| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Video & Audio | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Games | Mobile | ||||||||||||||||||
|
| Shivnarine Chanderpaul: The best at No.6 © Getty Images |
The batting average of the batsman in the relevant position is used to sequence the tables. Let us now look at the tables. Where there are more than 20 batsmen, the top-20 are shown.
Batting position: Opening (minimum 3000 runs)England dominates with the greats, Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton occupying the top-3 positions. Sehwag is in the top 5. Note also that Hayden, Lawry and Hunte in this list never did anything but open.No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.Sutcliffe H Eng 1.06 4555 83 9 4522 61.11 99.3% 8.1% ahead 2.Hutton L Eng 1.23 6971 131 12 6721 56.48 96.4% 3.Hobbs J.B Eng 1.20 5410 97 6 5130 56.37 94.8% 4.Simpson R.B Aus 2.64 4869 70 4 3664 55.52 75.3% 5.Sehwag V Ind 1.41 6691 120 5 6312 54.89 94.3% 6.Amiss D.L Eng 1.72 3612 69 8 3276 53.70 90.7% 7.Smith G.C Saf 1.26 6800 136 8 6565 51.29 96.5% 8.Hayden M.L Aus 1.00 8626 184 14 8626 50.74 100.0% 9.Gavaskar S.M Ind 1.26 10122 203 12 9607 50.30 94.9% 10.Langer J.L Aus 1.79 7696 115 9 5112 48.23 66.4% 11.Boycott G Eng 1.03 8114 191 23 8091 48.16 99.7% 12.Gibbs H.H Saf 1.89 6167 116 5 5242 47.23 85.0% 13.Lawry W.M Aus 1.00 5234 123 12 5234 47.15 100.0% 14.Saeed Anwar Pak 1.16 4052 86 2 3957 47.11 97.7% 15.Morris A.R Aus 1.13 3533 76 2 3381 45.69 95.7% 16.Vaughan M.P Eng 2.37 5719 72 4 3093 45.49 54.1% 17.Greenidge C.G Win 1.05 7558 182 16 7488 45.11 99.1% 18.Hunte C.C Win 1.00 3245 78 6 3245 45.07 100.0% 19.Stewart A.J Eng 3.58 8465 77 2 3348 44.64 39.6% 20.Edrich J.H Eng 1.76 5138 82 5 3430 44.55 66.8% 16 further entries.
Batting position: # 3 (minimum 2000 runs)Bradman on top is a foregone conclusion. He is ahead by over 34%. However look at the 70+ averages of Barrington and Hammond as also Headley. Then there is wide gap before Richards gets in, followed by Lara. The averages in this key position are the highest amongst all batting positions.No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.Bradman D.G Aus 3.65 6996 56 7 5078 103.63 72.6% 34.1% ahead 2.Barrington K.F Eng 4.04 6806 40 6 2626 77.24 38.6% 3.Hammond W.R Eng 3.66 7249 52 6 3440 74.78 47.5% 4.Headley G.A Win 3.60 2190 32 3 2064 71.17 94.2% 5.Richards I.V.A Win 4.16 8540 59 2 3508 61.54 41.1% 6.Lara B.C Win 3.78 11953 66 4 3749 60.47 31.4% 7.Ponting R.T Aus 3.82 11924 177 19 9417 59.60 79.0% 8.Sangakkara K.C Slk 3.03 7549 127 8 6916 58.12 91.6% 9.Dravid R Ind 3.19 11395 179 18 8970 55.71 78.7% 10.Amla H.M Saf 3.29 3261 62 6 2977 53.16 91.3% 11.Kanhai R.B Win 3.30 6227 90 1 4689 52.69 75.3% 12.Dexter E.R Eng 3.80 4502 57 3 2798 51.81 62.2% 13.Edrich W.J Eng 2.83 2440 41 1 2049 51.22 84.0% 14.Chappell I.M Aus 3.59 5345 91 7 4279 50.94 80.1% 15.Younis Khan Pak 3.62 5260 80 3 3913 50.82 74.4% 16.Kallis J.H Saf 3.81 10843 78 11 3335 49.78 30.8% 17.Gower D.I Eng 3.98 8231 56 3 2619 49.42 31.8% 18.Amarnath M Ind 3.94 4378 66 5 2907 47.66 66.4% 19.Fleming S.P Nzl 3.65 7172 69 6 2977 47.25 41.5% 20.Richardson R.B Win 2.98 5949 107 7 4711 47.11 79.2% 13 further entries.
Batting position: # 4 (minimum 2000 runs)The greatest W of the three, Everton Weekes is on top here, followed by Greame Pollock, close behind. Then the moderns take over, Kallis, Jayawardene and Md Yousuf. The highest scorer in this position, Tendulkar just manages to make the top-10 with an average of 57.34.No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.EdeC Weekes Win 4.15 4455 57 4 3372 63.62 75.7% 1.7% ahead 2.Pollock R.G Saf 4.10 2256 37 4 2065 62.58 91.5% 3.Kallis J.H Saf 3.81 10843 130 18 6943 61.99 64.0% 4.Jayawardene M Slk 4.10 9123 133 11 7290 59.75 79.9% 5.Mohammad Yousuf Pak 4.65 7431 60 3 3373 59.18 45.4% 6.Barrington K.F Eng 4.04 6806 44 4 2367 59.17 34.8% 7.Chappell G.S Aus 4.04 7110 86 13 4316 59.12 60.7% 8.May P.B.H Eng 3.65 4537 49 8 2383 58.12 52.5% 9.O'Neill N.C Aus 3.84 2779 41 6 2010 57.43 72.3% 10.Tendulkar S.R Ind 4.28 13447 220 24 11239 57.34 83.6% 11.Javed Miandad Pak 4.22 8832 140 12 6925 54.10 78.4% 12.Compton D.C.S Eng 4.34 5807 86 7 4234 53.59 72.9% 13.Inzamam-ul-Haq Pak 4.65 8830 98 6 4867 52.90 55.1% 14.Lara B.C Win 3.78 11953 148 1 7535 51.26 63.0% 15.Hammond W.R Eng 3.66 7249 66 7 2997 50.80 41.3% 16.Nourse A.D Saf 4.10 2960 53 5 2400 50.00 81.1% 17.Border A.R Aus 4.70 11174 89 13 3792 49.89 33.9% 18.Pietersen K.P Eng 4.30 5074 74 2 3579 49.71 70.5% 19.Crowe M.D Nzl 4.16 5444 106 8 4841 49.40 88.9% 20.Vengsarkar D.B Ind 3.60 6868 64 10 2605 48.24 37.9% 16 further entries.
Batting position: # 5 (minimum 2000 runs)Steve Waugh, the fighter extraordinary, tops here with an excellent 60+ average. A decimal point behind him is an equally intrepid English fighter, Graham Thorpe. Michael Clarke and Andy Flower post averages on either side of 55. The stylish Zaheer Abbas chips in next with a 53+ average.No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.Waugh S.R Aus 5.42 10927 142 22 6754 56.28 61.8% 0.1% ahead 2.Thorpe G.P Eng 4.72 6744 78 18 3373 56.22 50.0% 3.Clarke M.J Aus 5.16 4375 68 7 3416 56.00 78.1% 4.Flower A Zim 5.03 4794 82 13 3788 54.90 79.0% 5.Zaheer Abbas Pak 3.94 5062 42 4 2048 53.89 40.5% 6.Mohammad Yousuf Pak 4.65 7431 77 7 3718 53.11 50.0% 7.Samaraweera T.T Slk 5.40 3938 57 6 2706 53.06 68.7% 8.Border A.R Aus 4.70 11174 69 11 3062 52.79 27.4% 9.Chanderpaul S Win 4.80 8669 100 16 4409 52.49 50.9% 10.Inzamam-ul-Haq Pak 4.65 8830 49 7 2144 51.05 24.3% 11.Gower D.I Eng 3.98 8231 49 6 2131 49.56 25.9% 12.Cowdrey M.C Eng 3.64 7624 54 6 2377 49.52 31.2% 13.Azharuddin M Ind 5.04 6215 94 5 4346 48.83 69.9% 14.Richards I.V.A Win 4.16 8540 63 6 2720 47.72 31.9% 15.Walters K.D Aus 5.16 5357 49 4 2134 47.42 39.8% 16.Lloyd C.H Win 5.32 7515 72 6 3049 46.20 40.6% 17.Prince A.G Saf 4.68 3195 64 10 2396 44.37 75.0% 18.Collingwood P.D Eng 5.17 4058 61 6 2392 43.49 58.9% 19.Hooper C.L Win 4.83 5762 75 6 2911 42.19 50.5% 20.Astle N.J Nzl 4.89 4702 87 3 3181 37.87 67.7% 3 further entries.
Batting position: # 6 (minimum 1500 runs)The unfancied Chanderpaul is on top, that too by a mile, with an average of 65+. Saleem Malik and Sobers are in the next two positions. Steve Waugh and Laxman complete the top-5.No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.Chanderpaul S Win 4.80 8669 42 8 2235 65.74 25.8% 15.7% ahead 2.Saleem Malik Pak 4.97 5768 36 8 1591 56.82 27.6% 3.Sobers G.St.A Win 5.04 8032 57 8 2614 53.35 32.5% 4.Border A.R Aus 4.70 11174 63 14 2556 52.16 22.9% 5.Waugh S.R Aus 5.42 10927 79 17 3165 51.05 29.0% 6.Laxman V.V.S Ind 4.52 7136 64 11 2647 49.94 37.1% 7.Ponting R.T Aus 3.82 11924 45 5 1989 49.72 16.7% 8.Lloyd C.H Win 5.32 7515 47 4 2114 49.16 28.1% 9.Walters K.D Aus 5.16 5357 45 6 1869 47.92 34.9% 10.Tillakaratne H.P Slk 5.67 4545 74 14 2843 47.38 62.6% 11.de Villiers A.B Saf 4.12 3902 38 4 1584 46.59 40.6% 12.Dilshan T.M Slk 5.46 3691 52 7 2087 46.38 56.5% 13.Coney J.V Nzl 5.65 2668 48 9 1772 45.44 66.4% 14.Asif Iqbal Pak 5.79 3575 45 5 1750 43.75 49.0% 15.Greig A.W Eng 5.85 3599 67 4 2741 43.51 76.2% 16.McMillan C.D Nzl 5.80 3116 51 5 1899 41.28 60.9% 17.Rhodes J.N Saf 5.81 2532 49 5 1813 41.20 71.6% 18.Ganguly S.C Ind 4.96 7212 47 5 1725 41.07 23.9% 19.Ranatunga A Slk 5.52 5105 54 5 1907 38.92 37.4% 20.Logie A.L Win 5.81 2470 52 5 1559 33.17 63.1% 2 further entries.
Batting position: # 7 (minimum 1500 runs)In addition to scoring quickly Gilchrist posted an outstanding 46+ average in this key position dominated by wicket-keepers and all-rounders. Chris Cairns comes in next, followed by two top-class wk-batsmen, Knott and McCullum. Imran Khan completes the top 5.No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.Gilchrist A.C Aus 6.72 5570 100 15 3948 46.45 70.9% 5.5% ahead 2.Cairns C.L Nzl 7.06 3320 40 0 1761 44.03 53.0% 3.Knott A.P.E Eng 6.85 4389 81 11 2870 41.00 65.4% 4.McCullum B.B Nzl 6.52 2862 46 3 1730 40.23 60.4% 5.Imran Khan Pak 7.06 3807 63 10 1845 34.81 48.5% 6.Dujon P.J.L Win 6.61 3322 69 6 2113 33.54 63.6% 7.Flintoff A Eng 6.48 3845 54 3 1645 32.25 42.8% 8.Jacobs R.D Win 7.05 2579 86 19 2087 31.15 80.9% 9.Kapil Dev N Ind 7.23 5248 98 6 2861 31.10 54.5% 10.Healy I.A Aus 7.09 4356 121 11 3041 27.65 69.8% 11.Boucher M.V Saf 7.18 5068 111 9 2746 26.92 54.2% 12.Marsh R.W Aus 6.91 3633 123 9 3009 26.39 82.8%
Batting position: # 8 (minimum 1000 runs)The growing stature of Vettori not just as an all-rounder but a batsmen who would not have been out of place at # 6 is confirmed by this placement. He is ahead of Boucher by a huge 18%. Kapil Dev and Pollock come in next, followed by Kirmani.No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.Vettori D.L Nzl 8.22 3962 60 11 2072 42.29 52.3% 17.9% ahead 2.Boucher M.V Saf 7.18 5068 41 9 1148 35.88 22.7% 3.Kapil Dev N Ind 7.23 5248 58 5 1777 33.53 33.9% 4.Pollock S.M Saf 7.70 3781 79 21 1796 30.97 47.5% 5.Kirmani S.M.H Ind 7.73 2759 43 7 1030 28.61 37.3% 6.Hadlee R.J Nzl 7.81 3124 53 8 1235 27.44 39.5% 7.Vaas WPUJC Slk 8.09 3087 98 22 1913 25.17 62.0% 8.Wasim Akram Pak 8.14 2898 63 6 1353 23.74 46.7% 9.Marshall M.D Win 8.03 1810 75 10 1365 21.00 75.4% 10.Kumble A Ind 8.33 2506 80 15 1265 19.46 50.5% 11.Warne S.K Aus 8.29 3154 113 8 2005 19.10 63.6%
The batsmen with the highest average for each batting position are given below. This is not a bad side with a batting average of 64.75. Chanderpaul has earned his position here. I know readers are waiting to say "how can you not have xyz", "how stupid are you are to ignore abc", "are you mad" etc. I have merely compiled the top batsmen for each batting position, that is all.
Still, just for the sake of argument, if you add Warne/Marshall/Hadlee/Barnes or Murali/Holding/Lillee/Garner or Akram/Grimmett/Ambrose/McGrath to this collection of 7, this team will take some beating.
1.Sutcliffe H Eng 4522 61.11 2.Hutton L Eng 6721 56.48 (??? Hobbs with 5130 @ 56.37) 3.Bradman D.G Aus 5078 103.63 4.EdeC Weekes Win 3372 63.62 5.Waugh S.R Aus 6754 56.28 6.Chanderpaul S Win 2235 65.74 (??? Sobers with 2614 @ 53.35) 7.Gilchrist A.C Aus 3948 46.45Since I felt that nos 9-10-11 analysis would not lead to anything significant I have not done the analysis for these positions.
There is no equivalent of the ODI Index for Test matches. Balls faced has to be extrapolated and that seems inappropriate for this analysis.
To view/down-load the complete tables, please click/right-click here.
Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems
Feeds: Anantha Narayanan
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Anantha Narayanan
Anantha spent the first half of his four-decade working career with corporates like IBM, Shaw Wallace, NCR, Sime Darby and the Spinneys group in IT-related positions. In the second half, he has worked on cricket simulation, ratings, data mining, analysis and writing, amongst other things. He was the creator of the Wisden 100 lists, released in 2001. He has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket, and worked extensively with Maruti Motors, Idea Cellular and Castrol on their performance ratings-related systems. He is an armchair connoisseur of most sports. His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth.
Feeds for all blogs
Dear readers I started writing for "It Figures" during late 2007 and since then have done a total of nearly 100 posts without a break. This is the one project from which I derive a lot of pleasure and satisfaction. The exchanges from readers all over the globe makes the hours I spend well worth. Of late the blog takes a lot of time possibly because I am the type who reads each and every comment and responds to at least 50% of these. There is no doubt that the blog is made because of this. In order to avoid getting stale and being repetitive I need a short break. It is not that I am short of ideas or reader suggestions. I have at least a dozen such analysis possibillities on my plate. Hence I would like to inform the readers that I will take this break during the month of May. My next article will be at the beginnin g of June when I return hopefully refreshed. Of course, I will continue to answer the reader comments. Ananth
Posted by Boll on (April 30, 2010, 16:00 GMT)In light of some of the comments re.SRT`s struggles with fitness and injury I thought it might be worthwhile to mention, for those of you not familiar with them, Sir Don`s own widely publicised problems. I refer you to Wikipedia and the passage headed `Declining health and a brush with death`, not to mention the 8! years(not the 5 or 6 commonly qouted) which Bradman, and many others lost from their career due to the war. The greatest batsman of the last 60 years have been received with great respect in Australia - Sobers, Lara, IVA, Sunny, Sachin - and having seen 4 of them bat live, I think they have been surprised and honoured by it themselves. Beer-swilling and crude we may be at times, but there are very few countries in the world that stand as one and cheer an opposition player to the crease as Australians do when a great man is on hand. To compare any of them to Bradman is to miss the point though. You might want to watch Viv or SRT or Wally Hammond more...
Posted by Alex on (April 28, 2010, 4:26 GMT)Ananth - I think Woodcock is best spared any criticism in his old age. Preparing a list of Top 100 across 130+ years was an impossible task - even Warne's 100 had a bias although it was limited (quite sensibly) to the players he competed with/against over just 17 years. Warne's 100 is worth preserving and, even better, his descriptions shed some light on his own perception. I think the players know the best about their contemporaries. Charles Barkley often said "you can fool the fans, you can fool the media but you cannot fool other players ... they know exactly what you are". [[ Alex Not a bad idea. The whole thing came in only because an article by Woodcock came in and then the whole question of credibility also came in. Probably none of us is qualified to run down a senior journalist. Ananth: ]]
Posted by Ron on (April 28, 2010, 2:25 GMT)A simple article seems to have stirred up a hornet’s nest. It would perhaps be better if we focus on questioning the reasoning in the article- as “Alex” has done. Instead of questioning the author’s credentials- a commonly used political ploy. [[ Ron There is nothing political about questioning what is a whimsical off-the-cuff creation irrespective of a journallist's number of years in field. Let us not forget that you are very comfortable with Woodcock's other article since it betows on SRT the Bradman halo. Frankly I am not questioning that article but the list of 100. What Engle and I are trying to say is that Woodcock is not anywhere near the top rung of English journalists. His judgement is dubious. Tendulkar is whatever he is, the best over the past sixty years, irrespective of whatever anyone says. You certainly do need Wioodcock's anointing of this fact. Ananth: ]]
Posted by Engle on (April 27, 2010, 13:59 GMT)What do I make of Woodcock's comments ?
An amateurish attempt at acquiring arguments.
An expert should very closely and carefully, with well-thought out reasoning and rationale, rank the cricketers. It's a list that will be scrutinized by many, some very intelligent followers.
While I understand that some controversial selections may emerge, they can be debated either way and generally accepted as close contestants.
However, if you roam into the realm of the ridiculous, then be prepared to take a huge hit to your credibility and never to be taken seriously again. [[ Engle 50 years of journalism does not give anyone the right to belittle greats and one does not need 50 years of writing to appreciate greatness. I get the feeling this was done on a whim. Woodcock would have been better off doing a personal-10 which would have attracted fewer brickbats. The irony is that the article Ron had referred to acquired credibility because Woodcock had watched Bradman and Tendulkar. In that case how does Woodcock place at no.1 someone who died before he was born and at no.4 one who was dead and buried for 125 years. This seems to me the height of whimisical prose. Ananth: ]]
Posted by Boll on (April 27, 2010, 11:36 GMT)I agree with all those who`ve commented on the lack of credit given to Dravid for his test performances - a truly great career which compares with any of Ponting, Lara or Sachin. @Aalok, not sure where you found those ODI stats however. Dravid`s pre-2007 stats seem very similar to his overall figures, averaging just under 40 at a SR of just over 70. Good, but not great by any means.
Posted by Abhi on (April 27, 2010, 9:54 GMT)Hey Engle, Went through that link u posted : http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/153288.html Says : “The list was compiled by John Woodcock, the paper's cricket correspondent for 34 years, the former editor ofWisden and the man believed to have seen more Test cricket than anyone else in history. None the less, even Woodcock did not see Grace play, still less Alfred Mynn of Kent (died 1861, No. 4 on the list) or Billy Beldham and John Small of Hambledon (Nos. 39 and 61). No one, least of all Woodcock, pretended the list was definitive: "Inevitably invidious and essentially provocative," he said. It was, however, a very well-informed basis for many splendid arguments.” What do u make of it?
Posted by Abhi on (April 27, 2010, 9:45 GMT)Alex, That makes more sense- when all info is garnered and only then is the final result queried...Instead of coming up with absolutely rudimentary statements such as “since X didn't do this, and Y did – therefore Y is better”.
As we know there are umpteen variables involved behind any stat. Growing in importance among these seems to be the hitherto ignored batting position .As we can see the batting posn is a pretty useful predictor of big scores. The chances of the BPs 1-3 getting big scores are much higher. If batting at 4, the batsman usually needs to come in rather early on a decent batting track. But for that you need reasonably poor 1-3 batsmen! Coz on a good track the good 1-3s will pile it on and if you come in at 250-2, you can just about forget your own 250s or triples… And that’s just one of the variables. Anyway, Einstein also apparently said: “The levels of intelligence are Smart, intelligent, brilliant, genius, simple!” This could well apply to sport as well. Think Einstein knew something?
Posted by Alex on (April 27, 2010, 4:11 GMT)Abhi - The issue is not about using 500 as the threshold to call a series "mammoth" because somebody never scored >493 in a series. Rather, it is to point out that while some other greats scored 800+/700+ runs in 4 tests (or 600+ in 3), a batsman, argued to be the second greatest ever, never crossed even 500 in a series. It is true that since mid-90's India rarely played a series of 4 or more tests, thereby reducing its probability. If the 1st 3 are in good nick, the probability of #4 position batsman doing so is not too high unless he scores 200's & big hundreds when he gets a chance to bat long. So, a mammoth series is possible for SRT only if starts scoring big hundreds or bats at #3. Big 100's are welcome!
Posted by Bradman on (April 26, 2010, 20:26 GMT)During Bradman's era, test batsmen typically scored at around 35 runs per 100 balls. Nowadays runs are usually scored at around 50-55 runs per 100 balls. Bradman scored at something like 80 runs per 100 balls (or more), and no other batter scored at anywhere near the same rate in that era or any other era. (Accurate statistics are not available from this time, so it is difficult to be precise). He would not have needed to change his batting style for 1-day cricket (20/20 is another matter).
No modern batter is anywhere near as brutal, except perhaps Sehwag. When you think how modern bats are much heavier with a much better middle, and pitches have shorter boundaries, it is difficult to think Bradman would have been less prolific. (Although, except for the bodyline series, there was very little short-pitched bowling in his era.)