DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[Burgey]

Thanks to Rob who posted this doco on Viv:

VIV RICHARDS - KING OF CRICKET - 1987 Documentary - YouTube

It's most notable part for me is the short chat between Viv and CLR James at about the 34 minutes mark.

 

[NUFAN]

so, the seven players above viv are bradman, sobers, hobbs, lara, hutton, hammond, headley.. hmmm

I hope that either Hobbs or Hutton aren't the next names out as then we would have a final six that would form an excellent all time batting lineup. Its quite amazing that Lara is the only one left from the past 35 years of Test Cricket as so many in that period made the top 25.

 

[smash84]

had to post pictures of Viv. Can't be accused of just posting Imran's pictures

 

[Burgey]

SS used to run a pic like that on promo posters back in the 80s with the caption "The Bowler's Nightmare".

I know this is the case because when I was a kid I nicked one from a sports store and put it up in my room

 

[kyear2]

Better the poster than the bat.

Love that pic.

 

[Singh Is King]

10. Sachin Tendulkar (India) (1989-present day)

Career Length (Days): 8528
Percentage of team's matches played: 92%
Career Average: 53.86
Adjusted career average: 50.77
Adjusted away average: 51.47
Adjusted top-opposition average: 48.79
Top Tier centuries: 18 (rank 1)
Second tier centuries: 6
Third tier centuries: 16
Significant innings: 58 (rank 4)
Significant innings per match: 0.29

Great innings: 7 (rank 5th=)
2nd Test: South Africa v India at Johannesburg, Nov 26-30, 1992 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 12.73
1st Test: England v India at Birmingham, Jun 6-9, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 14.31
2nd Test: South Africa v India at Cape Town, Jan 2-6, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 15.48
1st Test: India v Pakistan at Chennai, Jan 28-31, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 16.78
2nd Test: Australia v India at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 13.37
1st Test: Bangladesh v India at Dhaka, Dec 10-13, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 14.51
2nd Test: India v Australia at Bangalore, Oct 9-13, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo 14.39


Innings worth average: 3.46

25 Test peak adjusted average: 69.61 (1999-2002)
50 Test peak adjusted average: 63.62 (1997-2002)


Quality Points: 591
Career Points: 150 (max points allowed, 180 actual points)
Peak Points: 145
TOTAL POINTS: 886


Shock, horror! The man who is adored and worshipped by millions has only been rated as the 10th best test batsmen of all time. Indian fans raging would do well to realise that this is purely a statistical study, and cannot take into account that Tendulkar has the weight of India on his shoulders every time he comes out to bat. So, let's look at the stats. His averages are excellent without being truly mindblowing. He also has a low amount of significant innings per match. This is due to a lot of Tendulkar's best innings not leading to Indian wins. What gets Tendulkar into the top 10 is the sheer length of his career and the number of centuries he has scored against top tier opposition. He is one of only two batsmen to have maxed out on 150 career points. However, quality points are what really matters and Tendulkar is damaging his rating in this analysis the longer he prolongs his career. After his last great innings in 2010, already three years ago, Tendulkar was probably rated around no.6. I hope he has a good series against South Africa because as much as I hate the illogical worship of some of his fans, it would just be wrong not to have Sachin in the top 10.

Been following this page since it began, loving it great work. The first thing i noticed at the beginning is the significant innings per match statistic you have. Obviously India in the last 20 years have not won more matches because of their terribly average/below average bowling attacks. Why is Tendulkar being penalised for this ? It does not make any sense.

Inzamam has a very high rating in the significant innings stat as he was blessed with Pakistan having some of the best bowlers of all time. If Tendulkar played for Australia or Pakistan with their bowling attacks then he would have a hell of a lot more wins - and thus in your basis probably be ranked top 2 or 3 of all time (as he should).
Also it should not be ignored that in this day and age any weakness a batsman has is thoroughly analysed by computers and every bowler knows all about each batsmans weaknesses. Bowlers and coaches know inside out where players like to score their runs from all the computer analysis (thus they will score a bit lower) and know their specific weakness to (none of these 2 were available in previous decades which is an advantage to the older batsman).

My main point is about Tendulkar though;put Inzamam with Indias bowling attack and he would be a lot lower in your list. Put Tendulkar with Pakistans bowling attacks and he would be top 2 or 3 - As he should be (you said if Tendulkar retired a year ago he would of been number 6 on the list).
To have 20 years right at the very very top is remarkable.

 

[mde203]

Also it should not be ignored that in this day and age any weakness a batsman has is thoroughly analysed by computers and every bowler knows all about each batsmans weaknesses. Bowlers and coaches know inside out where players like to score their runs from all the computer analysis (thus they will score a bit lower) and know their specific weakness to (none of these 2 were available in previous decades which is an advantage to the older batsman)..

So how come batsmen nowadays don't tend to score lower than in say the 1980s? Computer analysis is just one way in which the game changes, you could just as easily turn that on its head and claim that batting nowadays is much easier due to bigger bats, flatter pitches, more matches etc etc. Equally analysis can have positive effects on a batsman just as much as negative.

There as a huge number of factors going into changes in the game and differences between eras that picking out just one as an explanation of why one player should be rated above others leads to so many counter-points that it is barely valid.

 

[kingkallis]

Been following this page since it began, loving it great work. The first thing i noticed at the beginning is the significant innings per match statistic you have. Obviously India in the last 20 years have not won more matches because of their terribly average/below average bowling attacks. Why is Tendulkar being penalised for this ? It does not make any sense.

Inzamam has a very high rating in the significant innings stat as he was blessed with Pakistan having some of the best bowlers of all time. If Tendulkar played for Australia or Pakistan with their bowling attacks then he would have a hell of a lot more wins - and thus in your basis probably be ranked top 2 or 3 of all time (as he should).
Also it should not be ignored that in this day and age any weakness a batsman has is thoroughly analysed by computers and every bowler knows all about each batsmans weaknesses. Bowlers and coaches know inside out where players like to score their runs from all the computer analysis (thus they will score a bit lower) and know their specific weakness to (none of these 2 were available in previous decades which is an advantage to the older batsman).

My main point is about Tendulkar though;put Inzamam with Indias bowling attack and he would be a lot lower in your list. Put Tendulkar with Pakistans bowling attacks and he would be top 2 or 3 - As he should be.
To have 20 years right at the very very top is remarkable.

Sadly thats how it works and nobody complained

 

[Singh Is King]

So how come batsmen nowadays don't tend to score lower than in say the 1980s? Computer analysis is just one way in which the game changes, you could just as easily turn that on its head and claim that batting nowadays is much easier due to bigger bats, flatter pitches, more matches etc etc. Equally analysis can have positive effects on a batsman just as much as negative.

There as a huge number of factors going into changes in the game and differences between eras that picking out just one as an explanation of why one player should be rated above others leads to so many counter-points that it is barely valid.

Good points you raise which i am aware of, hence why I said my main points are my other points about Tendulkar.

 

[kingkallis]

He was a **** indeed but a ***y and cool **** he was, difficult not to have a man crush on him

Mate, are you a Pathan?

 

[NUFAN]

SiK, your second point is rubbish but your first point is worth looking at a bit more.

Inzy won 40.83 % of the matches he has played
Sachin won 35.33 % of the matches he has played

Inzy lost 32.50% of the matches he played
Sachin lost 28.28% of the matches he has played.

Firstly, India at home especially have been very competitive. I agree Pakistan's bowling has been better but the stats are not that massive a difference. I don't think it matters much in this analysis apart from the significant innings per match.

 

[Singh Is King]

SiK, your second point is rubbish but your first point is worth looking at a bit more.

Inzy won 40.83 % of the matches he has played
Sachin won 35.33 % of the matches he has played

Inzy lost 32.50% of the matches he played
Sachin lost 28.28% of the matches he has played.

Firstly, India at home especially have been very competitive. I agree Pakistan's bowling has been better but the stats are not that massive a difference. I don't think it matters much in this analysis apart from the significant innings per match.

Inzamam was just an example. How many of Tendulkars absurd amount of 100s would of been to a winning cause if he was born Australian etc. Tendulkar if he was Australian with all his stats would most likely be number 1 or 2 because of 1 of the statistics DOG is using. But he wont be because hes had shocking bowlers for the last 20 years. Imagine the amount of matches India would of won with even above average bowling attacks (thus not being 10th which is plain silly) !!!

 

[Ikki]

Inzamam was just an example. How many of Tendulkars absurd amount of 100s would of been to a winning cause if he was born Australian etc. Tendulkar if he was Australian with all his stats would most likely be number 1 or 2 because of 1 of the statistics DOG is using. But he wont be because hes had shocking bowlers for the last 20 years. Imagine the amount of matches India would of won with even above average bowling attacks (thus not being 10th which is plain silly) !!!

If Tendulkar was Australian he wouldn't be Tendulkar. He wouldn't have debuted at 16 and his whole career would have been different.

I disagree generally with some of the player rankings, but Tendulkar IMO is around where he should be.

 

[Expressway76]

If Tendulkar was Australian he wouldn't be Tendulkar. He wouldn't have debuted at 16 and his whole career would have been different.

I disagree generally with some things and some ratings, but I Tendulkar IMO is around where he should be.

Plus there's a good chance that he'd have been a ****.

 

[Furball]

How did Dravid manage to get a higher significant innings percentage then?

 

[Singh Is King]

If Tendulkar was Australian he wouldn't be Tendulkar. He wouldn't have debuted at 16 and his whole career would have been different.

I disagree generally with some of the player rankings, but Tendulkar IMO is around where he should be.

You are ignoring the main points of what I have said read them again
Tendulkar would be a lot higher in this list if he had even a half decent bowling attack, instead Indias bowling attack has been dire as a result India havent won a very large quantity of matches due to their bowlers

 

[Prince EWS]

You are ignoring the main points of what I have said read them again
Tendulkar would be a lot higher in this list if he had even a half decent bowling attack, instead Indias bowling attack has been dire as a result India havent won a very large quantity of matches due to their bowlers

Tendulkar clearly should've worked harder on his bowling to make his innings more significant. Focussing on so much on his batting when the team was crying out for bowlers throughout his whole career was silly.

 

[Ikki]

You are ignoring the main points of what I have said read them again
Tendulkar would be a lot higher in this list if he had even a half decent bowling attack, instead Indias bowling attack has been dire as a result India havent won a very large quantity of matches due to their bowlers

You can't bring up that kind of point and ignore equally viable arguments for other players. "IF", well if my aunt had...

This is DoG's list, not a perfect list.

 

[Pothas]

Urgh. Get this **** out this thread.

 

[Singh Is King]

You can't bring up that kind of point and ignore equally viable arguments for other players. "IF", well if my aunt had...

This is DoG's list, not a perfect list.

Thats why I believe that certain statistic is flawed and has cost Tendulkar a hell of a lot of places in this list, 10th place is absurd which DOG said himself he would of been higher if India would of won more matches (like I keep saying they would of won considerably more if the bowlers wernt so poor/average); as I said before again, that statistic was the 1st thing I noticed. Im just saying my views; I believe this project has massive potential and could even be made into a book if elaborated on players careers. I am by no means mocking DOG what so ever. I love this project of his, its fantastic, just saying my bit.