Top 25 effective batsmen of the last 25 years.

First topic message reminder :

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.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: I´ve been watching on youtube some cricket videos. It´s making me nostalgic and realising how much I miss the game.

Jeez one win and all the fair weather fans get out of the closet

Haha I live in Madrid PSW. You try getting some coverage of cricket.

I did watch in an Irish pub NZ beat South Africa in the ODI World Cup.

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Totally agree

Just read this. Found it quite interesting as another way of looking at players' records , though , as many have said above , no set of arbitrarily selected statistics can be held as definitive...same could be said for those ICC ratings.

I seem to recall a few years back WCM featured a very complicated series of stats someone had put together that included such things as proportion of team's runs, number of high scores in victories , some calculation of "difficult" runs - can't remember all the details but I think it came up with Matthew Hayden as Number 1 ... and obviously again a lot of people wouldn't see it as too meaningful but I guess it gives something to argue about.

No harm in that.

Mike Selig wrote: 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.

Looks like Samaraweera has been reading this thread. A century away to SA in the current Test. Just needs a few more of those then he might start to gain recognition for his impressive overall test average. I think Mike's favourite, Barrington, () must have one of the highest proportions of centuries scored abroad...

Evening Corporal,

Trust you and the Humblepails are having a wonderful Christmas time.

On the theme of 'good performances away from home', I think another who falls into the same category as Barrington is Tony Greig. Several of Greig's best performances were overseas and generally never televised in this country (at the time or since) meaning they failed to make the impact on the public here that they deserved.

Credit here to Dummy-Half and Hoggy who pointed out to me a few months ago that Greig was actually a better all rounder than I was then suggesting.

Guildford - yes thanks - we built up to a full set of Humblepails today. I trust you also had enough Bats to stock a Barrington's catalogue.... And that all is now well with Mrs Bat, who is no doubt pacified by the Wisden you bought her...

Thanks, Corporal. If not enough Bats to stock a Barrington's catalogue, at least enough to fill a small belfry!

Fortunately all currently pretty good with Mrs Bat. I steered away from cricket gifts for her this year which was probably advisable in all the circumstances. However, she served up a cracker for me - 'Britain's Lost Cricket Grounds' by Chris Arnot. Most highly recommended if you were given any book tokens or haven't spent all your pay freeze yet ....

Guildford - I'll look out for that book with the remains of my unallocated Christmas present money....

Reverting to the original topic....I think there must be a close correlation between why I like Test cricket and the reason why the suggested formula for working out the most effective batsmen in tests doesn't seem to work. Many of the points have already been made - but the more you think about it the more different factors come into play. For example

Higher strike rate for a given average is good if:
* it wins matches before time runs out or before bad weather arrives
* it gives captains flexibility over when to declare
* it demoralises bowlers and causes line and length to go astray
* it relieves pressure for the batsman at the other end to score quickly
* takes advantage of tiring bowling at the end of the day
* takes proper advantage of the opposition's weaker bowlers
* attacking play brings in more paying punters

Lower strike rate for a given average is better if:
* it leads to match being saved
* it uses up time, meaning opposition have to bat on a wearing pitch
* it sees off the opposition's prime bowlers
* it poses more question for the opposing captain - if he doesnt take wickets for hours at a time
* it leads to steady build up of tension with test matches lasting into fifth day - allowing more sales of

But even this is a great over-simplification since you have to look at all the factors such as the individual player's role in the team. And their effect on other players. And the general propensity of the team to collapse....Or not.... If there ever could be an effectiveness formula for test batsmen, I think it would have to be one that found a way of rewarding both high and low strike rates in the right circumstances. Probably a formula that would make Duckworth Lewis seem ridiculously simple....

Corporal,
May I just offer also that a lower strike rate may be a suitable option if it is for an anchor batsman holding down one end while his partner(s) is going for his strokes at the other end?

There's something to be said for a Boycott-type innings when the other end is occupied, however temporarily, by a Pietersen/Richards(x2)/Milburn/Barber-esque type effort.

(Tavare being the only exception I can think of to any such rule of thumb, though Glenn(slow) Turner could test one's patience.)

Actually even Tavare played a vital role in such a situation once : Old Trafford 1981. Second innings , from a tricky position - Stand of about 150 . With Botham. Just about nailed down the Ashes , though Tavare's part has been rather lost in time in all the (very justifiable) Botham-mania...

alfie

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Mike Selig wrote: 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.

Looks like Samaraweera has been reading this thread. A century away to SA in the current Test. Just needs a few more of those then he might start to gain recognition for his impressive overall test average. I think Mike's favourite, Barrington, () must have one of the highest proportions of centuries scored abroad...

Ha, I thought of this comment just as Samaraweera got his ton... To be fair the pitch was very "un-south-african", in fact almost subcontinental.

You exaggerate my dislike of Barrington by the way.

Mike Selig wrote:
Ha, I thought of this comment just as Samaraweera got his ton... To be fair the pitch was very "un-south-african", in fact almost subcontinental.

Perhaps when it comes to assessing the value of test centuries we ought to have an intermediate category of an "honorary" home/away pitch...

For me the difficulty of capturing a formula for test scoring rates can be illustrated by the dilemma of a front line batsman, well set on a slow wicket, batting alongside, say, a number 6 or 7 with the arrival of the second new ball. Is this now the rare chance to up the scoring rate and really get some runs on the board and build up a dominant position. Or to cut out the flashy shots, reduce risk and try and make sure that you don't expose the tail to the new ball. There's so many different factors as to what might be the right decision ....

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Guildford - I'll look out for that book with the remains of my unallocated Christmas present money....

Reverting to the original topic....I think there must be a close correlation between why I like Test cricket and the reason why the suggested formula for working out the most effective batsmen in tests doesn't seem to work. Many of the points have already been made - but the more you think about it the more different factors come into play. For example

Higher strike rate for a given average is good if:
* it wins matches before time runs out or before bad weather arrives
* it gives captains flexibility over when to declare
* it demoralises bowlers and causes line and length to go astray
* it relieves pressure for the batsman at the other end to score quickly
* takes advantage of tiring bowling at the end of the day
* takes proper advantage of the opposition's weaker bowlers
* attacking play brings in more paying punters

Lower strike rate for a given average is better if:
* it leads to match being saved
* it uses up time, meaning opposition have to bat on a wearing pitch
* it sees off the opposition's prime bowlers
* it poses more question for the opposing captain - if he doesnt take wickets for hours at a time
* it leads to steady build up of tension with test matches lasting into fifth day - allowing more sales of

But even this is a great over-simplification since you have to look at all the factors such as the individual player's role in the team. And their effect on other players. And the general propensity of the team to collapse....Or not.... If there ever could be an effectiveness formula for test batsmen, I think it would have to be one that found a way of rewarding both high and low strike rates in the right circumstances. Probably a formula that would make Duckworth Lewis seem ridiculously simple....

I have often used lower strike rate as an importance for Jaques Kallis and why his batting should be more recognised, but often told he hasn't played innings of substance. well Corporal, here you are confirming my argument.

biltongbek wrote:

I have often used lower strike rate as an importance for Jaques Kallis and why his batting should be more recognised, but often told he hasn't played innings of substance. well Corporal, here you are confirming my argument.

Biltong - far be it for me to try and decipher secret coded military messages of the utmost international importance from the Corporal but I thought he was reiterating my point when your articles first appeared that ''it all depends'' and so makes any formula meaningless or at least unworkable for those with an IQ less than four figures.

Despite my considerable doubts about your formula, I admire your unflagging perseverance. Reminds me of Sunny Gavaskar batting for India against England in a 60 overs ODI.

guildford, no worries that you doubt my formula, I agree it is not the be all and end all, it is simply just a way to look at two aspects of batting, average combined with strike rate, but as someone (can't bother to read back to who requested it) asked, I added the percentage of runs for their team into the fomrula as well.

Of course the opinion of individuals are also important, but that is where my arguments were negated in the past, so this time I thought it wise not to just say Kallis is one of the all time greats, but to add some stats as well.

and lo and behold, it is still argued.

biltongbek, i like these 2 threads

cricketfan90 wrote:biltongbek, i like these 2 threads

thanks

biltongbek wrote:I have often used lower strike rate as an importance for Jaques Kallis and why his batting should be more recognised, but often told he hasn't played innings of substance. well Corporal, here you are confirming my argument.

Biltong - I'm getting a bit lost as to who is agreeing with what. But I definitely do agree that Kallis is a great player. And compared with quite a few other posters on the HoF thread I think I attach less weight to the career defining feats of triple centuries and the like than I do to sustained excellence over a significant period. I would also argue that any formula that marked him down for his reasonable rather than stellar scoring rate in test cricket would not fairly reflect his value as a test batsman.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
.... And compared with quite a few other posters on the HoF thread I think I attach less weight to the career defining feats of triple centuries and the like than I do to sustained excellence over a significant period.

Corporal - ''sustained excellence over a significant period'' is a wonderful succinct description and perfectly explains my YES votes for Cowdrey and Gibbs.