DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[ankitj]

Fully agree, thought he would be lower. The fact that he is higher than Pollock and Weekes shows that numbers can never tell the entire story. Understandable though as it is a statistical analysis.

Heard you express this view first time. Thanks for letting us know. Also, what do you think of importance of strike rates?

 

[Furball]

EDIT: Keen to know who will be the last batsman without a great innings.

 

[Expressway76]

 

[Coronis]

I just couldn't agree more.

 

[ankitj]

If you are trying to troll me with that, you have chosen wrong target mate. I couldn't care less where Tendulkar is ranked or how many great innings he has. Not at all.

If I would care for one Indian batsman that would be Dhoni Which reminds me, DoG how are Dhoni's following two innings rated:

2nd Test: Pakistan v India at Faisalabad, Jan 21-25, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1st Test: India v Australia at Chennai, Feb 22-26, 2013 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Days of Grace]

If you are trying to troll me with that, you have chosen wrong target mate. I couldn't care less where Tendulkar is ranked or how many great innings he has. Not at all.

If I would care for one Indian batsman that would be Dhoni Which reminds me, DoG how are Dhoni's following two innings rated:

2nd Test: Pakistan v India at Faisalabad, Jan 21-25, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1st Test: India v Australia at Chennai, Feb 22-26, 2013 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1.01 & 0.09 respectively.

 

[ankitj]

WAC

 

[kyear2]

I just couldn't agree more.

shouldn't minimise his magnificent career though.

 

[Esperance]

Great read. Lovely work DoG.

 

[Days of Grace]

15. Steve Waugh (Australia) (1985-2004)

Career Length (Days): 6581
Percentage of team's matches played: 89%
Career Average: 51.06
Adjusted career average: 49.80
Adjusted away average: 55.24
Adjusted top-opposition average: 46.51
Top Tier centuries: 5
Second tier centuries: 3
Third tier centuries: 18
Significant innings: 62 (rank 3)
Significant innings per match: 0.37

Great innings: 3
3rd Test: England v Australia at Manchester, Jul 3-7, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 14.61 (1st Inns)
3rd Test: West Indies v Australia at Port of Spain, Apr 21-23, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 12.70
4th Test: West Indies v Australia at Kingston, Apr 29-May 3, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 14.22

Innings worth average: 3.17

25 Test peak adjusted average: 84.14 (1993-1996) (rank 2)
50 Test peak adjusted average: 65.38 (1993-1998) (rank 4)

Quality Points: 580
Career Points: 125
Peak Points: 150 (rank 6)
TOTAL POINTS: 855

Captain of arguably the greatest side ever, Steve Waugh sneaks into the top 15 thanks to an outstanding period of 25 tests during the 1990s when he averaged over 80, a short peak that is 2nd only to Bradman in terms of average. A lot of not outs helped his eventual career average, and in fact he only averaged 58 runs per innings during his 25-test peak. He was also phenomenal overseas and his two of his great innings came in the West Indies in 1995, when Australia took over the title of test champions in the eyes of almost any cricket historian. Above all, after an initial rocky beginning, Steve Waugh came to embody success and winning. His tally of 62 significant innings is the 3rd highest ever. 49 of those innings were played in Australian victories.

Readers should note that a peak rating encompasses not only averages, but also length of time, runs per innings, centuries scored, and total significant innings.

 

[The Sean]

I thought he might be next up. Look at that peak - phenomenal.

 

[The Sean]

DoG mentioned that the average rating of the top 25 was 900 - we're up to no.15 now and the average score so far has been 829, so the remaining 14 need to average 956 to get us up to the 900 mark. Either we're about to have a huge jump in scores, or one bloke at the top is going to skew the numbers.

On a related note DoG, is there a maximum score achievable - as in are these scores "out of" 1000 or something, or is there no upper limit?

 

[Days of Grace]

No upper limit. I wanted the truly great batsmen to score over 900, though.

 

[smash84]

wow....that 25 test peak average is friggin insane....Steve Waugh....WAFG....criminally under rated

 

[Coronis]

wow....that 25 test peak average is friggin insane....Steve Waugh....WAFG....criminally under rated

Though, all those not outs help. Not to belittle his achievements.

 

[The Sean]

Though, all those not outs help.

As well they should. A batsman shouldn't be punished for being too good for the bowlers to dismiss.

 

[Coronis]

As well they should. A batsman shouldn't be punished for being too good for the bowlers to dismiss.

No, not at all.

 

[NUFAN]

As well they should. A batsman shouldn't be punished for being too good for the bowlers to dismiss.

I know it would be hard to factor in, but Waugh obviously batted with the tail often with great success, but there were times when he could have been a bit more attacking with the 10 and 11 and finished for instance 135 and out, instead he finished on 120* which helps significantly more on his record but slightly less so his team. I'm not trying to downplay Waugh's achievements he was terrific, just a minor point that not outs shouldn't always count statistically as high as they sometimes do.

One further thing, I am surprised that his 63* made the list, its not an innings that I remember too well at all.

 

[The Sean]

I know it would be hard to factor in, but Waugh obviously batted with the tail often with great success, but there were times when he could have been a bit more attacking with the 10 and 11 and finished for instance 135 and out, instead he finished on 120* which helps significantly more on his record but slightly less so his team. I'm not trying to downplay Waugh's achievements he was terrific, just a minor point that not outs shouldn't always count statistically as high as they sometimes do.

Yeah agreed, each situation is different and there's no question that batting selfishly just to get the red ink at the expense of helping your team should be judged harshly - particularly so if a batsman makes a habit of it. And of course there are the extreme examples of a lot of low not-out scores contributing to a very high average (Bill Johnston 1953, I'm looking at you here).

As a general rule though, I tend to disagree with the belief that not-outs somehow "artificially" inflate batting averages.

 

[The Sean]

No upper limit. I wanted the truly great batsmen to score over 900, though.

Thanks.

Out of interest, how did Waugh's second innings at Old Trafford in '97 rate? I would have assumed that the two were pretty close together but apparently not.