Cricket more because he played for ATG team . Today Kohli impacts World Cricket more than Steve Smith. This doesn't make him a better test batsman than Smith

 

[sunilz]

Sunilz I respect some of your arguments regarding Waugh vs Sachin but please don't use dravids record vs wi and Waugh's as any serious measure. Waugh literally always faced an atg wi attack whenever he came up vs the wi. The one time he didnt in 2000 he was already on his way out. Dravid faced one great wi attack but thereafter they were all rubbish tbh. Not remotely comparable.

And you keep going on with this not out stuff. Ok without not outs Sachin averages 48 vs Lara who averages 51. But even I wouldn't use this as an argument to rate Lara over sachin because Lara simply is not.

1. Dravid was successful against WI the only time he played ATG attack . There is nothing to suggest he wouldn't have been as successful as Waugh had he faced them more
2. You are absolutely free to rate Lara more than Sachin . Lara and Sobers are 2 batsman who have every right to be rated better than Sachin . And Smith , Kohli ( Less extent) are also on that path.

 

[OverratedSanity]

These last few pages are shite because a lot of people are using "easily" instead of the more accurate "marginally in my opinion".

DoG please post more frequently to save this thread.

 

[Slifer]

These last few pages are shite because a lot of people are using "easily" instead of the more accurate "marginally in my opinion".

DoG please post more frequently to save this thread.

Lol.

 

[h_hurricane]

Ponting wasn’t marginally ahead of Dravid and Waugh. He was ahead of both of them by a comfortable margin.

Clearly not the case. Ponting failed in his biggest test (against spin in India). Ponting, Dravid, Waugh, Border all belong to the same tier with Ponting probably ahead of them all.

 

[Logan]

Almost all ATG batsman have one or two holes in their record. Ponting did have a weakness against spin in India. But still would rate him easily ahead of all three especially Dravid.

Saw Ponting and Dravid’s entire careers. As an Indian fan, it was disappointing seeing Dravid fail almost everytime he faced Aus and SA. Ponting failed in India but was devastating everywhere else.

This may be an unpopular opinion but I found Ponting more dangerous than Lara. I wouldn’t be surprised if he came ahead of Lara in this list.

 

[Coronis]

No.16

Sir Everton Weekes (West Indies) 833

Quality Points: 794
Career Points: 39

Career/Runs: 1948-1958, 4455 (rank 147)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 54.17 (58.61) 50.82 (55.00) 66.30 (58.77) (rank 4)
50 Innings Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1948-1955): 61.61 57.91 64.92 (rank 26)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 45.99 45.99 65.49 (rank 25)
Quality Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 40.98 38.19 72.72 (rank 74)

The great man is still with us and he finishes above his great contemporaries as the highest ranked W. What separates him from Walcott and Worrell, and indeed from any other batsman of his era, is his phenomenal scoring rate. The adjustment upwards in his strike-rate is reflective of this. Weekes scored a lot of his runs at home or against the weaker opponents of his day (his adjusted average is only 0.92% of his original), but the runs were still there to be made and he was utterly merciless, almost becoming the only batsman in history to score 6 consecutive test centuries. After 38 test matches and up to the tour of England in 1957, he had scored 3805 runs at 59.56 (64.49). This was after 8 years of test cricket, about the same stage that Steve Smith is at now. He retired near his peak after a thigh injury and thus he benefits in this list from having no drop-off in the twilight of his career. In addition, Weekes finished unbeaten only 5 times in 81 innings and this boosts his runs per innings average. He was the right-handed Brian Lara of his time and it is truly regrettable that almost no footage exists of him playing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1NVLefUG14

The Three W's Comparison

Career
Weekes 39
Walcott 38
Worrell 43

Overall
Weekes 471 (54.71)
Walcott 453 (53.06)
Worrell 402 (47.59)

Peak
Weekes 175 (61.61)
Walcott 173 (61.69)
Worrell 146 (52.08)

Non-Home
Weekes 77 (45.99)
Walcott 61 (37.29)
Worrell 72 (44.81)

Quality Opposition
Weekes 71 (40.98)
Walcott 80 (48.73)
Worrell 66 (40.40)

Final Points
Weekes 833
Walcott 806
Worrell 728

Not sure I completely agree with where Weekes ended up but I guess thats all part of the fun here. One thing I’m definitely not really a fan of is Walcott having a better average and RPI but having less peak points due to a strike rate difference. Great work as usual though DoG, can’t wait for the top 15.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Saw Ponting and Dravid’s entire careers. As an Indian fan, it was disappointing seeing Dravid fail almost everytime he faced Aus and SA.

Mate dravid averaged 39 against Australia, not 19. You don't need to over exaggerate to make an ultimately valid point.

 

[Coronis]

Interesting stat, not including the war decades, every decade since the 1900’s has had one player debut that is ranked in the top 15, aside from the 60’s (Pollock at 25 was the highest). 20’s and 90’s lead the way with 3 players each.