The best batsmen over the last 5 years in test match cricket

[KBC]

targeting you doesn't make any sense in Supporting pakistani players, and woah! Please Change your behaviour man, it's not free and respectable, really, don't take this harsh.. But, you really need to get more friendly mate, other than "my word is the world" thing..

Really mate, i'm not trying in any sense to insult you, it's just because many get irritated by your posts recently..

Back on topic

..

 

[Insomniac]

Didn't say that you were targetting me, nor insulting me.

I just asked whether that was suppoused to provoke a response out of me (flaming), and your answer was yes.

 

[KBC]

Didn't say that you were targetting me, nor insulting me.

I just asked whether that was suppoused to provoke a response out of me (flaming), and your answer was yes.

:happy

At last, you've got me right, but that wasn't "suppoused"..But, you takes things really wrongly mate..

Back on topic *

Also, i was just looking through Kumar Sangakkara's record and he wasn't bad at all over the last 3 years, and not too bad early on as well..

http://content.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/50710.html

He's got a really nice record, consistently breaking down to 150s after centuries like sehwag, though there's a slight similarity between sangakkara and strauss, If they get settled, they're gonna take the opposition to an easy defeat with their efforts, but sanga looked like a better batsmen over some years than strauss and yes, cricinfo wrote perfectly about him, and i'm not currently going into stats atm....

 

[Sureshot]

Mahela Jayawardene would be my choice to answer the thread. He seems to slip by un-noticed.

 

[Perm]

So going on the past 5 years (which I guess could be termed a rise in class of a batsman, since to sustain good form over this large period of time would be very difficult)

Haha, or it could be something to do with the large decline in bowling standards and decks that offer absolutely nothing to bowlers.

Not disputing the fact we've seen some talented batsmen in the last five years (Ponting, Kallis etc), but you can hardly say that there has been a rise in the class of batsmen during that period. Just look at some of the bowlers we've seen in this time (VRV Singh, Sajid Mahmood, Ian O'Brien) and you'll realise that it's simply not the case.

Perm added 1 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

but is it the players fault that they are playing Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. They don't decide who they get to play they just go out there and do the thing they would usually do against any other country.

You don't see NBAs worst teams being excluded when a players PPG is being shown. I know basketball is way different than cricket but to me it just seems pointless to leave stats out.

The point is that runs scored and wickets taken against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe don't mean as much as performances against any of the other Test playing nations. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe aren't deserving of their Test status and some First Class sides would be able to beat them fairly easily.

 

[Cricketman]

Haha, or it could be something to do with the large decline in bowling standards and decks that offer absolutely nothing to bowlers.

Not disputing the fact we've seen some talented batsmen in the last five years (Ponting, Kallis etc), but you can hardly say that there has been a rise in the class of batsmen during that period. Just look at some of the bowlers we've seen in this time (VRV Singh, Sajid Mahmood, Ian O'Brien) and you'll realise that it's simply not the case.

Perm added 1 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...



The point is that runs scored and wickets taken against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe don't mean as much as performances against any of the other Test playing nations. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe aren't deserving of their Test status and some First Class sides would be able to beat them fairly easily.

Amen, brother!

You should post more

 

[Perm]

The most important statistic you can provide for this kind of argument is neither of the one's supplied by zMario. While New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan may be weaker (which is a moot point to start with) than the other five Test playing nations, they are still deserving of their Test status whilst Bangladesh and Zimbabwe aren't. So what is the point in excluding runs scored against them?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Minimum of 20 innings (and has to have played in the last two years)

Michael Hussey - 67.19
Ricky Ponting - 67.10
Mohammad Yousuf - 62.21
Jacques Kallis - 61.08
Brian Lara - 59.49
Younis Khan - 57.89
Virender Sehwag - 56.98
Shivnarine Chanderpaul - 55.57
Mahela Jayawardene - 53.72
Rahul Dravid - 52.65
Kumar Sangakarra - 52.50
Kevin Pietersen - 50.51

But again, what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. There are so many variables in cricket that if you really do feel the need to use statistics as your whole argument you can't base it on overall average, because that shows nothing. For example, what does Sangakarra average when he's playing purely as a batsman? What does Rahul Dravid average when he isn't being forced to open? Michael Hussey has played only a handful of Test matches outside of Australia.

Far too many variables to rely on one number to try and make an argument.

 

[RoboRocks]

Considering the stats and circumstances, I would go for Chanderpaul. He been very constant and has scored big runs against the best sides in the world without much support at the other end. Although Ponting and Hussey have made a few in a winning team, Jayawardene and Sangakarra likewise.

 

[Cricketdude]

A Tasmanian is the best batsman over the 5 years.

 

[Insomniac]

The most important statistic you can provide for this kind of argument is neither of the one's supplied by zMario. While New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan may be weaker (which is a moot point to start with) than the other five Test playing nations, they are still deserving of their Test status whilst Bangladesh and Zimbabwe aren't. So what is the point in excluding runs scored against them?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Minimum of 20 innings (and has to have played in the last two years)

Michael Hussey - 67.19
Ricky Ponting - 67.10
Mohammad Yousuf - 62.21
Jacques Kallis - 61.08
Brian Lara - 59.49
Younis Khan - 57.89
Virender Sehwag - 56.98
Shivnarine Chanderpaul - 55.57
Mahela Jayawardene - 53.72
Rahul Dravid - 52.65
Kumar Sangakarra - 52.50
Kevin Pietersen - 50.51

But again, what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. There are so many variables in cricket that if you really do feel the need to use statistics as your whole argument you can't base it on overall average, because that shows nothing. For example, what does Sangakarra average when he's playing purely as a batsman? What does Rahul Dravid average when he isn't being forced to open? Michael Hussey has played only a handful of Test matches outside of Australia.

Far too many variables to rely on one number to try and make an argument.

Dravid only opened on that tour of Pakistan in 2006, right? And he made quite a few runs at that position IIRC...

But one thing I will say Perm, is that in my opening post, I have the same statsguru search as you (except I didn't include the 20 innings factor, although I pointed out that Misbah only played 5 tests) right at the top

 

[Perm]

Dravid only opened on that tour of Pakistan in 2006, right? And he made quite a few runs at that position IIRC...

But one thing I will say Perm, is that in my opening post, I have the same statsguru search as you (except I didn't include the 20 innings factor, although I pointed out that Misbah only played 5 tests) right at the top

Er...no you didn't. I used a search where runs scored against all of the top 8 Test playing nations were considered, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were the only teams I didn't include in my search.

Also, the point I was trying to make, which you seemed to have missed, is that judging players on their overall average (whether it be over 5 years or their entire careers) is very misleading, and a poor use of statistics. It is a very simplistic way of trying to prove a point and does not take into account the numerous variables that affect cricket.

 

[tech.007]

take my point:the best test batsmen in the world are:

B.lara
R.Ponting
R.Dravid
M.Jayawardhene

 

[Insomniac]

Er...no you didn't. I used a search where runs scored against all of the top 8 Test playing nations were considered, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were the only teams I didn't include in my search.

Also, the point I was trying to make, which you seemed to have missed, is that judging players on their overall average (whether it be over 5 years or their entire careers) is very misleading, and a poor use of statistics. It is a very simplistic way of trying to prove a point and does not take into account the numerous variables that affect cricket.

Ah, well if you compare the two, there is not a notable difference in my opinion in the top 10 - just a few differences here and there in position.

 

[Perm]

Ah, well if you compare the two, there is not a notable difference in my opinion in the top 10 - just a few differences here and there in position.

If you are going to make judgements you need all the evidence.

Statistics and references count for little if you don't take all the information into consideration.

 

[Insomniac]

Of course you need all the evidence!

I'm just saying that your top 10 which doesn't have Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and my top 10 which did had very few differences, so for this particular topic, it didn't really affect the debate at all.

Not saying you're wrong, by the way.