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

[Jayro]

Need to keep tinkering with the formula until Sachin comes out no. 1. Make longevity like 50% of the rating

Or also be given ODI exploits some weightage for the want of a more complete all around performance.

 

[Gob]

Or also be given ODI exploits some weightage for the want of a more complete all around performance.

no

 

[Prince Of Ceylon]

I applaud you for coming up with a list - as I am thinking of doing my own.

Whilst no one's top 30 will be identical this is a terrible list.

Alaistar Cook makes the list but Aravinda De Silva does not? Anybody who watched 90s cricket basically knows that De Silva was the third best batsman of that decade after Sachin & Brian Lara and the only one who could match them. In Sri Lanka nobody rates Mahela above him. True De Silva played some incredible knocks in the 80s which will not be factored.

Inzamam Ul Haq way ahead of Gilly? Not quite for me. Gilly was a different class. Shivnarine Chandepaul in the top 10? He wouldnt even make my top 40 batsman. Your just going on statistics way too much. You clearly never saw half of these guys play.

In my top 10 I would have guys like De Silva, Tendulkar, Lara, Crowe, Azhar. Some of those guys haven't even been mentioned.

 

[Prince Of Ceylon]

No. 27

Mark Waugh - 115.7

View attachment 29289

Points: 115.7
Peak: 1998-01

Overall points: 109.9
Overseas points: 108
Best bowling attack points: 162.9
Peak points: 124.4

Runs: 8029
Average: 41.81

An underrated player but his peak was not 98-01 I do not think.

 

[Victor Ian]

An underrated player but his peak was not 98-01. I do not think.

Fixed.

Be nice mate. There is a way to disagree. People will berate your list too. There is only one correct list and I have never published it.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Your just going on statistics way too much. You clearly never saw half of these guys play.

Were you born thick or dropped on your head multiple times as a baby?

 

[sunilz]

I applaud you for coming up with a list - as I am thinking of doing my own.

Whilst no one's top 30 will be identical this is a terrible list.

Alaistar Cook makes the list but Aravinda De Silva does not? Anybody who watched 90s cricket basically knows that De Silva was the third best batsman of that decade after Sachin & Brian Lara and the only one who could match them. In Sri Lanka nobody rates Mahela above him. True De Silva played some incredible knocks in the 80s which will not be factored.

Inzamam Ul Haq way ahead of Gilly? Not quite for me. Gilly was a different class. Shivnarine Chandepaul in the top 10? He wouldnt even make my top 40 batsman. Your just going on statistics way too much. You clearly never saw half of these guys play.

In my top 10 I would have guys like De Silva, Tendulkar, Lara, Crowe, Azhar. Some of those guys haven't even been mentioned.

If you think Desilva was better than Steve Waugh in 90s , then be prepared to be trolled when you post your list here.

 

[honestbharani]

If you think Desilva was better than Steve Waugh in 90s

There is nothing wrong with believing this, btw. Its just that if you do believe that, you should know there is no such thing as a "right" list.

 

[honestbharani]

There is only one correct list and I have never published it.

Will it be called The Dirty List?

 

[harsh.ag]

Were you born thick or dropped on your head multiple times as a baby?

Be nicer, Chin. He's a new poster

@Prince Of Ceylon Yeah, this is largely a statistical exercise, so Aravinda wasn't likely to feature highly on the list regardless of how tough the 90s was as an era because so many batsmen killed it in the 00s. Nothing wrong with a highly subjective list, as you might prefer.

But if you try to produce a statistical model which generates Aravinda as the third best batsman of the 90s, for example, you may find yourself doing some weird things with the parameters and weightage etc.

 

[Gob]

He was insanely good from 96 to 99 but not much before not much after. Waugh Jr would be a good comparison imo. I don't think many players have played more clutch knocks against great fast bowlers as junior but he was never as dominant as De Silva was from the mentioned peak

 

[TheJediBrah]

I applaud you for coming up with a list - as I am thinking of doing my own.

Whilst no one's top 30 will be identical this is a terrible list.

Alaistar Cook makes the list but Aravinda De Silva does not? Anybody who watched 90s cricket basically knows that De Silva was the third best batsman of that decade after Sachin & Brian Lara and the only one who could match them. In Sri Lanka nobody rates Mahela above him. True De Silva played some incredible knocks in the 80s which will not be factored.

Inzamam Ul Haq way ahead of Gilly? Not quite for me. Gilly was a different class. Shivnarine Chandepaul in the top 10? He wouldnt even make my top 40 batsman. Your just going on statistics way too much. You clearly never saw half of these guys play.

In my top 10 I would have guys like De Silva, Tendulkar, Lara, Crowe, Azhar. Some of those guys haven't even been mentioned.

eh massively overrating de Silva here, and obviously missed the point of the exercise but other than that these are all reasonable opinions tbh.

 

[venkyrenga]

Fandom clouds judgement, especially when your batsman is a world cup winning hero. That is understandable. Having said that, De Silva does hold up well in the peak rankings. Has the 4th best peak in the 90s and ahead of the names he mentioned. He could have instead been happy with that.

 

[venkyrenga]

I meant to ask @venkyrenga - was Graham Gooch considered for this, or discounted because he didn't play enough during the period? It would be interesting to know what he would have come out at, given how prolific he was in the early 1990s.

No, he wasn't. Should have minimum 8 years since the 90s.

 

[Prince Of Ceylon]

Be nicer, Chin. He's a new poster

@Prince Of Ceylon Yeah, this is largely a statistical exercise, so Aravinda wasn't likely to feature highly on the list regardless of how tough the 90s was as an era because so many batsmen killed it in the 00s. Nothing wrong with a highly subjective list, as you might prefer.

But if you try to produce a statistical model which generates Aravinda as the third best batsman of the 90s, for example, you may find yourself doing some weird things with the parameters and weightage etc.

I don't go on statistics. I go on match winning ability, raw talent and clutch innings. I also factor in that playing for a weaker side will impact your average. Statistically Murali is ahead of Warne but I give Warne the edge. I watched 90s cricket a lot. Lara and Sachin were the best only De Silva got close imo. Yh De Silva was inconsistent but that stuff isn't as important to me as much.

 

[Prince Of Ceylon]

If you think Desilva was better than Steve Waugh in 90s , then be prepared to be trolled when you post your list here.

He was better and if he played for Australia he would of averaged more. If your after statistics and match saving ability - Steve waugh. I honestly rate Mark above Steve in the 90s or have them neck and neck. Steve is a guy who had limited talent but made the most of it. A tough cricketer. Mark was a genius.

In the 90s De Silva and Waugh met in WC final in 96 - De silva basically destroyed him -taking 3 wickets, holding 2 catches in the final and scoring a match winning pressure innings of 107* against the best side in the waugh. Steve could only dream of doing that. Aravinda was insane that tournament. They met again months later in the singer cup series and De silva destroyed him again scoring 83* and 75* in the final. He was man of the tournament and wasn't dismissed once. In 1999 Sri lanka met Australia and recorded their first ever win - De Silva was man of the match that game. I realise 1990 is the cut of point but in the 80s de silva smacked 167 at the Gabba and picked up man of the tournament again in Steve's own backyard lol. Infact Sri Lanka's first win against AUS was engineered by De Silva a game steve waugh played in. And might I add Sri lanka were awful in the 80s - absolutely pants. So Aravinda has basically owned him several times they met. I don't recall Steve ever playing a gutsy knock against SL.

Now don't get me wrong Steve is a great player but he was limited. I'd like to see you troll back. I don't go on statistics or consistency - those are overrated and misleading. Not one bowler would rate Steve as the best they've bowled against. He was a great player though. Probably in the top 10 I've seen. I focus more on players at their peak, their clutch innings, natural flair and in this respect Steve left a lot to be desired.

I would never troll Steve but anyone who trolls De Silva - actually knows nothing about cricket. I've seen some silly journalists do this before. Statistics are a load of crap. James Anderson got more wickets than Wasim fgs.....

 

[Prince Of Ceylon]

He was insanely good from 96 to 99 but not much before not much after. Waugh Jr would be a good comparison imo. I don't think many players have played more clutch knocks against great fast bowlers as junior but he was never as dominant as De Silva was from the mentioned peak

Yeah he was inconsistent but during those 3 years he was unplayable at times. He had everything. There were even times when he upstaged Sachin and Lara - have never seen any other batsman do that. Prior to 96 - he played some outstanding knocks but he also had this period where he was frustratingly inconsistent. Btw he played some great knocks between 2000 - 2003 aswell. It all depends on how you measure players. I don't go on statistics. I look at peak play and natural talent.

 

[Gob]

He was better and if he played for Australia he would of averaged more. If your after statistics and match saving ability - Steve waugh. I honestly rate Mark above Steve in the 90s or have them neck and neck. Steve is a guy who had limited talent but made the most of it. A tough cricketer. Mark was a genius.

In the 90s De Silva and Waugh met in WC final in 96 - De silva basically destroyed him -taking 3 wickets, holding 2 catches in the final and scoring a match winning pressure innings of 107* against the best side in the waugh. Steve could only dream of doing that. Aravinda was insane that tournament. They met again months later in the singer cup series and De silva destroyed him again scoring 83* and 75* in the final. He was man of the tournament and wasn't dismissed once. In 1999 Sri lanka met Australia and recorded their first ever win - De Silva was man of the match that game. I realise 1990 is the cut of point but in the 80s de silva smacked 167 at the Gabba and picked up man of the tournament again in Steve's own backyard lol. Infact Sri Lanka's first win against AUS was engineered by De Silva a game steve waugh played in. And might I add Sri lanka were awful in the 80s - absolutely pants. So Aravinda has basically owned him several times they met. I don't recall Steve ever playing a gutsy knock against SL.

Now don't get me wrong Steve is a great player but he was limited. I'd like to see you troll back. I don't go on statistics or consistency - those are overrated and misleading. Not one bowler would rate Steve as the best they've bowled against. He was a great player though. Probably in the top 10 I've seen. I focus more on players at their peak, their clutch innings, natural flair and in this respect Steve left a lot to be desired.

I would never troll Steve but anyone who trolls De Silva - actually knows nothing about cricket. I've seen some silly journalists do this before. Statistics are a load of crap. James Anderson got more wickets than Wasim fgs.....

This whole discussion is test only. De Silva was the better one day batsman

 

[TheJediBrah]

He was better and if he played for Australia he would of averaged more. If your after statistics and match saving ability - Steve waugh. I honestly rate Mark above Steve in the 90s or have them neck and neck. Steve is a guy who had limited talent but made the most of it. A tough cricketer. Mark was a genius.

In the 90s De Silva and Waugh met in WC final in 96 - De silva basically destroyed him -taking 3 wickets, holding 2 catches in the final and scoring a match winning pressure innings of 107* against the best side in the waugh. Steve could only dream of doing that. Aravinda was insane that tournament. They met again months later in the singer cup series and De silva destroyed him again scoring 83* and 75* in the final. He was man of the tournament and wasn't dismissed once. In 1999 Sri lanka met Australia and recorded their first ever win - De Silva was man of the match that game. I realise 1990 is the cut of point but in the 80s de silva smacked 167 at the Gabba and picked up man of the tournament again in Steve's own backyard lol. Infact Sri Lanka's first win against AUS was engineered by De Silva a game steve waugh played in. And might I add Sri lanka were awful in the 80s - absolutely pants. So Aravinda has basically owned him several times they met. I don't recall Steve ever playing a gutsy knock against SL.

Now don't get me wrong Steve is a great player but he was limited. I'd like to see you troll back. I don't go on statistics or consistency - those are overrated and misleading. Not one bowler would rate Steve as the best they've bowled against. He was a great player though. Probably in the top 10 I've seen. I focus more on players at their peak, their clutch innings, natural flair and in this respect Steve left a lot to be desired.

I would never troll Steve but anyone who trolls De Silva - actually knows nothing about cricket. I've seen some silly journalists do this before. Statistics are a load of crap. James Anderson got more wickets than Wasim fgs.....

 

[Migara]

There is nothing wrong with believing this, btw. Its just that if you do believe that, you should know there is no such thing as a "right" list.

There may be some truth to this if both formats are combined. De Silva was a way better batsman than Waugh in ODIs. Since this is tests only thatwill not count.