Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current) - Updated

[venkyrenga]

There has been two new entries in the top 10 and some other changes in ranking as well. Any predictions?

 

[The Sean]

I missed the last one of these, so am enjoying reading through this countdown – great to see the effort and analysis you’ve put into it. Do you have a simple list of the last top 30, for comparison?

One thing about the analysis – the strike rate penalty feels harsh to me. Different batsmen have different roles in the team, and there will always be those who fall well above or below the mean. I understand the logic of saying that middle ground is “optimal” though I don’t necessarily agree as we are saying in that case that the “optimal” is essentially the “average” – and it feels particularly harsh to penalise those with a much better than average strike rate.

The ability to rack up big scores at pace is a priceless asset in my opinion – it’s one of the reasons that the likes of Lara, Gilchrist and Sehwag were such valuable and dangerous players. And if a player is scoring quickly but not to the benefit of the team (i.e., he isn’t making many runs) then surely that will be borne out by your other criteria anyway?

 

[Flem274*]

Flower copping a longevity penalty because he played for Zimbabwe is a bit ridiculous tbh. That's why I tend to disdain the sky high value this website (and then the flow on to the lesser forums like cricinfo) places on longevity. It disproportionately favours the English spammers, with a small but noticeable gap down to Aus and India and then a big penalty for the likes of Zimbabwe.

No one is taking Mahela Jayawardene for a test over Andy Flower imo.

 

[Gob]

I made my dad buy me a Matt Hayden cooking book when I was a kid because I thought it was so cool. Never read anything in it or cooked a thing in my life though.

you are alive and posting so makes sense

 

[Gob]

Flower copping a longevity penalty because he played for Zimbabwe is a bit ridiculous tbh. That's why I tend to disdain the sky high value this website (and then the flow on to the lesser forums like cricinfo) places on longevity. It disproportionately favours the English spammers, with a small but noticeable gap down to Aus and India and then a big penalty for the likes of Zimbabwe.

No one is taking Mahela Jayawardene for a test over Andy Flower imo.

not if you are playing on the SSC

 

[venkyrenga]

I missed the last one of these, so am enjoying reading through this countdown – great to see the effort and analysis you’ve put into it. Do you have a simple list of the last top 30, for comparison?

If you haven't seen the last top 30 it is better. You will enjoy this more

One thing about the analysis – the strike rate penalty feels harsh to me. Different batsmen have different roles in the team, and there will always be those who fall well above or below the mean. I understand the logic of saying that middle ground is “optimal” though I don’t necessarily agree as we are saying in that case that the “optimal” is essentially the “average” – and it feels particularly harsh to penalise those with a much better than average strike rate.

The ability to rack up big scores at pace is a priceless asset in my opinion – it’s one of the reasons that the likes of Lara, Gilchrist and Sehwag were such valuable and dangerous players. And if a player is scoring quickly but not to the benefit of the team (i.e., he isn’t making many runs) then surely that will be borne out by your other criteria anyway?

People are divided when it comes to SR and RPI. I hope this doesn't start another endless debate here.

Now, Lara's SR falls under the optimal range for the most part and he isn't affected by this. The only two batsmen who are penalized for a high SR is Gilchrist and Sehwag and IMO, rightfully so. Both batsmen were assets to their team mainly because of their team composition. Sehwag had the likes of Dravid and Sachin to stabilize from the other end. But place Gilly and Sehwag in a weaker batting line up, you would more often wish they had played a longer innings. A batsman's team composition may conceal his shortcomings but it isn't important when it comes to assessing his overall ability. They are penalized because they are one dimensional batsmen who are not as good when the situation demands them to spend more time in the crease. And on the other side you have batsmen with low SR who aren't as good at accelerating when the situation demanded. Whereas a Sachin or Kohli who has their SR in the optimal range are capable of doing both, at least to some extent.

And the weightage is very less for both SR and RPI. For SR, it is just 1% penalty for 4 away from the optimal range which is 54-66. And for RPI it is just 1:3 compared to batting average. It just helps to separate two batsmen when they have the same average.

 

[The Sean]

If you haven't seen the last top 30 it is better. You will enjoy this more



People are divided when it comes to SR and RPI. I hope this doesn't start another endless debate here.

Now, Lara's SR falls under the optimal range for the most part and he isn't affected by this. The only two batsmen who are penalized for a high SR is Gilchrist and Sehwag and IMO, rightfully so. Both batsmen were assets to their team mainly because of their team composition. Sehwag had the likes of Dravid and Sachin to stabilize from the other end. But place Gilly and Sehwag in a weaker batting line up, you would more often wish they had played a longer innings. A batsman's team composition may conceal his shortcomings but it isn't important when it comes to assessing his overall ability. They are penalized because they are one dimensional batsmen who are not as good when the situation demands them to spend more time in the crease. And on the other side you have batsmen with low SR who aren't as good at accelerating when the situation demanded. Whereas a Sachin or Kohli who has their SR in the optimal range are capable of doing both, at least to some extent.

And the weightage is very less for both SR and RPI. For SR, it is just 1% penalty for 4 away from the optimal range which is 54-66. And for RPI it is just 1:3 compared to batting average. It just helps to separate two batsmen when they have the same average.

Fair enough, thanks for the response. I won't get into an endless debate about it, and appreciate the work that has gone into this. I'd only say that your comment of Gilly and Sehwag being one-dimensional who would not have been as successful in a weaker line-up is speculative, and it seems harsh to penalise them for hypothetically not being able to play an innings that they didn't need to in a batting line-up that they weren't a part of, as opposed to being extraordinarily valuable to the team they were actually in.

But I will leave it there - as noted, I appreciate the response and the work that has gone into this.

 

[Teja.]

Flower copping a longevity penalty because he played for Zimbabwe is a bit ridiculous tbh. That's why I tend to disdain the sky high value this website (and then the flow on to the lesser forums like cricinfo) places on longevity. It disproportionately favours the English spammers, with a small but noticeable gap down to Aus and India and then a big penalty for the likes of Zimbabwe.

No one is taking Mahela Jayawardene for a test over Andy Flower imo.

Dunno how this one works but people usually measure longevity by years played and not matches played so it doesn’t really favour teams from bigger nations.

In fact I think longevity is underrated on CW. People seem to appreciate why 5 years is not good enough compared to 10 years in terms of greatness but have a mental stumbling block when comparing someone with a 12 year career v someone with a 18 year career with roughly the same returns because 12 years is enough to ‘show your class’ or whatever even though the question is about value addition and not skill.

I’d take Shoiab for basically his entire career apart from his first two years (basically all matches he played post 2000) over the vast majority of ATG bowlers across history to play one exhibition match based on his ridiculously versatile skillset, unique speed and outstanding ability to bowl on slow flat pitches even without reverse swing. He only ended up playing ~30 tests over 6-7 years while missing a lot of tests in that period and finally having career ending injuries though and I don’t consider him an ATG. The question of ‘who would you take to play a test match’ is flawed imo.

 

[venkyrenga]

Flower copping a longevity penalty because he played for Zimbabwe is a bit ridiculous tbh. That's why I tend to disdain the sky high value this website (and then the flow on to the lesser forums like cricinfo) places on longevity. It disproportionately favours the English spammers, with a small but noticeable gap down to Aus and India and then a big penalty for the likes of Zimbabwe.

No one is taking Mahela Jayawardene for a test over Andy Flower imo.

But this methodology does nor favor the English or Aus because longevity is determined from number of years active and not number of matches played.

The ranking is a combination of how good a batsman was and what they actually accomplished. Flower maybe better than Mahela but the fact is he didn't get to play longer. Who knows how his career would have turned out if he continued. He already did poor in the last year of his career.
I still remember around 2006 people were starting to say Dravid was the best ever Indian batsman. And in the next few years the same people changed their stand.

 

[venkyrenga]

Fair enough, thanks for the response. I won't get into an endless debate about it, and appreciate the work that has gone into this. I'd only say that your comment of Gilly and Sehwag being one-dimensional who would not have been as successful in a weaker line-up is speculative, and it seems harsh to penalise them for hypothetically not being able to play an innings that they didn't need to in a batting line-up that they weren't a part of, as opposed to being extraordinarily valuable to the team they were actually in.

But I will leave it there - as noted, I appreciate the response and the work that has gone into this.

But it is not hypothetical because even the team Sehwag played for would have benefited if he had the ability to slow down and spend more time in the crease, especially in their overseas matches. And if Sehwag did actually do that whenever required it would reflect in his SR.

 

[Flem274*]

Fair enough on the years active since something like it is what I plan to use in my eventual MVP rankings, though I think it's harsh on Flower for his specific circumstances (playing for a broken nation).

Dunno how this one works but people usually measure longevity by years played and not matches played so it doesn’t really favour teams from bigger nations.

In fact I think longevity is underrated on CW. People seem to appreciate why 5 years is not good enough compared to 10 years in terms of greatness but have a mental stumbling block when comparing someone with a 12 year career v someone with a 18 year career with roughly the same returns because 12 years is enough to ‘show your class’ or whatever even though the question is about value addition and not skill.

I’d take Shoiab for basically his entire career apart from his first two years (basically all matches he played post 2000) over the vast majority of ATG bowlers across history to play one exhibition match based on his ridiculously versatile skillset, unique speed and outstanding ability to bowl on slow flat pitches even without reverse swing. He only ended up playing ~30 tests over 6-7 years while missing a lot of tests in that period and finally having career ending injuries though and I don’t consider him an ATG. The question of ‘who would you take to play a test match’ is flawed imo.

View attachment 29334

longevity matters when separating equals, but we see in real life selection scenarios Ryan Harris plays every day. If they're fit, you pick them and that's all that matters with bowlers imo. Shoiab is not better than McGrath because of his availability*, but he's easily in that tier I'm beginning to call the top 20% of his era and he probably makes the top 5-10% (I'd need to go and check). To use another example, Shane Bond makes it into the NZ All Time XI over the near 600 combined test wickets of Southee and Boult every time because he was simply better.

*in the era of reliable speed guns we're seeing players who combine genuine pace with long term fitness are extremely rare unicorns. Brett Lee, Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson and probably a couple I'm forgetting. Most quick bowlers during this era we consider ATGs or in the discussion (McGrath, Pollock, Steyn, Cummins, Philander, Anderson) spent a lot of time operating at 130-144kph or in an even narrower bracket. Some would use a fast spell sure, but it's a fast spell not a fast test or fast career.

Attempting to bowl 145kph or more every game destroys most bodies and it's a value trade off every bowler has to consider. Bond talked about it during his career. Some bowlers refuse to compromise pace because it gives their teams one of the rarest assets in the game and themselves an edge most bowlers will never have. Selectors of even very powerful bowling groups like Australia pick these guys and if they break, so be it.

If we're picking a 2000-2010 test squad for a 5 test series against some other team then Shoiab strolls in ahead of the ATVGs like Jason Gillespie or even the unicorns like Brett Lee because he was better than them. Shoiab is a bad example for you to use imo because he was a force of nature. He might be the most talented bowler to ever live. You pick him, you bowl him and if he breaks, so be it. When you have someone that good on hand, who even cares about longevity just pick him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Didn't realise there was a penalty here for strike-rate being too high. Patently absurd IMO. Also highly dubious to suggest that Gilchrist would have been less useful in a weaker line-up. More likely the opposite is the case. His best innings were counter-attacking when the team was in trouble, he single-handedly turned games that looked like being done and the scoring rate was a big part of that. Painting him as a downhill skiier is dishonest, and in a weaker team he most likely would have shined even more brightly.

Would say similar for Sehwag too. The idea that these fast-scoring batsmen come with a meaningful downside by not facing enough balls is all hot air. You can't put a price on the demoralisation and mental effect having an opening batsman come out in hit 50 off 40 balls has on you and the tone it sets for an innings and a match. If you have 2 batsmen with the same average, 99% of the time you want the higher strike rate guy.

You've obviously put some logic behind it but it's based on extremely faulty logic.

 

[Engle]

But it is not hypothetical because even the team Sehwag played for would have benefited if he had the ability to slow down and spend more time in the crease, especially in their overseas matches. And if Sehwag did actually do that whenever required it would reflect in his SR.

Partly true – but sooner or later a weak team needs to break out of their defensive mindset and assert themselves if they want to move up the ladder. Beyond a match or series, it is an overarching mentality that boosts a team from constantly being on the ‘backfoot‘ and towards moving into the ‘ front foot ’.

Great discussion nevertheless

 

[venkyrenga]

How Sehwag or Gilly would have done in a weaker line-up is hypothetical and will not lead to any conclusion. So lets put that aside and stick to the facts. The fact is they have a higher SR meaning, they have spent less time in the crease compared to other batsmen with the same average.

No matter which team a batsman plays for, in test cricket there will be situations where one will need to increase the scoring rate or slow down and occupy the crease for a long period. And if a batsman has adapted to these match conditions his overall SR would be in the optimal range and not extremely high or low. This is simple logic.

And as for the demoralizing effect a fast scoring batsman can have on the bowlers, what about the demoralizing effect of a batsman occupying the crease for a much longer period. I heard many bowlers say they would rather bowl to Sehwag than to Dravid. Because with Dravid he just kills your spirit by giving no hope. But with Sehwag there is always some hope whether he just walked in or at 200. Both can have different effects.

Doesn't ABD have the ability to be as explosive as Sehwag or Gilly? But then why is his SR not too high and in the optimal range. Because he is a better batsman who can adapt to different conditions. Would you rather have a Sehwag who always smashes his opponents or a Chanderpaul who is capable of occupying the crease for long periods of time or someone like ABD who can do both? I think the answer is quite simple.

And lets not be close-minded and say others logic is extremely faulty just because we are in disagreement.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

How Sehwag or Gilly would have done in a weaker line-up is hypothetical and will not lead to any conclusion. So lets put that aside and stick to the facts. The fact is they have a higher SR meaning, they have spent less time in the crease compared to other batsmen with the same average.

No matter which team a batsman plays for, in test cricket there will be situations where one will need to increase the scoring rate or slow down and occupy the crease for a long period. And if a batsman has adapted to these match conditions his overall SR would be in the optimal range and not extremely high or low. This is simple logic.

And as for the demoralizing effect a fast scoring batsman can have on the bowlers, what about the demoralizing effect of a batsman occupying the crease for a much longer period. I heard many bowlers say they would rather bowl to Sehwag than to Dravid. Because with Dravid he just kills your spirit by giving no hope. But with Sehwag there is always some hope whether he just walked in or at 200. Both can have different effects.

Doesn't ABD have the ability to be as explosive as Sehwag or Gilly? But then why is his SR not too high and in the optimal range. Because he is a better batsman who can adapt to different conditions. Would you rather have a Sehwag who always smashes his opponents or a Chanderpaul who is capable of occupying the crease for long periods of time or someone like ABD who can do both? I think the answer is quite simple.

And lets not be close-minded and say others logic is extremely faulty just because we are in disagreement.

Chappell > Gavaskar and Viv.

Ok

 

[honestbharani]

I dont think you should penalize for SR. Assuming balls faced means more than runs scored is not really accurate even for tests. I am ok with it not being a factor but I am not ok with it being used to mark down someone.


And honestly, even if you do feel that staying longer is important, then you gotta go by minutes at the crease, not SR coz now you are actually penalizing someone who is good at rotating the strike.

EDIT - I understand that an opener is expected to bat longer so whatever, but to assume a 7 has to bat more balls flies in the face of all logic given he is mostly gonna be batting with the tail anyways.

 

[venkyrenga]

Chappell > Gavaskar and Viv.

Ok

I don't know how you came to that conclusion as if optimal SR is the only criteria to determine who is better. Secondly, they are from a different era and Gavaskar's SR is in the optimal range for his time and Viv's very close to it in the late 60s.

 

[venkyrenga]

I dont think you should penalize for SR. Assuming balls faced means more than runs scored is not really accurate even for tests. I am ok with it not being a factor but I am not ok with it being used to mark down someone.


And honestly, even if you do feel that staying longer is important, then you gotta go by minutes at the crease, not SR coz now you are actually penalizing someone who is good at rotating the strike.

EDIT - I understand that an opener is expected to bat longer so whatever, but to assume a 7 has to bat more balls flies in the face of all logic given he is mostly gonna be batting with the tail anyways.

I think you misunderstood the methodology. I am not giving more weightage for balls faced than runs scored.

And I am not even giving more points for staying longer in the crease. I am giving points for being adaptable to match conditions.

 

[venkyrenga]

No. 13

Inzamam-ul-Haq - 130.8



Points: 130.8
Peak: 2002-05

Overall points: 131.6
Overseas points: 130.8
Best bowling attack points: 114.8
Peak points: 140.9

Runs: 8830
Average: 49.60

 

[honestbharani]

I think you misunderstood the methodology. I am not giving more weightage for balls faced than runs scored.

And I am not even giving more points for staying longer in the crease. I am giving points for being adaptable to match conditions.

No, but isn't that the logical conclusion of your theory? If you think the batsman's job is to stay longer out there, negatively penalizing their strike rate seems wrong, however you milk it. I think it would be easier to positively add to them for being out there longer.

The theory that scoring runs at a faster rate is something bad for any team at any time in test cricket just seems extremely odd to me.

And how exactly do you define the bolded here in your methodology? I think the best example of the adaptability of a batsman to any condition is usually reflected in how many runs he scores.

Unless your methodology has a way of figuring out when a team were playing for a draw or something, but again I am not sure how we can justify a measure called optimal SR unless it is something that changes innings by innings and match by match.