Batting August 26, 2009

Following up on the Test batsmen peer analysis

The readers wanted some fine tuning to be done to the Test batsmen peer analysis
36

The readers wanted some fine tuning to be done to the Test batsmen peer analysis. I have done these and have come out with the following tables. These have been presented with very few comments leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions. These tables have been created based on suggestions by Deon, Arjun and Rohan.

1.Batsman Peer comparisons - Basic table - Only against own team batsmen

>= 2000 Test runs.  (Batpos no. 1 to 7)

SNo.Batsman Cty Runs Avge From- To <------Peer-----> Ratio Inns Runs Avge

1.Bradman D.G Aus 6996 99.94 1928-1948 392 16166 41.24 2.42 2.Headley G.A Win 2190 60.83 1930-1954 197 5324 27.03 2.25 3.Flower A Zim 4794 51.55 1992-2002 548 15584 28.44 1.81 4.Taylor H.W Saf 2936 40.78 1912-1932 372 9104 24.47 1.67 5.Sutcliffe B Nzl 2727 40.10 1947-1965 366 8903 24.33 1.65 6.Nourse A.D Saf 2960 53.82 1935-1951 295 9811 33.26 1.62 7.Lara B.C Win 11953 52.89 1990-2006 1081 35420 32.77 1.61 8.Hazare V.S Ind 2192 47.65 1946-1953 250 7381 29.52 1.61 9.Hobbs J.B Eng 5410 56.95 1908-1930 467 16940 36.27 1.57 10.Turner G.M Nzl 2991 44.64 1969-1983 343 9855 28.73 1.55 11.McGlew D.J Saf 2440 42.07 1951-1962 300 8257 27.52 1.53 12.Hanif Mohammad Pak 3915 43.99 1952-1969 469 13841 29.51 1.49 13.Hutton L Eng 6971 56.67 1937-1955 609 23306 38.27 1.48 14.Mitchell B Saf 3471 48.89 1929-1949 355 11813 33.28 1.47 15.Habibul Bashar Bng 3026 30.88 2000-2008 481 10136 21.07 1.47 16.Barrington K.F Eng 6806 58.67 1955-1968 625 25062 40.10 1.46 17.Hammond W.R Eng 7249 58.46 1927-1947 642 25747 40.10 1.46 18.Gavaskar S.M Ind 10122 51.12 1971-1987 964 33940 35.21 1.45 19.EdeC Weekes Win 4455 58.62 1948-1958 388 15668 40.38 1.45 20.Crowe M.D Nzl 5444 45.37 1982-1995 629 19821 31.51 1.44

Readers can note that the players in stronger teams lose out. Bradman's ratio comes down and is even comparable to Headley's. Flower, an outstanding batsman in a weaker team, moves all the way upto third place. Bert Sutcliffe of New Zealand leapfrogs over many other players to the fifth position. It is no surprise that Ponting and Tendulkar are even out of the top-20.

To view the complete list, please click here.

2.Batsman Peer comparisons - Basic table

>= 2000 Test runs.  (Batpos no. 1 to 6 & no. 7 avge gt 30.00)

SNo.Batsman Cty Runs Avge From- To (Mat) <------Peer-----> Ratio Inns Runs Avge

1.Bradman D.G Aus 6996 99.94 1928-1948(128) 2439 93717 38.42 2.60 2.EdeC Weekes Win 4455 58.62 1948-1958(161) 3153 112350 35.63 1.65 3.Sutcliffe H Eng 4555 60.73 1924-1935( 91) 1682 62698 37.28 1.63 4.Pollock R.G Saf 2256 60.97 1963-1970(126) 2612 98346 37.65 1.62 5.Barrington K.F Eng 6806 58.67 1955-1968(234) 4685 170077 36.30 1.62 6.Walcott C.L Win 3798 56.69 1948-1960(199) 3911 137954 35.27 1.61 7.Hobbs J.B Eng 5410 56.95 1908-1930(102) 1965 70137 35.69 1.60 8.Sobers G.St.A Win 8032 57.78 1954-1974(353) 7100 258499 36.41 1.59 9.Headley G.A Win 2190 60.83 1930-1954(194) 3789 146760 38.73 1.57 10.Hammond W.R Eng 7249 58.46 1927-1947(117) 2169 82513 38.04 1.54 11.Hutton L Eng 6971 56.67 1937-1955(143) 2705 100796 37.26 1.52 12.Chappell G.S Aus 7110 53.86 1970-1984(300) 5949 219541 36.90 1.46 13.Ponting R.T Aus 11341 55.87 1995-2009(615) 12369 474630 38.37 1.46 14.Javed Miandad Pak 8832 52.57 1976-1993(460) 8975 327935 36.54 1.44 15.Tendulkar S.R Ind 12773 54.59 1989-2009(792) 15813 602604 38.11 1.43 16.Kallis J.H Saf 10277 54.66 1995-2009(599) 12027 461711 38.39 1.42 17.Mohammad Yousuf Pak 7023 54.87 1998-2009(522) 10590 411465 38.85 1.41 18.Lara B.C Win 11953 52.89 1990-2006(661) 13132 494758 37.68 1.40 19.Flower A Zim 4794 51.55 1992-2002(431) 8500 313208 36.85 1.40 20.Worrell F.M.M Win 3860 49.49 1948-1963(252) 5004 178259 35.62 1.39

This is a variant of the basic table. The comparisons are only against the top six batsmen and the seventh, if he has a Batting average greater than 30.

To view the complete list, please click here.

3.Batsman Peer comparisons - Middle order batsmen

Batsman Peer comparisons - Middle order batsmen

>= 4000 Middle order runs

No.Batsman Cty BPos Inns Runs Avge <------Peer------> Ratio Avge Out Inns Runs Avge

1.Bradman D.G Aus 3.65 70 6996 99.94 1584 60056 37.91 2.64 2.EdeC Weekes Win 4.16 75 4399 58.65 2050 72238 35.24 1.66 3.Sobers G.St.A Win 5.09 128 7658 59.83 4672 170899 36.58 1.64 4.Barrington K.F Eng 4.07 113 6604 58.44 3074 113584 36.95 1.58 5.Hammond W.R Eng 3.70 120 6934 57.78 1393 52840 37.93 1.52 6.Chappell G.S Aus 4.04 132 7110 53.86 3911 143805 36.77 1.46 7.Javed Miandad Pak 4.24 167 8789 52.63 5893 218066 37.00 1.42 8.Ponting R.T Aus 3.84 203 11341 55.87 8118 320424 39.47 1.42 9.Compton D.C.S Eng 4.34 114 5805 50.92 2195 79104 36.04 1.41 10.Tendulkar S.R Ind 4.28 233 12758 54.76 10370 404928 39.05 1.40 11.Kallis J.H Saf 3.80 188 10277 54.66 7889 311872 39.53 1.38 12.Lara B.C Win 3.78 223 11828 53.04 8593 331446 38.57 1.38 13.May P.B.H Eng 3.66 96 4525 47.14 2223 76254 34.30 1.37 14.Sangakkara K.C Slk 3.09 123 6899 56.09 5594 229171 40.97 1.37 15.Dravid R Ind 3.27 191 10334 54.10 7788 308540 39.62 1.37 16.Waugh S.R Aus 5.42 211 10910 51.71 8293 314060 37.87 1.37 17.Mohammad Yousuf Pak 4.71 128 7023 54.87 6963 279859 40.19 1.37 18.Border A.R Aus 4.70 220 11116 50.53 5257 195282 37.15 1.36 19.Flower A Zim 5.03 93 4786 51.46 5568 211502 37.99 1.35 20.Harvey R.N Aus 3.65 126 6147 48.79 3131 112807 36.03 1.35

This is again a variant of the basic table. The comparisons are only against the top six batsmen and the seventh, if he has a Batting average greater than 30. Note that these peer average figures are now slightly higher since the P.A.Patels and Ramdins have been left out.

To view the complete list, please click here.

4.Batsman Peer comparisons - Basic table

Between 1000 and 2000 Test runs.

SNo.Batsman Cty Runs Avge From- To (Mat) <------Peer----->Ratio Inns Runs Avge

1.Shrewsbury A Eng 1277 35.47 1882-1893( 37) 819 17249 21.06 1.68 2.Paynter E Eng 1540 59.23 1931-1939( 63) 1338 48476 36.23 1.63 3.Barnes S.G Aus 1072 63.06 1938-1948( 38) 782 31858 40.74 1.55 4.Kambli V.G Ind 1084 54.20 1993-1995(100) 2153 76700 35.62 1.52 5.Davis C.A Win 1301 54.21 1968-1973( 79) 1775 64075 36.10 1.50 6.Mead C.P Eng 1185 49.38 1911-1928( 61) 1276 42819 33.56 1.47 7.Ryder J Aus 1394 51.63 1920-1929( 46) 965 35621 36.91 1.40 8.Grace W.G Eng 1098 32.29 1880-1899( 57) 1314 31139 23.70 1.36 9.Faulkner G.A Saf 1754 40.79 1906-1924( 67) 1506 46487 30.87 1.32 10.Bland K.C Saf 1669 49.09 1961-1966( 97) 2132 79264 37.18 1.32 11.Jardine D.R Eng 1296 48.00 1928-1934( 60) 1260 46007 36.51 1.31 12.Reid J.F Nzl 1296 46.29 1979-1986(193) 4080 145746 35.72 1.30 13.Rae A.F Win 1016 46.18 1948-1953( 64) 1387 50295 36.26 1.27 14.Goodwin M.W Zim 1414 42.85 1998-2000(105) 2313 77858 33.66 1.27 15.Hayward T.W Eng 1999 34.47 1896-1909( 56) 1279 34904 27.29 1.26 16.Duff R.A Aus 1317 35.59 1902-1905( 22) 486 13753 28.30 1.26 17.Pullar G Eng 1974 43.87 1959-1963( 63) 1378 49027 35.58 1.23 18.MacLaren A.C Eng 1931 33.88 1894-1909( 64) 1478 40936 27.70 1.22 19.Brown W.A Aus 1592 46.82 1934-1948( 68) 1446 55587 38.44 1.22 20.Houghton D.L Zim 1465 43.09 1992-1997(183) 3981 141210 35.47 1.21

This table shows the batsmen who have scored between 1000 and 2000 runs. Thus many late order batsmen are included.

To view the complete list, please click here.

5.Maximum Peer ratio reached by a batsman

Only batsmen who have played in over 50 Tests considered
Only after 50 Tests are crossed

Figures shown are at the beginning of concerned Test

SNo.Cty Batsman Test Test BatAvg Peer Ratio No Avge

1.Aus Bradman D.G 303 52 101.39 30.65 3.31 2.Eng Hobbs J.B 176 51 61.27 27.17 2.25 3.Win Sobers G.St.A 642 66 63.77 29.12 2.19 4.Eng Hammond W.R 257 60 61.61 29.23 2.11 5.Eng Sutcliffe H 234 50 62.27 30.12 2.07 6.Eng Barrington K.F 629 76 60.66 29.39 2.06 7.Pak Javed Miandad 966 56 58.56 28.88 2.03 8.Eng Hutton L 387 71 61.71 30.70 2.01 9.Win Richards I.V.A 956 52 58.78 29.20 2.01 10.Ind Tendulkar S.R 1591 91 58.87 29.42 2.00 11.Aus Hayden M.L 1688 52 58.98 29.99 1.97 12.Aus Ponting R.T 1821 108 59.96 30.54 1.96 13.Ind Dravid R 1743 89 58.45 30.25 1.93 14.Zim Flower A 1581 57 56.60 29.26 1.93 15.Aus Gilchrist A.C 1678 50 58.24 30.52 1.91 16.Ind Gavaskar S.M 871 62 57.27 30.15 1.90 17.Saf Kallis J.H 1856 112 58.20 30.62 1.90 18.Aus Harvey R.N 447 50 54.32 28.57 1.90 19.Aus Chappell G.S 913 70 55.58 29.65 1.87 20.Eng May P.B.H 476 59 49.76 27.09 1.84

Bradman reached his maximum ratio at the beginning of his last Test. Only the top-10 have crossed 2.00. Note the quality of the top-10.

To view the complete list, please click here.

6.Minimum Peer ratio reached by a batsman

Only batsmen who have played in over 50 Tests considered
Only after 50 Tests are crossed

Figures shown are at the beginning of concerned Test

SNo.Cty Batsman Test Test BatAvg Peer Ratio No Avge

1.Saf Pollock S.M 1528 50 27.15 28.84 0.94 2.Bng Habibul Bashar 1864 50 31.38 32.21 0.97 3.Ind Kapil Dev N 1032 72 29.75 30.33 0.98 4.Pak Imran Khan 973 50 29.88 30.20 0.99 5.Eng Knott A.P.E 734 53 30.84 30.91 1.00 6.Eng Flintoff A 1922 76 31.69 31.55 1.00 7.Win Hooper C.L 1303 52 30.64 30.20 1.01 8.Pak Rameez Raja 1313 53 30.93 30.30 1.02 9.Nzl Burgess M.G 891 50 30.88 30.07 1.03 10.Eng Lamb A.J 1099 53 32.31 31.15 1.04 11.Aus Wood G.M 1110 58 31.39 29.80 1.05 12.Win Dujon P.J.L 1175 81 32.51 31.01 1.05 13.Saf Waite J.H.B 578 50 30.75 28.99 1.06 14.Eng Smith M.J.K 700 50 32.08 30.33 1.06 15.Nzl Cairns C.L 1689 58 32.13 30.17 1.06 16.Nzl Wright J.G 1068 50 32.13 29.96 1.07 17.Nzl Congdon B.E 769 51 33.07 31.00 1.07 18.Eng Rhodes W 193 58 29.94 27.72 1.08 19.Eng Butcher M.A 1636 50 31.94 29.56 1.08 20.Ind Shastri R.J 1150 72 33.88 30.95 1.09

Only four batsmen have ever been at a peer ratio value of below 1.00. The only top flight batsmen in the top-10 minimum peer ratio list are Hooper, Rameez, Burgess and Lamb.

To view the complete list, please click here.

7.Comparison between maximum and minimum peer ratios reached

Only batsmen who have played in over 50 Tests considered
Only after 50 Tests are crossed
Max-Min is the ratio of Maximum to Minmum
Spread is the spread on either side of the mean
Figures shown are at the beginning of concerned Test

SNo Cty Batsman BatAvg Peer Ratio BatAvg Peer Ratio Max Spread Avge Max Avge Min -Min

1.Aus Waugh S.R 51.87 29.37 1.77 35.76 30.16 1.19 1.49 19.6% 2.Saf Kallis J.H 58.20 30.62 1.90 41.00 28.84 1.42 1.34 14.5% 3.Aus Ponting R.T 59.96 30.54 1.96 43.71 29.33 1.49 1.32 13.6% 4.Slk de Silva P.A 43.89 29.65 1.48 34.06 30.16 1.13 1.31 13.4% 5.Pak Imran Khan 38.23 30.41 1.26 29.88 30.20 0.99 1.27 12.0% 6.Win Hooper C.L 37.67 29.73 1.27 30.64 30.20 1.01 1.26 11.4% 7.Aus Gilchrist A.C 58.24 30.52 1.91 47.89 31.39 1.52 1.26 11.4% 8.Saf Pollock S.M 34.90 29.91 1.17 27.15 28.84 0.94 1.24 10.9% 9.Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq 51.79 30.36 1.71 40.71 29.41 1.38 1.24 10.7% 10.Ind Vengsarkar D.B 46.21 29.61 1.56 37.41 29.61 1.26 1.24 10.6% 11.Slk Sangakkara K.C 57.00 31.80 1.79 46.31 31.84 1.45 1.23 10.5% 12.Pak Saleem Malik 46.97 30.64 1.53 37.86 30.65 1.24 1.23 10.5% 13.Eng Gooch G.A 44.75 30.00 1.49 36.53 30.14 1.21 1.23 10.4% 14.Aus Boon D.C 46.83 30.33 1.54 39.07 30.71 1.27 1.21 9.6% 15.Pak Mohammad Yousuf 56.65 30.77 1.84 46.66 30.64 1.52 1.21 9.5% 16.Win Dujon P.J.L 38.91 30.70 1.27 32.51 31.01 1.05 1.21 9.5% 17.Win Chanderpaul S 49.71 30.66 1.62 39.17 29.31 1.34 1.21 9.5% 18.Saf Gibbs H.H 49.46 30.14 1.64 42.05 30.81 1.36 1.21 9.3% 19.Ind Tendulkar S.R 58.87 29.42 2.00 49.26 29.69 1.66 1.20 9.3% 20.Win Richards I.V.A 58.78 29.20 2.01 49.93 29.96 1.67 1.20 9.2%

This is a very revealing maximum / minimum comparison list. A high value in the last two columns indicates extreme average values. A value of over 10% indicates clearly that there is a wide gap between segments of career. The last column is a spread on either side of the mean between maximum and minimum. Steve Waugh has a spread of nearly 20%. Kallis and Ponting are also very high in the list. Lara is somewhere in the middle with a spread of 5% and is amongst the lowest amongst batsmen who have played a high number of Tests. Too much should not be read at the low values of Sutcliffe and Bradman since both of them have played just over 50 Tests.

To view the complete list, please click here.

Jeff's follow-up analysis (with Jeff's commentary)

Following on from my comment about weighting the peer averages by the innings played against each team by each player, I've done this now for the top 20 players in the original list (using Statsguru which took me quite a long time !)

I thought the readers would be interested in the results. There were no great differences doing this, but a couple of players ratios moved a fair bit.

Headley was the main beneficiary, moving up from number 7 to number 2 - he played a fair bigger proportion of his innings against strong England teams than his peers did and so his average is more impressive than it first appears. Lara also moves up, as do a couple of others. Tendulkar moves up a place.

Ponting suffers through this because (as said earlier) he didn't have to face his own team and Hammond also falls a bit because he played a lot of times against a weak South Africa.

Flower is perhaps the most surprising casualty - you might expect him to rise as he didn't have the chance to score against Zimbabwe like his peers did. However, it seems that he only played only one match against Australia in his entire career, and this has cost him.

Jeff's analysis summary

New Prev Diff Ananth Jeff

1. 1. <> Bradman D.G Aus 3.27 3.32 2. 7. +5 Headley G.A Win 1.97 2.10 3. 2. -1 EdeC Weekes Win 2.04 2.07 4. 5. +1 Walcott C.L Win 2.00 2.05 5. 4. -1 Pollock R.G Saf 2.00 1.99 6. 3. -3 Sutcliffe H Eng 2.02 1.98 7. 9. -2 Sobers G.St.A Win 1.95 1.97 8. 6. -2 Barrington K.F Eng 2.00 1.97 9. 8. -1 Hobbs J.B Eng 1.96 1.95 10. 11. +1 Hutton L Eng 1.90 1.92 11. 10. -1 Hammond W.R Eng 1.94 1.88 12. 13. +1 Chappell G.S Aus 1.79 1.81 13. 14. +1 Tendulkar S.R Ind 1.78 1.80 14. 19. +5 Lara B.C Win 1.75 1.80 15. 12. -3 Ponting R.T Aus 1.81 1.79 16. 15. -1 Kallis J.H Saf 1.77 1.76 17. 17. <> MohammadYousuf Pak 1.76 1.74 18. 16. -2 Javed Miandad Pak 1.76 1.71 19. 18. -1 Flower A Zim 1.75 1.69 20. 20. <> Sangakkara K.C Slk 1.73 1.63

Many thanks to Jeff. I am very happy to see someone who does not have access to database and supporting programs like me doing this, so to say, by long hand. May his tribe flourish.

Arjun Hemnani has asked for a Maximum/Minimum table based on the top-6/7 batsmen only. I have completed that work and have uploaded the tables to my site. It can be downloaded by clicking on the following links.

http://www.thirdslip.com/misc/peermax1.txt

http://www.thirdslip.com/misc/peermin1.txt

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Waspsting on December 29, 2010, 3:16 GMT

    Habibul Bashar? Talk about levelling the playing field!

    Love the analysis because I like to see the performers in weak teams get their dues. Something I always consider when people go overboard about Viv Richards. That guy's team was so strong that we'd forget his poor performances because the team would win comfortably anyway, and remember forever his great performances - which there were a lot of. Brian Lara, by contrast, had no such luxary. I think subtleties like this account for a lot in how a player is remembered, his 'legacy' if you will. (see the pressures faced by Ricky Ponting right now for another example).

    Good to see something celebrating guys like Bashar (who was quite an artist with the bat), Flower, Bert Sutcliffe and the like.

  • Raghav Bihani on September 4, 2009, 7:02 GMT

    I stand corrected. But all 14 have been match winning efforts. None of the men above him have managed that. Though the person tied with him, Ambrose, has a similar record of 14 awards in 14 wins.

  • Abhi on September 4, 2009, 3:58 GMT

    Just to add “the cherry on top” of my previous arguments there is a blog by “S.Rajesh” titled “The decade of the batsmen” right here on cricinfo itself. I had essentially argued that several batsmen filled their boots in the mid 2000s and that this period was much easier for batting. Essentially a run scored in the 90s is worth more than the mid 2000s...So several mathematical attempts (Bqty, pqty etc don’t really capture the picture accurately in the transition period) .Also, Tendulkar being injured almost continually from 2003-07 and particularly after the 2003 WC where he was in great form…and aged 30…so we have probably missed out the BEST of Tendulkar (incredible as that may seem) from age 30-34!! So, all the “best batsmen” analysis heavily “favour” the 2000s batsmen. i.e those who have started around this period or those who scored heavily in the period- as opposed to the predominantly 80/90s batsmen or the batsmen like Tendulkar who missed out on most of the fun due to injuries. So, the “best batsman” title in this scenario is a highly dubious one. S.Rajesh’s blog clearly validates most of my points.

  • Yash Rungta on September 2, 2009, 3:54 GMT

    Hi Raghav Bihani,

    Cricinfo says Steve Waugh got only 14 Man of the match awards in Tests, not 15.

  • Raghav Bihani on September 1, 2009, 6:35 GMT

    when you calculate the peak peer ratio achieved by a batsman, why do we always start from the begining of his career. Some players are slow starters but have blossomed into all time greats.

    e.g. In case of Steve Waugh, he started out as an allrounder and had a batting average of late30-early40s for quite a few tests. But after about 50 tests, he really took off and ended with average above 50.

    Can you do a maximum peer ratio backwards in a career as well.

    one trivia on Steve Waugh - all of his 15 MoM awards have been match winning efforts.

  • Arjun on August 31, 2009, 10:44 GMT

    Last 30 years, Tendulkar's Max peer ratio(1-6) of 1.61 is best of all. This inspite of playing in ODI's era. Just to get an idea of what today's Batsmen need to do to achieve that hieght in this Batting Era(Peer avg. of Top-6 has crossed 40.0).

    In 50 Tests(or 80-90 Innings), Score close to 5000 test runs at an average of more than 65.0. Seems almost impossible with increase in 20-20 mts. If someone decides to stick to only Test Cricket and not play ODI's and 20-20, he can reach the ratios of pre ODI era as Top-8 batsmen(above 1.63. They all basically played Test Cricket. [[ Arjun The highest current Peer Ratio for qualifying batsmen at the end of the Slk-Nzl match is Samaraweera with 40.30 which will require an average, again in over 50 tests, of 65. Ananth: ]]

    Ananth, Maybe another point you can take into consideration while doing your combined Test and ODI analysis is that it is very difficult to reach such hieghts if you play more than one form of cricket. Not even Ponting has reached same greatness in oneday cricket. [[ Arjun One reason I am not rushing into that. I am going to do couple of light-weight ones before attempting that mammoth task. Also remember that I have done the Peer ratio work in great depth for Tests but not ODIs. Ananth: ]]

  • Kris on August 31, 2009, 3:20 GMT

    @xolile As usual you (and arjun) provide the best and most discerning comments. What are you guys- a mixture of cricket pros and stats whizzes?! But again the Dan Vettori innings adds more weight to my argument of Murali vs. the top lefties. For some reason he can’t seem to break through several top lefties. No such problem with the righties. One of those mysteries. This is perhaps similar to the puzzle as to why the leftie tennis players get more “swerve” on their serves to the ad court than righties get on the deuce court. No one can really figure it out.

  • Xolile on August 30, 2009, 7:06 GMT

    To add some colour to my point above: Vettori averaged 16.49 during his first 67 innings (after being selected as an 18 year old finger spinner). Since then he has averaged 41.33 in 74 innings. And he is still improving; in his last 10 innings he averaged 56.12 runs. Imran Khan went through a similar early development phase. So have Steve Waugh. [[ Deon You have given me an excellent idea of doing a comparison of a batsman/bowler's performance in two halves of his career. Then the comparison is with himself and might make a lot of sense. It also will show the trends which are present in careers. Ananth: ]]

  • Xolile on August 30, 2009, 6:46 GMT

    Ananth, I take your point on the bating line-up cutoff point. The main benefit of what I suggested is that it will slightly favour modern batsman over the oldies. We are talking about maybe 2% or 3% in terms of peer ratio, which is not significant.

    Looking at Table 5 above, and also noticing that Vettori is again among the runs against Sri Lanka today, I was wondering whether you could publish the maximum peer ratio reached for any 80 innings (or 50 match) stretch during a batsman’s career? The results will be most interesting, as it will highlight players that have been dominant for a large part of their careers, but due to either a slow start (e.g. Vettori, Imran, Waugh) or a late career fade (e.g. Sobers, Tendulkar, Dravid), have not been able to sustain this dominance over their entire careers.

    The benefit that this will have is again that the moderns will be pushed up the list. At the moment we have the Top 11 in table 2 above all coming from the pre-1970 period.

  • Ananth on August 29, 2009, 16:26 GMT

    Arjun Hemnani has asked for a Maximum/Minimum table based on the top-6/7 batsmen only. I have completed that work and have uploaded the tables to my site. It can be downloaded by clicking on the following links.

    http://www.thirdslip.com/misc/peermax1.txt

    http://www.thirdslip.com/misc/peermin1.txt

    Ananth

  • Waspsting on December 29, 2010, 3:16 GMT

    Habibul Bashar? Talk about levelling the playing field!

    Love the analysis because I like to see the performers in weak teams get their dues. Something I always consider when people go overboard about Viv Richards. That guy's team was so strong that we'd forget his poor performances because the team would win comfortably anyway, and remember forever his great performances - which there were a lot of. Brian Lara, by contrast, had no such luxary. I think subtleties like this account for a lot in how a player is remembered, his 'legacy' if you will. (see the pressures faced by Ricky Ponting right now for another example).

    Good to see something celebrating guys like Bashar (who was quite an artist with the bat), Flower, Bert Sutcliffe and the like.

  • Raghav Bihani on September 4, 2009, 7:02 GMT

    I stand corrected. But all 14 have been match winning efforts. None of the men above him have managed that. Though the person tied with him, Ambrose, has a similar record of 14 awards in 14 wins.

  • Abhi on September 4, 2009, 3:58 GMT

    Just to add “the cherry on top” of my previous arguments there is a blog by “S.Rajesh” titled “The decade of the batsmen” right here on cricinfo itself. I had essentially argued that several batsmen filled their boots in the mid 2000s and that this period was much easier for batting. Essentially a run scored in the 90s is worth more than the mid 2000s...So several mathematical attempts (Bqty, pqty etc don’t really capture the picture accurately in the transition period) .Also, Tendulkar being injured almost continually from 2003-07 and particularly after the 2003 WC where he was in great form…and aged 30…so we have probably missed out the BEST of Tendulkar (incredible as that may seem) from age 30-34!! So, all the “best batsmen” analysis heavily “favour” the 2000s batsmen. i.e those who have started around this period or those who scored heavily in the period- as opposed to the predominantly 80/90s batsmen or the batsmen like Tendulkar who missed out on most of the fun due to injuries. So, the “best batsman” title in this scenario is a highly dubious one. S.Rajesh’s blog clearly validates most of my points.

  • Yash Rungta on September 2, 2009, 3:54 GMT

    Hi Raghav Bihani,

    Cricinfo says Steve Waugh got only 14 Man of the match awards in Tests, not 15.

  • Raghav Bihani on September 1, 2009, 6:35 GMT

    when you calculate the peak peer ratio achieved by a batsman, why do we always start from the begining of his career. Some players are slow starters but have blossomed into all time greats.

    e.g. In case of Steve Waugh, he started out as an allrounder and had a batting average of late30-early40s for quite a few tests. But after about 50 tests, he really took off and ended with average above 50.

    Can you do a maximum peer ratio backwards in a career as well.

    one trivia on Steve Waugh - all of his 15 MoM awards have been match winning efforts.

  • Arjun on August 31, 2009, 10:44 GMT

    Last 30 years, Tendulkar's Max peer ratio(1-6) of 1.61 is best of all. This inspite of playing in ODI's era. Just to get an idea of what today's Batsmen need to do to achieve that hieght in this Batting Era(Peer avg. of Top-6 has crossed 40.0).

    In 50 Tests(or 80-90 Innings), Score close to 5000 test runs at an average of more than 65.0. Seems almost impossible with increase in 20-20 mts. If someone decides to stick to only Test Cricket and not play ODI's and 20-20, he can reach the ratios of pre ODI era as Top-8 batsmen(above 1.63. They all basically played Test Cricket. [[ Arjun The highest current Peer Ratio for qualifying batsmen at the end of the Slk-Nzl match is Samaraweera with 40.30 which will require an average, again in over 50 tests, of 65. Ananth: ]]

    Ananth, Maybe another point you can take into consideration while doing your combined Test and ODI analysis is that it is very difficult to reach such hieghts if you play more than one form of cricket. Not even Ponting has reached same greatness in oneday cricket. [[ Arjun One reason I am not rushing into that. I am going to do couple of light-weight ones before attempting that mammoth task. Also remember that I have done the Peer ratio work in great depth for Tests but not ODIs. Ananth: ]]

  • Kris on August 31, 2009, 3:20 GMT

    @xolile As usual you (and arjun) provide the best and most discerning comments. What are you guys- a mixture of cricket pros and stats whizzes?! But again the Dan Vettori innings adds more weight to my argument of Murali vs. the top lefties. For some reason he can’t seem to break through several top lefties. No such problem with the righties. One of those mysteries. This is perhaps similar to the puzzle as to why the leftie tennis players get more “swerve” on their serves to the ad court than righties get on the deuce court. No one can really figure it out.

  • Xolile on August 30, 2009, 7:06 GMT

    To add some colour to my point above: Vettori averaged 16.49 during his first 67 innings (after being selected as an 18 year old finger spinner). Since then he has averaged 41.33 in 74 innings. And he is still improving; in his last 10 innings he averaged 56.12 runs. Imran Khan went through a similar early development phase. So have Steve Waugh. [[ Deon You have given me an excellent idea of doing a comparison of a batsman/bowler's performance in two halves of his career. Then the comparison is with himself and might make a lot of sense. It also will show the trends which are present in careers. Ananth: ]]

  • Xolile on August 30, 2009, 6:46 GMT

    Ananth, I take your point on the bating line-up cutoff point. The main benefit of what I suggested is that it will slightly favour modern batsman over the oldies. We are talking about maybe 2% or 3% in terms of peer ratio, which is not significant.

    Looking at Table 5 above, and also noticing that Vettori is again among the runs against Sri Lanka today, I was wondering whether you could publish the maximum peer ratio reached for any 80 innings (or 50 match) stretch during a batsman’s career? The results will be most interesting, as it will highlight players that have been dominant for a large part of their careers, but due to either a slow start (e.g. Vettori, Imran, Waugh) or a late career fade (e.g. Sobers, Tendulkar, Dravid), have not been able to sustain this dominance over their entire careers.

    The benefit that this will have is again that the moderns will be pushed up the list. At the moment we have the Top 11 in table 2 above all coming from the pre-1970 period.

  • Ananth on August 29, 2009, 16:26 GMT

    Arjun Hemnani has asked for a Maximum/Minimum table based on the top-6/7 batsmen only. I have completed that work and have uploaded the tables to my site. It can be downloaded by clicking on the following links.

    http://www.thirdslip.com/misc/peermax1.txt

    http://www.thirdslip.com/misc/peermin1.txt

    Ananth

  • Ranade on August 29, 2009, 13:31 GMT

    I find the “maximum peer ratio” achieved table simply wonderful. It very clearly tells us why certain batsmen were considered the best at their peaks. Overall, due to various ups and downs their careers may end up looking different. But the “maximum peer ratio” backs up with some statistics why the general public felt that certain batsmen at their peaks were in their times the best in the world.

  • Amit Patil on August 29, 2009, 7:09 GMT

    I am requesting you to put a table of batsman who scored max runs against any team considering the bowling strength of that team considering some ratio in between to rate the batsman that how good he is against that team (home & away). Similar analysis can be created for bowlers too. [[ Amit Your point is not clear. Can you please explain a bit more. Ananth: ]]

  • Yash Rungta on August 29, 2009, 6:50 GMT

    Hey Ananth,

    Did you consider my idea above as well? Taking only the stats of both own team and opposition team would remove a lot of discrepanicies like pitch, ground, conditions etc. Please see my post above. This is a simple yet fairly accurate measure of a peer ratio of a batsman. Your new method 'weighting the Peer averages by the quality of bowling teams' maybe better but it must be a little complicated?

    Jeff's calculation is really good though since it brings Lara and Tendulkar little over Ponting which seems correct. [[ Yash "Own team" has been done. I am immersed with various bits of work. But will do "both teams" one day. I have no idea how I will present it to the readers. I will ensure that you get a copy. Ananth: ]]

  • Aditya Jha on August 29, 2009, 6:24 GMT

    Ananth - if we were to use this set of analysis (peer analysis as well as the earlier one on best batsmen)as a decision tool, whom would you pick between Vishwanath, Laxman and Azhar for the number 5 slot in a hypothetical all time Indian XI? (I am assuming that Dravid and Sachin will bat at 3 and 4)thanks. [[ Aditya I will always answer these questions from my heart. Like the time when I selected 5 bowlers, not necessarily in the top-10. I will go with Laxman, if nothing else, for his 281 and 167 although these masterpieces were played at no.3 and no.1. And that is my prerogative. The numbers need not always support this decision. Ananth: ]]

  • Xolile on August 29, 2009, 6:06 GMT

    Regarding Kris' comment: I still believe that comparing batsmen to 1-5 will give the best result over time. In the past No 6 has often been viewed as an all-rounder position, and players coming in at No 6 were therefore not specialst batsman in the stricktest sense of the word. Since WWI No's 1-5 average 38.61 whereas No 6 averages 32.75; moreover, this difference fluctuates wildly overtime as ideas and strategies change. [[ Deon There is no way we can stop at 5. The no.6 position has been manned by some of the greatest middle-order batsmen ever, to name a few, Steve Waugh, Sobers, Gilchrist, Lloyd, Laxman et al. For that matter the no.7 position itself is fluid. The Wisden-100 all-time greatest innings, 270 by Bradman was played at no.7. Hence what I have now done, which is to take the nos 1-6 and no.7 with batting average exceeding 30.00 seems to be the best solution. Ananth: ]]

  • Kris on August 29, 2009, 4:33 GMT

    Alright, But is the 1-6 peer comparison also a lot of work? Because as “arjun” says that gives us a much better comparison of batsman vs. batsman, instead of bringing in allrounders and such. [[ Kris I also have a lot of other commitments. So it will be done in a few days. Ananth: ]]

  • Kris on August 29, 2009, 3:49 GMT

    Ananth, How about a max. peer ratio along “Jeff’s lines too. and also as “arjun”has been asking for a 1-6 peer comparison both on your table and similarly for “jeffs” table? [[ Kris Lot of work. Will do when I can. Ananth: ]]

  • Ananth on August 29, 2009, 2:48 GMT

    Jeff Grimshaw had done some extensive work on weighting the Peer averages by the quality of bowling teams. This was done to take care of situations such as Ponting not facing the Australian bowlers. He had sent me his article and I have now incorporated this in the main article after editing for presentation. Many thanks to Jeff. Ananth

  • Youvi on August 28, 2009, 4:06 GMT

    Ananth- As I glanced thru the tables particularly the one on Maximum Peer Ratio, it seemed plausible that most batsmen (if not almost all) in this list would attain the Max PR somewhere during the middle stretch of their Tests played. That seemed to hold true. The exception is the one and only Sir Don who attained the Max PR at the beginning of his last Test. I thought that was incredible and, needless to say, continues to show why Sir Don is head and shoulders above the rest. [[ Youvi It also happens that Bradman played only 52 tests keeping his maximum-minimum window to 2 tests. However it is almost certain that he would have maintained a similar average over a longer number of tests, not necessarily after he was 40 but between 1939 and 1945. He averaged 108.5 and 97.14 in the two series during 1938 and 1946-47 respectively at either end of this 5-year gap. Ananth: ]]

  • Unni on August 27, 2009, 17:54 GMT

    Ananth : Not a comment to post. Otherwise I don't see another place to write it. w.r.t a wicket's run value. From the basic batsman peer average table, we have seen that mostly this is hovering around the 30 run mark consistently. Can this be the 'prize' of a wicket in terms of runs? [I'm still amazed with the fact that 30 repeating for all eras and that too on very extreme numbers like Tendulkar's peer runs such as 7 lakh odd] [[ Unni 30 seems to be a bit too high. I would expect a number between 20 and 25. Will do a small analysis on this one of these days. Ananth: ]]

  • Ravi on August 27, 2009, 15:35 GMT

    Ananth, is it possible to see what highest peer ratio MEK Hussey has achieved (42 tests, avg 52.65 at the end of the Oval Test). I recognise that bringing the cut-off to 42 just for this calculation is not fair and also it will take a lot of working. So can we arrive at an estimate based on the assumption that he will average 45 for 8 further tests? I understand this isn't most accurate (as other's performance also needs to be accounted for), but can you do it please? [[ Ravi No problems at all. As easy as falling off a log. Remember when James wanted Faulkner's figures. I just do a special run. Takes a no more than 10 minutes. Only thing is that I still need a minimum number of tests which I have taken as 20. At the end of Hussey's 20th test (Test # 1862 (2008)) vs India, he averaged 84.80, which when compared with the rather high Peer average of 39.12, we get the outstanding maximum Peer ratio of 2.17. Now he is on earth with figures of 52.65/40.02/1.29. Note how the Peer average has crossed 40. Amazing. Ananth: ]]

  • Kris on August 27, 2009, 14:28 GMT

    Ananth-resending my previous comment. I think I mixed up the names.

    @arjun Yes. I don’t think it is the quality of batsmen. I feel it is mostly the nature of pitches in the 2000s. Several pitches have been extremely disheartening for bowlers and so very dead that sometimes it felt that practically any reasonably competent batsman could simply help themselves to a hundred. Also, there don’t seem to be the same quality of bowling attacks in the 2000s. Only the few truly outstanding bowlers. And it is these bowlers who have been successful. I mean if the “peer average” is 40, it is incredible!! This used to be considered the benchmark for a “good” Test batsman in the 90s! (50+ were the “great” batsmen)

    Arjun, The “max peer” ratio backs up your subjective arguments quite well. Bravo.

  • Purohit on August 27, 2009, 13:07 GMT

    Ananth, I am not a real huge cricket fan as such. A normal fan. But for many years now whenever Tendulkar has been batting I have always been glued to the match. When he was out my interest in the match diminished considerably. This is also true for most people I know. Is this unfair to the other team stalwarts? Definitely. But what to do? That’s just the way it is. [[ Purohit I have no problem with such comments since you are only talking about yourself. Ananth: ]]

  • Arjun on August 27, 2009, 12:45 GMT

    Before Tendulkar last player to have 'Maximum Peer ratio' of over 2.00 is Javed Miandad and that was in 80s. Since than it has become exremely difficult to outscore your peers by alomst 100 %. Incidently it is also a period that saw rise and rise of ODIs. Another factor could be abundance of good batsmen in last 30 years. This will make virtulally impossible to reach Maximun peer ratio of 2.00 in future. So well done to Tendulkar. Actulally i am waiting for Comparision of Maximum ratio with only proper batsmen.i.e 1-6. [[ Arjun If you see the Peer Ratio of Pietersen, that is 39+. In other words, he has to reach 78+, after 50 tests, to reach 2.00. So, as you say, Tendulkar might very well be the last of the great batsmen to reach 2.00. That top-10 certainly is an exclusive club. Look what happened to Hussey. Ananth: ]]

  • romel on August 27, 2009, 10:46 GMT

    Hi Ananth, Sorry for bothering you again...this is a repitition of my question in your previous article. Is there any effect of the timeless tests in surtcliff and hobbs's peer ratio/record? I'm just curious; but did not find enough record in the net. I know this is not in the interest of the majority readers here..can you tell us something about those time less tests spanned between post world war1 and 1930s? [[ Romel I am indeed sorry for not taking any action on your comment. Have put in a reminder for myself. Will revert soon. Ananth: ]]

  • Yash Rungta on August 27, 2009, 7:29 GMT

    Hi Abhi,

    I wasn't pointing to you or to anyone in particular. In fact I agree with you that Sachin's period from 1989-2002 was awesome and players like Ponting look inferior if you see that period of Sachin. Same with Richards. But then, why didn't Sachin and Richards retire in 2002 and 1987 respectively. They took the gamble(I'm not telling that its been bad for their own teams) of playing the additional years. Had they scored heavily in the latter periods, you'd have included those in the calculations. But now that they haven't lived upto their own expectations(still an avg of 49 post 2002 is pretty good for an ordinary batsman), you cannot just discount the calculations.

    Having said all that, I must confess that I'm one of the biggest Sachin and Lara fan. Off-topic: But probably Kambli was better than Sachin or atleast as good, but ALAS!!!!

  • Yash Rungta on August 27, 2009, 7:23 GMT

    I have a good idea(I'm sorry if someone would have already suggested this)

    Instead of doing peer calculations considering only team mate's calculations(this unnecessarily inflates someone like Flower's ratio and deflates Ponting's ratio) or using a the entire period's calculations which can be unfair due to nature of the pitch, conditions etc. Why don't you just add up the player's own team PLUS opposition's numbers and calculate the peer average? In this case: 1) A player like Flower would enjoy a good advantage of his own poor teammates but it would be compensated by the opposition's high scores because of his team's poor bowling.

    2) Similarly, in case of Ponting, the disadvantage of having good batsmen like Hayden, Gilly etc. would be offset by low opposition averages due to team's good bowling strength.

    3) Only perhaps a player like Sachin/Dravid would suffer because India's batting strength is very good but bowling, pretty average when compared to its own batting.

    Makes sense?

  • Ananth on August 27, 2009, 3:02 GMT

    A request to the readers: Can you please stick to the subject covered in the article. Probably it was my mistake to allow an extraneous topic to be raised. The above comments have been published because they were received before this request of mine. Jeff (Grimshaw) has put in hours of work and sent me a weighted peer ratio for the top players. My thanks to him. I will incorporate his findings in this article as soon as possible. Ananth

  • Prashant Agarwal on August 26, 2009, 21:59 GMT

    Ananth, if you compare the batsman average with the combined bowling average in the test matches he played, that could be a good indicator of how good a batsman was because it will take into account the quality of bowlers, pitches, weather, etc. [[ Prashant If you have read the posts on top batsman analysis you will see that I have already done what you have suggested and more. For each match I take the weighted bowling average. Thus matches in which Imran Khan played as a batsman, his bowling average will not be included. Ananth: ]]

  • love goel on August 26, 2009, 16:44 GMT

    I know this is just from top of your head, but the number has to be much higher; for 2000 onwards, it easily has to be something like 27-29. Further bowlers are limited by the maximum number of wickets(20) while batsmen are not limited by 400 runs(20*20) Also Kumble would have scored many more runs if he batted at no 4 instead of 8/9 simply by having more and better batting partners present.Somehow,somewhere this also needs to be taken in consideration. And people/crowd/audiences may like batsmen better and believe they are more important than bowlers.But you just need to go ask international captains who will they choose between a top bowler/batsmen and I am sure they will pick up bowler. I am dead sure Ricky ponting would have picked McGrath/Warney in Ashes even if that meant him sitting out for whole series. At least I would have. If you use a run/wicket ratio of 20 then Kumble has contributed 14,886 “runs” to Indian cricket, Kapil Dev 13,928 – and Tendulkar 13,653 [[ Love Let us avoid these simplistic calculations. People will pounce at such comparisons, with justification, and go to town. It is essential to consider lot more factors, across different forms of cricket before coming to any conclusion. I will repeat what I told earlier. My purpose was only to say that the others who have performed equally well for over 20 years seem to be short-changed. It is never my intention to pull down Tendulkar. He is too great for that. However let us give the others also credit because they have also carried a bat into the ground at 15 for 1 in a cauldron of 60000 people or bowled over after over all round the world.

    Ananth: ]]

  • Kris on August 26, 2009, 14:37 GMT

    Ananth, xolile Firstly, where modern cricket is concerned ODIs are to be given their due. In fact, till a few years back the Indian public was probably more obsessed with ODIs. Secondly, if you seriously think that you can “analytically” prove something like you claim…then you are not only completely overestimating the limits of statistics but also displaying more than a little amount of naiveté. [[ Kris One thing is certain. What I said I will do is a LOT MORE credible and objective than the "billion people" argument. Think of the absurdity of the billion peoples argument, you will know. Who said I will not take into account ODI. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on August 26, 2009, 13:35 GMT

    Ananth I couldn’t find Hussey on the list? [[ Abhi Hussey is 33rd in the main file. Ananth: ]]

    Yash I don’t know if you are referring to me. But if you are, you have perhaps misunderstood my point. To take a rough parallel with tennis, suppose Federer is No.1 for 5 years and Nadal for 1 year... Don’t you feel that this reveals something? Perhaps not if players are from different eras…but if both are playing at the same time? Similarly if Tendulkar has been “better” for a greater majority of a peer’s career, shouldn’t this factor be given some weight?

    Also the fact that he was better than the others at a clearly much more difficult time for batting?

    This is all I’m saying. Through the 90s Tendulkar was out on top. As is quite clear Lara comes out ahead on the overall stats because of the 2003-07 period which adds considerable ballast to his stats. Similarly with Ponting. Richards comes lower on the list. But again the “peer comparison” tells us that when Richards was good…he was really good! Ananth noted that Richards suffers because towards the end of his career he had a few poor years. Similarly Tendulkar had a few poor years, ironically at the exact period when the others were piling on the runs. This is noted by how Richards and Tendulkar suffer in the peer ration “difference” list.

  • Xolile on August 26, 2009, 13:13 GMT

    Ananth,

    Regarding your earlier comment: “One day I will prove analytically that Kumble/KapilDev have contributed as much or nearly as much to Indian cricket as Tendulkar. “

    If you use a run/wicket ratio of 20 then Kumble has contributed 14,886 “runs” to Indian cricket, Kapil Dev 13,928 – and Tendulkar 13,653.

    If you look at these numbers on a “per match” basis it is even more in favour of Kumble and Kapil Dev.

    But this obvously doesn't paint the whole picture. [[ Deon You are asking for trouble. Anyhow when I do the analysis it will incorporate a lot more. Contribution to wins, share of team workload, all-round skills, possibly captaincy in addition to all the bread and butter numbers. Let me also add that I would do this not to denigrate Tendulkar in any way, he is amongst the best ever, but to give the others their due. Ananth: ]]

  • Yash Rungta on August 26, 2009, 12:50 GMT

    I liked that you posted the 'highest peer rating reached' table. This is because now users don't need to post Tendulkar's prime era or Dravid's prime era and yell about their golden periods.. I would really have liked you to also do the same in the best batsmen/best bowler anaylysis. You could have say the highest rating that a batsmen got(as per our analysis). For eg. Lara has a career score of 50.26 points and Sachin 49.24. I'm pretty sure Sachin would have touched 50 at some point of time in his career(say May 2002).(The thing that Lara might have touched 51 is another thing). This way, you could have stopped a few comments of people who are staunch Sachin's fans who keep telling he is the greatest and keep asking you to rate him upto May 2002. Dravid himself would have touched 48-49 points..

    Sorry for being a little off-topic though. [[ Yash As you have done consistently recently, the point you have made is very valid. Only problem is that it is a programming and calculating nightmare. One day I will do it because it would, to a certain extent, reflect the erstwhile P-W Ratings. Thanks. Ananth: ]]

  • Arjun on August 26, 2009, 11:49 GMT

    Since 'Maximum ratio reached' table is all about comparing great batsman won't it would be lot better if only peer avg. of 1-6 or 1-7 is considered (same as your 1st table)? [[ Arjun Good point. Although my reading has been that the final ratios whether they are based on 1-11, 1-7, 1-6~7 are somewhat proportionately comparable with very little variations. However let me do that and post the results. Ananth: ]]

  • Xolile on August 26, 2009, 8:19 GMT

    A minor point, but it appears that in the commentary to the 1st table above you are confusing Bert Sutcliffe of New Zealand with Herbert Sutcliffe of England. [[ Deon I stand, and the article stands, corrected. Thanks Ananth: ]]

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Xolile on August 26, 2009, 8:19 GMT

    A minor point, but it appears that in the commentary to the 1st table above you are confusing Bert Sutcliffe of New Zealand with Herbert Sutcliffe of England. [[ Deon I stand, and the article stands, corrected. Thanks Ananth: ]]

  • Arjun on August 26, 2009, 11:49 GMT

    Since 'Maximum ratio reached' table is all about comparing great batsman won't it would be lot better if only peer avg. of 1-6 or 1-7 is considered (same as your 1st table)? [[ Arjun Good point. Although my reading has been that the final ratios whether they are based on 1-11, 1-7, 1-6~7 are somewhat proportionately comparable with very little variations. However let me do that and post the results. Ananth: ]]

  • Yash Rungta on August 26, 2009, 12:50 GMT

    I liked that you posted the 'highest peer rating reached' table. This is because now users don't need to post Tendulkar's prime era or Dravid's prime era and yell about their golden periods.. I would really have liked you to also do the same in the best batsmen/best bowler anaylysis. You could have say the highest rating that a batsmen got(as per our analysis). For eg. Lara has a career score of 50.26 points and Sachin 49.24. I'm pretty sure Sachin would have touched 50 at some point of time in his career(say May 2002).(The thing that Lara might have touched 51 is another thing). This way, you could have stopped a few comments of people who are staunch Sachin's fans who keep telling he is the greatest and keep asking you to rate him upto May 2002. Dravid himself would have touched 48-49 points..

    Sorry for being a little off-topic though. [[ Yash As you have done consistently recently, the point you have made is very valid. Only problem is that it is a programming and calculating nightmare. One day I will do it because it would, to a certain extent, reflect the erstwhile P-W Ratings. Thanks. Ananth: ]]

  • Xolile on August 26, 2009, 13:13 GMT

    Ananth,

    Regarding your earlier comment: “One day I will prove analytically that Kumble/KapilDev have contributed as much or nearly as much to Indian cricket as Tendulkar. “

    If you use a run/wicket ratio of 20 then Kumble has contributed 14,886 “runs” to Indian cricket, Kapil Dev 13,928 – and Tendulkar 13,653.

    If you look at these numbers on a “per match” basis it is even more in favour of Kumble and Kapil Dev.

    But this obvously doesn't paint the whole picture. [[ Deon You are asking for trouble. Anyhow when I do the analysis it will incorporate a lot more. Contribution to wins, share of team workload, all-round skills, possibly captaincy in addition to all the bread and butter numbers. Let me also add that I would do this not to denigrate Tendulkar in any way, he is amongst the best ever, but to give the others their due. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on August 26, 2009, 13:35 GMT

    Ananth I couldn’t find Hussey on the list? [[ Abhi Hussey is 33rd in the main file. Ananth: ]]

    Yash I don’t know if you are referring to me. But if you are, you have perhaps misunderstood my point. To take a rough parallel with tennis, suppose Federer is No.1 for 5 years and Nadal for 1 year... Don’t you feel that this reveals something? Perhaps not if players are from different eras…but if both are playing at the same time? Similarly if Tendulkar has been “better” for a greater majority of a peer’s career, shouldn’t this factor be given some weight?

    Also the fact that he was better than the others at a clearly much more difficult time for batting?

    This is all I’m saying. Through the 90s Tendulkar was out on top. As is quite clear Lara comes out ahead on the overall stats because of the 2003-07 period which adds considerable ballast to his stats. Similarly with Ponting. Richards comes lower on the list. But again the “peer comparison” tells us that when Richards was good…he was really good! Ananth noted that Richards suffers because towards the end of his career he had a few poor years. Similarly Tendulkar had a few poor years, ironically at the exact period when the others were piling on the runs. This is noted by how Richards and Tendulkar suffer in the peer ration “difference” list.

  • Kris on August 26, 2009, 14:37 GMT

    Ananth, xolile Firstly, where modern cricket is concerned ODIs are to be given their due. In fact, till a few years back the Indian public was probably more obsessed with ODIs. Secondly, if you seriously think that you can “analytically” prove something like you claim…then you are not only completely overestimating the limits of statistics but also displaying more than a little amount of naiveté. [[ Kris One thing is certain. What I said I will do is a LOT MORE credible and objective than the "billion people" argument. Think of the absurdity of the billion peoples argument, you will know. Who said I will not take into account ODI. Ananth: ]]

  • love goel on August 26, 2009, 16:44 GMT

    I know this is just from top of your head, but the number has to be much higher; for 2000 onwards, it easily has to be something like 27-29. Further bowlers are limited by the maximum number of wickets(20) while batsmen are not limited by 400 runs(20*20) Also Kumble would have scored many more runs if he batted at no 4 instead of 8/9 simply by having more and better batting partners present.Somehow,somewhere this also needs to be taken in consideration. And people/crowd/audiences may like batsmen better and believe they are more important than bowlers.But you just need to go ask international captains who will they choose between a top bowler/batsmen and I am sure they will pick up bowler. I am dead sure Ricky ponting would have picked McGrath/Warney in Ashes even if that meant him sitting out for whole series. At least I would have. If you use a run/wicket ratio of 20 then Kumble has contributed 14,886 “runs” to Indian cricket, Kapil Dev 13,928 – and Tendulkar 13,653 [[ Love Let us avoid these simplistic calculations. People will pounce at such comparisons, with justification, and go to town. It is essential to consider lot more factors, across different forms of cricket before coming to any conclusion. I will repeat what I told earlier. My purpose was only to say that the others who have performed equally well for over 20 years seem to be short-changed. It is never my intention to pull down Tendulkar. He is too great for that. However let us give the others also credit because they have also carried a bat into the ground at 15 for 1 in a cauldron of 60000 people or bowled over after over all round the world.

    Ananth: ]]

  • Prashant Agarwal on August 26, 2009, 21:59 GMT

    Ananth, if you compare the batsman average with the combined bowling average in the test matches he played, that could be a good indicator of how good a batsman was because it will take into account the quality of bowlers, pitches, weather, etc. [[ Prashant If you have read the posts on top batsman analysis you will see that I have already done what you have suggested and more. For each match I take the weighted bowling average. Thus matches in which Imran Khan played as a batsman, his bowling average will not be included. Ananth: ]]

  • Ananth on August 27, 2009, 3:02 GMT

    A request to the readers: Can you please stick to the subject covered in the article. Probably it was my mistake to allow an extraneous topic to be raised. The above comments have been published because they were received before this request of mine. Jeff (Grimshaw) has put in hours of work and sent me a weighted peer ratio for the top players. My thanks to him. I will incorporate his findings in this article as soon as possible. Ananth

  • Yash Rungta on August 27, 2009, 7:23 GMT

    I have a good idea(I'm sorry if someone would have already suggested this)

    Instead of doing peer calculations considering only team mate's calculations(this unnecessarily inflates someone like Flower's ratio and deflates Ponting's ratio) or using a the entire period's calculations which can be unfair due to nature of the pitch, conditions etc. Why don't you just add up the player's own team PLUS opposition's numbers and calculate the peer average? In this case: 1) A player like Flower would enjoy a good advantage of his own poor teammates but it would be compensated by the opposition's high scores because of his team's poor bowling.

    2) Similarly, in case of Ponting, the disadvantage of having good batsmen like Hayden, Gilly etc. would be offset by low opposition averages due to team's good bowling strength.

    3) Only perhaps a player like Sachin/Dravid would suffer because India's batting strength is very good but bowling, pretty average when compared to its own batting.

    Makes sense?