Top 25 effective batsmen of the last 25 years.

Following on from the most effective bowlers, here is the list of most effective batsmen. I am using the strike rate X average to calculate effectiveness.

Qualifying criteria 2500 runs.

Top 25 most effective batsmen.
V Sehwag – India – 42.82
A Gillchrist – Australia – 39.01
B Lara – West Indies - 32.00
K Pietersen – England – 31.62
V Richards – West Indies – 31.14
K Sangakkara – Sri Lanka – 31.02
R Ponting – Australia – 30.85
M Hayden – Australia – 30.49
S Tendulkar – India – 30.28
G Smith – South Africa – 30.15
M Prior – England - 29.93
Y Khan – Pakistan – 28.23
M Yousuf – Pakistan – 27.39
T Dilshan – Sri Lanka 27.38
D Jayawardene – Sri Lanka – 26.68
M Azharuddin – India – 26.62
S Jayasuryia – Sri Lanka 26.09
I Bell – England – 25.98
J Kallis – South Africa – 25.78
AB de Villiers – South Africa – 25.57
S Anwar – Pakistan – 25.39
G Gambhir – India – 25.24
T Samaraweera – Sri Lanka – 25.22
S Waugh – Australia – 25.05
M Clarke – Australia – 24.85

It has often been discussed on the forum that strike rate depicts the effectiveness of a batsman to effect results in a test match. Although some players on this list may have higher averages than players above them on this list, they might have very low strike rates which in essence has been argued that slow batting will not necessarily provide a result for your team.
Over to you.

I admire your work Biltongbek but this list proves formula's don't work in cricket.

Why?

Steve Waugh was IMO one of the best and most effective batsmen during the late 90's - early 00's and he is way down the list.

And Matt Prior is a good number seven but he mostly scores runs when England have about 400 on the board.

Tendulkar 9th? Really

Thats the problem with using strike rate, players like Dravid dont score quickly but have been mightily effective.

Gregers, Kallis is forever criticised for his strike rate, not being effective enough to impact the game even though he has the best average of all the players on that list.

There has been many threads on who is better, does avargae depict a great batsman?

When a batsman has a high average he is criticised for his strike rate.
when he has a high strike rate he is criticised for losing his wicket.

The stats show an overall effectiveness of each batsman, whether he has a high average or high strike rate.

In modern day test cricket we applaud results, thus the strike rate has to come into the equation.

This has nthing to do with who has had the longest career or scored the most runs.

This shows that Tendulkar has been 9th most effective whilst scroing the most runs over along career.

Unfortunately Biltongbek, I think I have to agree with the other posters above and say that this list is worthless. You say that the strikerate is important in helping determine the effectiveness of the runs scored. However, this is far too simplistic as it does not take into account the nuances of test cricket, where for example a 250 ball 100 can be more effective than a 90 ball 100 depending on the match situations that they occur.

LivinginItaly wrote:Unfortunately Biltongbek, I think I have to agree with the other posters above and say that this list is worthless. You say that the strikerate is important in helping determine the effectiveness of the runs scored. However, this is far too simplistic as it does not take into account the nuances of test cricket, where for example a 250 ball 100 can be more effective than a 90 ball 100 depending on the match situations that they occur.

Sadly my frined, i disagree. I have often fought the corner for Jaques Kallis on exactly that premise and have yet to convince anyone that he has effected his fair share of matches. Of course you are entitled to disagree, however I find it rather entertaining that reasoning often depends on the outcome of a "list"

If we are going to make lists of best players what are the factors we are going to use as the deciding criteria?

Average?
Strike rate?
fifties?
Hundreds?
how long a career lasted?
how many runs they scored?

To try and make sense of my list I will use this Kallis once again as an example.

Highest average on that list.
second most centuries.
fourth most runs.


In a recent thread about best opening batsmen Greame Smith has featured on almost everyone's list, however as a middle order batsman Kallis is rarely on everyones list.

In my opinion Kallis is a much more complete batsman than Greame Smith who has limitations to his batting, especially on the offside.

The only way I can explain this is by the formula introduced here.

If anything, this is a great 'value for money' list, and the batsmen I'd have expected to populate the top 5 using such a formula do so.

Biltong, good work posting these, it is an interesting read. Whilst I'm more a fan of judging a player based on educated opinion, it is good to look at it in a different light as a bit of a change.

The way I assess how good a batsman is is as follows:

a) Statistics, obviously these are a starting point and cannot be ignored.
b) Defining innings - crucial for any batsman to really set themselves apart.
c) Longevity
d) Opinions of his contemporaries - I put a lot of value in these.
e) Style - always extra marks for style, but that's personal preference.

That is a rough guide I use, anyway.

Id take even more issue with this list than the bowlers one.

In tests a players ability to block out and hold an end is just as importnat as his ability to score runs quickly. Seeing off the new ball, preserving wickets at the end of a day, tireing a bowler, closing out a draw etc all get punished under your system.

This should be a top 25 destructive batsmens list, not most effective.

Also interesting to note again how faster scoring rates now have made this list dominated by recent players, whereas the bowlers list had many more from the other end of the 25 years scale.

The list shows bell to have been a more effective batsman than kallis.

Need I say more...

He certainly looks better, Living

It's an interesting idea, but probably needs to be tweaked a bit - after all, Test cricket is played over 5 days and in matches not affected by weather a scoring rate around 60 runs per 100 balls is more than adequate to force a result. As such, the likes of Kallis and Smith, who regularly score at around this rate, are no less effective in terms of forcing results than the likes of Sehwag.

Any list that puts Matt Prior significantly ahead of Jacques Kallis or Dravid (not even listed!) is clearly flawed (not saying Prior is bad, but he's a luxury player, in that his quick runs often come when England are already in a good position).

Agreed Dummy,

But the lists does show what a match winner Prior has been for England. He is massivley underatted by some as a batsman, I remember a number of people claiming that Brad Haddin was a better bat in the build up to the last Ashes. Clealry bunk.
Its clearly wrong to use this formula to show who the best performing tests bastmen have been, but we can use it sto show those who have made big runs when given the chance and made them quickly. Whilst no Gilchrist, Prior is the best test batting keeper of his generation. Sangakaara scored nothing like teh runs he has whilst keeping, and Dohni isnt close either.

Whats baffling is why hes never carried that into ODIs.

Prior is very good in a certain situation but I reckon he would not have scored so many runs during the 1990's when England were prone to a collapse and the number seven came in at 92 for 5.
Still, he is a very good player but should not even come close to a top 25 place.

I think people are looking too much into these lists, it isn't gospel as to who is the best. It is just a different slant on it. As I said above, the batsman one if almost a 'who is the best value for money' list, which is about right.

NZers tend to have high strike rates but rubbish averages. Which lends me to think that average is a better indication of how good a batsman is.

That said your list is interesting. To me there are quite a few openers or first drops in there, even though they have to contend with a new ball. It makes me think, though, that when they get set, they pay dividends and can lift that strike rate a lot. Then again the top 6 are all naturally aggressive and didn´t muck about getting set.

PSW
I'm absolutely with you regarding Prior and ODIs - he scores so fluently at Test level by playing good aggressive cricket, but as soon as he's in the ODI site, he struggles to find the same fluency.

I also think this list over-rates Gilchrist, again because his runs were often more a luxury than a necessity for Aus - coming in at 350-5 and scoring a rapid ton is helpful, but the duns scored above him were what set the game up.

Are you saying, Gilchrist was overrated?

I think he was a little.

Regarding Prior. He does love to drive but is slightly limited in his shot selection and he often has to play in an unorthodox manner to score in 50 over cricket.

Perhaps its also because hes usually forced to play as an opener and most of his ODIs were in the early part of his carreer when he wasnt as good and frnakly England are incapable of getting abnyone who can bat well in ODIs. I guess you could look at KP in the last couple of years and ask the same question...why is one of the best T20 and test bastmen incapable of scoring 50 over runs?

With regard to him coming in in tight situations, well no batsman is likely to average as much in games where theres a lot of wickets down. But Prior has a number of match changing performances to his name.
Second inning against in the 1st test against India a great example, he had been part of the recure party in the 1st innings too. First inning 3rd test against Pakistan, came in with England 5 for 67 ... Morgan got out quickly, he made 84 no. Second innings of the 1st test came in a 5/84 made 102no

Im sure theres plenty from earlier in his career too. He has made the ahrd runs as well as the "easy" ones. Sometimes the fast run scoring down the order has also enabled England to turn draws into wins.

I wouldnt say hes a world class batsman, but people do tend to dismiss his average as "fake" somewhat unfairly. There is no other test keeper making the runs he makes.

Stella
I was suggesting that Biltong's list places Gilchrist a bit too high at #2 (and Sehwag obviously too high at #1), because it over-emphasises the importance of strike rate compared with average.

Also of course, rating Test batsmen is about more than just runs scored and how quickly, as it also involves considering when. Another thread recently was noting the importance of Larry Gomes in the West Indies side of the 80s - now I don't think anyone would claim he was the most talented batsman in that side, but he had the knack of scoring runs when it erally mattered (i.e. when the others in the top order had failed or when conditions were difficult). His overall stats weren't amazing, but the selectors and his team mates knew how important he was to the team.

The opposite would be Ian Bell during the first 3 or 4 yers of his Test career, during which time he never scored a ton unless someone else had already done so in that innings - as such, he was generally adding later middle order runs to a good scoreboard, but rarely contributed that much if he came in at 100-4.

Yes, each player has a role within their team and Gomes' role was to play anchor to Greenidge and Richards.
That's one of the reasons this list doesn't work.

Stella, Dummy and all - I've just spent 25 minutes putting a post together on why the ''bowling formula doesn't work'' (see that thread).

I wish I had seen this thread first. I could have saved 24 minutes.

Larry Gomes - never a great but, nonetheless an immensely valuable Test player - is a perfect example of why this batting formula and others like it don't tell the whole story and never will.

PS Very pleased that Gomes is starting to once more get some of the credit he eternally deserves.

I watched nearly all the 1984 series so Gomes is always rated highly for me.

Two tons and a bit of useful medium pace.

Stella wrote:I watched nearly all the 1984 series so Gomes is always rated highly for me.

Two tons and a bit of useful medium pace.

.... and the runs were when they mattered so much to the team.

For all his many very big scores and destructive knocks, Barry Richards reckoned his finest innings ever was a 70 odd for Hants when they were bowled out on a sticky in a County Championship match for about 110. As said before, no formula tells the whole story.

Gomes did hit a ton when they were about 70-5 so yes, effective runs.

To be fair Gilchrist scored a fair few tons with his side in trouble (just off the top of my head his 149* against Pakistan when chasing 330odd - came in at 127/5 - also he scored a century in the first test in India in THAT series (Aus won that test) coming in at 120odd/5, in reply to India's low first innings total - Aus made 320 or so - and his century in Sydney in 2003 (from 150/5 to first innings parity) and I also recall a ton against New-Zealand during Michael Clarke's first test in Australia (Clarke also made a century) which turned the game around).

I would argue most tons in the history of cricket have been more of a luxury than a necessity - I don't think Gilchrist's anymore so. In fact as pointed out he got Australia out of a few holes.

On the original article: well you know, very nice, but ultimately fairly useless. I don't value strike-rate that highly, so much as defining innings. I would suggest this is where Kallis (and Barrington) fall somewhat short. How many innings of theirs would you class as match-winning (or indeed match-saving)? For example I rate Ponting higher than Tendulkar because I believe he has played more crucial innings (this is in part borne out by their respective number of MotM awards - although the fact that these usually go to the winning side and Ponting has been on that side more often than Tendulkar is of course a factor, and shows why statistics don't say everything).

here are mine:

NOT IN ORDER JUST NUMBERED THEM SO I REMEBER HOW MANY I DONE

1.Sachin Tendulkar
2.Jacques Kallis
3.Inzaam Ul-Haq
4.Mohammed Yousuf
5.Ricky Ponting
6.Graham Gooch
7.Viv Richards
8.Steve Waugh
9.Virender Sehwag
10.Martin Crowe
11.Alistair Cook
12.Brian Lara
13.Graeme Smith
14.Rahul Dravid
15.Younus Khan
16.Saeed Anwar
17.AB De Villiers
18.Adam Gilchrist
19.Shiv Chanderpaul
20.VVs Laxman
21.Mark Boucher
22.KP
23.Sourav Ganguly
24.Gary Kirsten
25.Mahela Jaywardne

Surely you have to define what effectivness means.

Mike Atherton was an effective batsman in that he would hold his end, score a few runs but make it hard to get him out, allowing others like Stewart to score the runs, same with Collingwood. But they are never going to feature on these lists as scoring runs wasn't the main objective for them, not getting out was. And allowing others around them to score more freely.

That is a very interesting list, if not a definitive guide to how good players are.

- It really emphasises how good Sehwag and Gilchrist are/were
- Shows how many more good and particularly aggressive batsmen we have these days than in the late 80s and 90s. Of those on the list only Viv didn't play a match in the 2000s
- A couple of notable omissions in Rahul Dravid and Justin Langer

I think the formula chosen would be quite reasonable if applied to limited overs matches. But I think it's quite weak when applied to test cricket. Unless of course you were to change the objective to that of finding batsmen who were most effective in shortened test matches occupying a maximum of, say, 3.5 days playing time.....

I am quite surprised at the criticism this formula is recieving.

As Fists said.

"The way I assess how good a batsman is is as follows:

a) Statistics, obviously these are a starting point and cannot be ignored.
b) Defining innings - crucial for any batsman to really set themselves apart.
c) Longevity
d) Opinions of his contemporaries - I put a lot of value in these.
e) Style - always extra marks for style, but that's personal preference.

That is a rough guide I use, anyway."

a) stats - that is exactly what I did, just in a different slant whereby the strike rate of the batsman is weighed as his ability to take the game away from the opposition and his average.

We all know the number of tons and fifties scored by these batsmen

b) this is a personal opinion and often biased.
c) If a batsman plays for his country for 15 years, all it means is in that country there is no replacement deemed worthy to take his place for that period of time, it doesn't mean because you played 150 tests for your country you must automatically be placed in the top 3 or 4 players in the world on based as the best of list, just because you have scored over 10 000 runs.
d) Opinions of your peers and others are important, but be realistic who is going to criticise a Tendulkar when he has the most centuries.
e) Style once again as Fists said is personal preference.

This list provides a starting point devoid of bias, the other factors are to debate upon.

If I put a list of batsmens averages only, then that list is criticised because it is deemed some batsmen bat for averages.

The point is make of the list whatever you want, even if your favourite players don't end at the top.

biltongbek wrote:I am quite surprised at the criticism this formula is recieving.

I'm not.

As I said yesterday, this sort of thing can go into the mix but it is no substitute for meaningful debate as on our Hall of Fame and Top Ten threads.

Personal opinion and bias can actually be very valuable if properly explained and justified. Having listened to the personal opinions and experiences of some of my fellow posters in the last few months, I now hold several cricketers in far higher regard than I did previously. No formula could ever have achieved so much.

Biltong

I'm not really criticising the idea, which is interesting and does show how the game was changed by the great Aussie side and their ability to score runs very quickly and so put their opponent under pressure. Of course, the rating of Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist have to be considered in light of them not having faced Warne and McGrath ;-).

Just as a thought, I wonder how much the list would alter if you tweaked the formula to something like average + (10 x strike rate*)

(I'm assuming from your 'effectiveness' number that you've taken a strike rate of runs per ball rather than the runs per 100 balls as more normally quoted for Tests).

Another interesting statistic to consider the effectiveness of a batsman would be to calculate what proportion of his team's runs he scores - this would show players like Jayasuriya, Atherton and Lara were hugely important to their team and might push the likes of Sehwag and all the Aussies down (mainly because the whole team scored a load of runs, so individual proportions will inevitably be lower).

I don't know if any of you are fans of American Football - they love their stats, and have a quarterback rating system that is an attempt to objectively score the QB based on a number of factors - % completion, % TDs, % interceptions (as a negative) and yards per pass. You'd really need something equally complex to quantitiatively rank batting effectiveness.

dummy_half, I did consider to manipulate the formula when I looked at Kallis and Tendulkar, but then that would be exactly that, manipulating a stat.

It was also dissappointing to me that the two players with the highest averages has such low rankings.

But then I did say I wanted to take the bias out of the equation.

I would also like to know the percentage of runs scored. Will see if I can find a way.

biltongbek wrote:dummy_half, I did consider to manipulate the formula when I looked at Kallis and Tendulkar, but then that would be exactly that, manipulating a stat.

It was also dissappointing to me that the two players with the highest averages has such low rankings.

But then I did say I wanted to take the bias out of the equation.

I would also like to know the percentage of runs scored. Will see if I can find a way.

You'll never make a politician - fancy not manipulating a statistic to get the result you want...

Presumably Sehwag has the highest strike rate of any of the batsmen on your list at something like 0.8. Who's the lowest, and at what? (I'd guess around 0.5 for players like Waugh?).

I think that a straight multiplication of average x strike rate just over-values the latter, which while of some significance in Tests, is not absolutely critical. Would be very informative for ODI effectiveness, and probably would skew too strongly towards higher batting average players for 20:20.

Dummy_half just for you.

Lara scored 11953 of 58789 runs - 20.33%
Sangakkara scored 9167 of 52340 runs - 17.51%
Y Khan scored 6140 of 36907 runs - 16.63%
Kallis scored 12005 of 73161 runs - 16.40%
M Yousuf scored 7530 of 46062 runs - 16.35%
Tendulkar scored 15183 of 93369 runs - 16.26%
Sehwag scored 7980 of 49209 runs - 16.22%
Jayawardene scored 9954 of 62036 runs - 16.05%
Anwar scored 4052 of 25272 runs - 16.03%
Smith scored 7642 of 48712 runs - 15.69%
Pietersen scored 6361 of 41239 runs - 15.42%
Viv Richards scored 8540 of 56071 runs - 15.23%
Hayden scored 8625 of 57250 runs - 15.06%
Ponting scored 12656 of 87493 runs - 14.47%
Gambhir scored 3531 of 24997 runs - 14.12%
Bell has scored 5027 of 36443 runs - 13.79%
De Villiers scored 4886 of 35512 runs - 13.76%
Azharuddin scored 6215 of 45553 runs - 13.64%
Jayasuriya scored 6973 of 51420 runs - 13.56%
Samaraweera scored 4683 of 35961 runs - 13.02%
Waugh scored 10927 of 85332 runs - 12.81%
Clarke scored 5283 of 42560 runs - 12.41%
Dishan scored 4516 of 37424 runs - 12.07%
Gilchrist scored 5570 of 54140 runs - 10.28%
Prior scored 2549 of 24816 runs - 10.27%

The strike rates ran between 80 and 45

I always knew Lara was the best

You must like that list more - Kallis up to 4th and better than Sachin...

I guess Prior and Gilly go right down because their averages are boosted by the number of not outs they will inevitably have coming in lower down the order.

Not a surprise to see Lara right at the top in terms of runs scored - he was for so long the standout player in a weak WI side.

Now you just need to tweak those statistics so a NZer can be on the list and everyone will be happy. Good luck with that mate!

Here is an updated rankings of these players, i have taken the first list and incorporated the % of runs socred by multipyling their percentages with their numbers at the top.

Sehwag 6.9454
Lara 6.5056
Sangakkara 5.4316
Tendulkar 4.9235
Pietersen 4.8758
Richards 4.7426
Smith 4.7305
Khan 4.6946
Hayden 4.5917
Yousuf 4.4782
Ponting 4.4639
Jayawardene 4.2821
Kallis 4.2279
Anwar 4.0700
Gilchrist 4.0102
Azharuddin 3.6309
Bell 3.5826
Gambhir 3.5638
Jayasuriya 3.5378
De villiers 3.5184
Dilshan 3.3047
Samaraweera 3.2836
Waugh 3.2089
Clarke 3.0838
Prior 3.0738

Hopefully this provides a more realistic perspective. Any other suggestions?

Hah Greggers is going to love that!

biltongbek wrote:I am quite surprised at the criticism this formula is recieving.

As Fists said.

"The way I assess how good a batsman is is as follows:

a) Statistics, obviously these are a starting point and cannot be ignored.
b) Defining innings - crucial for any batsman to really set themselves apart.
c) Longevity
d) Opinions of his contemporaries - I put a lot of value in these.
e) Style - always extra marks for style, but that's personal preference.

That is a rough guide I use, anyway."

a) stats - that is exactly what I did, just in a different slant whereby the strike rate of the batsman is weighed as his ability to take the game away from the opposition and his average.

Except you have used only some stats. And then given equal importance to both. So already you have introduced some element of bias.

biltongbek wrote: b) [definiting innings]: this is a personal opinion and often biased.

Opinions are biased by definition. One of the funniest exchanges I've ever had was when justifying why we'd picked a certain squad (junior national side) to someone who wasn't happy about it, he ended his rant with "anyway these are just your opinions, so they're not even objective". I was a bit speechless (and MfC will tell you that doesn't happen very often).

biltongbek wrote:c) [longevity]If a batsman plays for his country for 15 years, all it means is in that country there is no replacement deemed worthy to take his place for that period of time, it doesn't mean because you played 150 tests for your country you must automatically be placed in the top 3 or 4 players in the world on based as the best of list, just because you have scored over 10 000 runs.

Oh come on, so someone who averages 50odd over 3 years is as worthy as someone who does the same over 15 years?

biltongbek wrote:This list provides a starting point devoid of bias, the other factors are to debate upon.

No it doesn't. There is bias in what stats to consider and what weight to give those you do consider.

biltongbek wrote:If I put a list of batsmens averages only, then that list is criticised because it is deemed some batsmen bat for averages.

The point is make of the list whatever you want, even if your favourite players don't end at the top.

The point is you can't come up with any list which everyone will agree with. People have their opinions, and stats don't say everything. I refuse to believe Samawaweera (spelling) is a better player than Michael Clarke. I believe the former has an extraordinary home bias in his stats, which your stats fail to take into account.

If you really wish to make a purely statistical list, I would suggest incorporating some of the following:
- Averages
- Strike-rates
- balls faced (crease occupation is also important)
- centuries (100 and 0 is often better than 50 and 50 - but not always so how does one quantify that? - due to effect on both sides), double centuries, triple centuries...
- runs made in wins count for more than those in a draw, which in turn count for more than those in a loss.
- runs made against good opposition and/or on difficult wickets count for more (statistically by considering the runs scored on the wicket or against a certain attack you can quantify this)
- runs made when your side is in trouble count for more (say by how many runs they have when you come in, divided through by how many wickets lost, with 0/0 being 0 by definition - but then this doesn't take into account someone who comes in at 100-1, sees his side slide to 120/5 and guides them to 300 by scoring a big century and marshalling the tail. hummm... Maybe something like "the average of all runs/wickets whilst at the crease"?)
Probably quite a few others.

The point is: stats are a guide, no more.

Mike you need to pul back a bit here sir. I never suggested this list is the Alpha and Omega, the point is there are many stats that can be used, unfortunately it will be far too time consuming to bring in most of your ideas.

There is a practical side to this as well.

And yes nobody suggested you can't debate the value of the list, that is the whole point of putting it here in the first place.

biltongbek wrote:Mike you need to pul back a bit here sir. I never suggested this list is the Alpha and Omega, the point is there are many stats that can be used, unfortunately it will be far too time consuming to bring in most of your ideas.

There is a practical side to this as well.

And yes nobody suggested you can't debate the value of the list, that is the whole point of putting it here in the first place.

Biltong - I think you might well advised to recognise that Mike has let you off quite lightly and certainly much more than I feared for you.

Sorry. I just reread my post and realise it comes accross as somewhat rude, so I apologise. As guilford hints at, I am prone to not pulling my punches when it comes to giving my opinions (MfC will also attest to the fact that this is actually what I am like in real life, which sometimes lands me in trouble on the various committees I sit/have sat on, but overall I think helps improve things). No offence is ever meant.

I think really the point I am making is any list based only on statistics is flawed from the start. Stats don't tell the whole story and don't/can't take into account all the intricacies of the game.

Well I´ll just say I´d hate to think how long it took him to compile those two lists.

I agree with you Mike that no list is definitive. There´s always debate in who make up the best.

I think the beauty of these different kinds of lists is that they throw up players you normally don´t see. Sehwag wouldn´t be on the all-time best list in my view but here he´s being rewarded for his strike rate and impressive figures once he gets set. By all means come up with your own criteria or your own list. But let´s not have a go at someone directly for taking the time to come up with a post to generate some debate. Otherwise this board might get lonely.

That´s my 2c. Come on. Group hug. I´ve been watching on youtube some cricket videos. It´s making me nostalgic and realising how much I miss the game.