Any player in Cricket can be picked out with Statistical holes.

[maniac]

This has actually turned into a very good discussion

[zen]

4 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

Greatness is measured by moments of magic on the field and by nothing else.

Good! So how do you define magic on field? To be fair to cricketers of all generations and teams, the magic on field is not going to be tied to your memory or some random match of the team you follow that you saw. Also most cricketers would have moments of "magic" so again is everyone great or are you suggesting that one with more such moments is great. If it is latter, you are delving into stats (subconsciously) .... or worse, promoting greatness based on limited information (based on factors such as what your old neighbor for example tells or fanboyism or even to the line of reasoning where my dog makes me most happy, therefore most magical and the greatest animal) and a copious amount of unknown unknowns 

 

PS 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[coffee_rules]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

Good! So how do you define magic on field? To be fair to cricketers of all generations and teams, the magic on field is not going to be tied to your memory or some random match of the team you follow that you saw. Also most cricketers would have moments of "magic" so again is everyone great or are you suggesting that one with more such moments is great. If it is latter, you are delving into stats (subconsciously) .... or worse, promoting greatness based on limited information (based on factors such as what your old neighbor for example tells or fanboyism or even to the line of reasoning where my dog makes me most happy, therefore most magical and the greatest animal) and a copious amount of unknown unknowns 

It's not only Statsguru that decide greatness. At a basic level we can see how they scored in different countries, home. away, . Also, we need to check match conditions, how they batted under pressure, how was the bowling. In one session of play after rain, even Jaydev Unadkat will be McGrath. So if they survived or dominated and counter-attacked, that counts more than scoring a 200 on a flat wicket. All these are not available on Statsguru. So, Batting ratings help there, but they address only the peaks of a batsman, not entirely a mark of greatness. We need to check how long they held top 10, shows form and longevity of form. Laughing at Tendulkar's 898 v/s Steven Smith 947 doesn't cut it.

 

Also, we need to read about what sports writers and fellow cricketers say about a person's greatness. It is a combination of it all. That's what I wanted to say in the trolling of Tendulkar thread you were active on. Hence, I opened this thread to show how any cricketers can be looked into for weaknesses. The sticky wicket weakness of Bradman cannot be made available in some statsguru, but only from writers and anecdotes. You have taken this exercise as a mere look into stats. Enough ranting. 

[coffee_rules]

9 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

If we are questioning whether player toured a certain country or not, then can we question that Bradman didn't face fast bowlers in his career and his numbers are mostly against what we would call slow-medium pacers today?

And fielders who would stand and clap in admiration!

[Gollum]

30 minutes ago, zen said:

I do not think it is a chink as there are no more sticky wickets and the data itself is unverified - "By my reckoning there were fifteen of Bradman’s Test innings which we can consider rain-affected and treat them separately – here are the adjusted averages:-"  

I knew that Don failed on stickies but thought the sample size would be small. Clearly not if one goes by JC's link....11 tests, 15 innings is almost 20% of his playing career. 

 

Doesn't matter if there are no more sticky dogs, Bradman's peers and almost all the pre-WWII players had to face that test and ATGs like Hobbs, Hammond, Headley, Trumper, Sutcliffe, Hutton passed the challenge with flying colours. So definitely a chink. 

 

Regarding the data, unless someone can counter the stats I think we must go by what the author said. If you want to go by peer review, there are enough observations which highlight the GOAT's struggles on stickies, most notable among them by Sutcliffe. 

[zen]

8 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It's not only Statsguru that decide greatness. At a basic level we can see how they scored in different countries, home. away, . Also, we need to check match conditions, how they batted under pressure, how was the bowling. In one session of play after rain, even Jaydev Unadkat will be McGrath. So if they survived or dominated and counter-attacked, that counts more than scoring a 200 on a flat wicket. All these are not available on Statsguru. So, Batting ratings help there, but they address only the peaks of a batsman, not entirely a mark of greatness. We need to check how long they held top 10, shows form and longevity of form. Laughing at Tendulkar's 898 v/s Steven Smith 947 doesn't cut it.

 

Also, we need to read about what sports writers and fellow cricketers say about a person's greatness. It is a combination of it all. That's what I wanted to say in the trolling of Tendulkar thread you were active on. Hence, I opened this thread to show how any cricketers can be looked into for weaknesses. The sticky wicket weakness of Bradman cannot be made available in some statsguru, but only from writers and anecdotes. You have taken this exercise as a mere look into stats. Enough ranting. 

To me that sounds like blaming stats or even trying to misrepresent it by implying that others factors are not considered or accounted as your favorite player does not measure up on them   

 

If your post is from a Tendulkar fanboy perspective  - they are the last ones who should be complaining about stats. Many of them have wasted their lives in an effort to blow his horn by relying on stats including combine Tests and ODI runs, attacking players such as Bradman, Richards, Lara, and even Indian ones like Gavaskar, and so on. I am not sure if many of them even enjoy performances of other cricketers   .... At the foremost, we should be cricket fans not an individual cricketer fans 

 

 

Quote

The sticky wicket weakness of Bradman cannot be made available in some statsguru, but only from writers and anecdotes. You have taken this exercise as a mere look into stats.

 

That information is actually acquired from stats by trying to figure out which innings were impacted by sticky wickets. However, this particular information is unreliable by the author's own reckoning as it depends on what the person is able to identify as those conditions, which do not even matter now  

 

 

[Trichromatic]

11 hours ago, zen said:

If we make a basic qualification of having an avg of 50 or more vs. 80% of opposition against whom a batsman played at least 3 test matches: 

 

Why do we have to stick to 50 here? Why not 60? Why not 45?

 

What's the logic behind picking up 50?

[Gollum]

5 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I would give you a 100 upvotes for this comment if the site allowed me to.

All this nerd talk is very tiresome. The very idea of using statistics/excel/graphs to determine the purported greatness of a cricketer is flawed.

Greatness is measured by moments of magic on the field and by nothing else.

Cricket isn't art or drama. There is a definite quantitative objective to be achieved at the end of the day and stats are an integral part of the sport. 

 

'Moments of magic' is a wrong path to follow in any sport, otherwise Zico would be talked as a GOAT contender, 80s Brazil as the GOAT football team and someone like Safin will trump a Djokovic with 10% of the latter's achievements....in cricket guys like Kallis, McGrath, Jaddu, Kumble will be dismissed as boring. Sure there may be a few exceptions for whom stats don't tell the complete story (Trumper, GR Vishy being foremost examples in cricket) but in most cases stats/excel/graph etc. are important to filter out the lesser candidates and get the creme de la creme. After you classify the various cricketers tier-wise (based on cold, hard data) feel free to factor in various intangibles, flair, magic, mental toughness, legacy/influence etc. to rank them. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Gollum

[Trichromatic]

5 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I would give you a 100 upvotes for this comment if the site allowed me to.

All this nerd talk is very tiresome. The very idea of using statistics/excel/graphs to determine the purported greatness of a cricketer is flawed.

Greatness is measured by moments of magic on the field and by nothing else.

 

Copy pasting what I wrote in ICF whatsapp group last month.

 

Quote

Player don't become ATG at end of the career. It's not final analysis. Take case of Younis Khan, his numbers are as good as many ATG players, but he isn't rated as same. Thing is ATG players are talked about during initial days (4-5 years), people see the potential. People talk about, people wait for their performances in overseas tours. Failures are criticised more. And when players prove critics wrong multiple times, they are branded as ATG during that course, not at the end of the career. If you're not talked about, it means you lack something, in case of Kallis it was combination of boring batting, always being 2nd or 3rd highlight in overseas success and lack of performances against big guns

Yet he ended up as ATG, means he got recognition at right time, when he started scoring big and not when he was missing from show.

Adding to that, no one is rated as ATG by seeing numbers at end of the career. Player is usually already ATG few years before retiring. 

 

Above message was extension of following explanation of why Kallis wasn't rate earlier and gave an impression of underrated player at end of career.

 

Quote

Kallis averaged 41 in first 50 tests, so that also went against him creating his first impression. Most ATG show their greatness during first 50 tests, SRT, Lara, Viv or potential ATGs like Root, Williamson, Kohli or Root. Ponting (mid 40s) and Sanga (48) were attacking batsmen which helped them change impression when hit their peak.

First 6 years, many poor series, slow boring batting, nothing much to show except that 100 against against McGrath from 1995-2001. Then he goes to Zimbabwe and scores big. 388 unbeaten runs.

Then a good series in India but no hudred. 2 series against Aus, again no 100s. Then Bangladesh series and again scores unbeaten 214.

After that 9 tests against Pakistan, SL, Eng and failures in both overseas tours of Eng and Pak with 1 100 in home tour.

Then he hit a big series against WI with 700 runs. Those are his first 8 years of career, 71 tests.

During this phase he averaged in 30s against, Aus, Eng, Pak and SL.

Scoring 4k runs at avg of 41 against top 7 teams and that too at SR of 38 with just 7 100s meant he was just improving his reputation during later years as a batsman.

It's not difficult to see why he wasn't rated much. Of course he was just unstoppable during later years. But people initial impression of player remains for so long as cricket fans follow sports for decades.

 

[coffee_rules]

23 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Why do we have to stick to 50 here? Why not 60? Why not 45?

 

What's the logic behind picking up 50?

I have read writers of 80s considered 40 as a good average for justifying inclusion, 45 is great. Batting averages shot up in the 90s and beyond. So, for comparing now 50 is what we feel is ATGness. But not so for earlier eras. GRV's 41.xx is around the same as Ganguly and Ravi Shastri. But, GRV is rated higher by all peers who have seen him bat, but will laugh at somebody who says he is the same as Ravi Shastri looking at the stats. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by coffee_rules

[zen]

12 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I knew that Don failed on stickies but thought the sample size would be small. Clearly not if one goes by JC's link....11 tests, 15 innings is almost 20% of his playing career. 

 

Doesn't matter if there are no more sticky dogs, Bradman's peers and almost all the pre-WWII players had to face that test and ATGs like Hobbs, Hammond, Headley, Trumper, Sutcliffe, Hutton passed the challenge with flying colours. So definitely a chink. 

 

Regarding the data, unless someone can counter the stats I think we must go by what the author said. If you want to go by peer review, there are enough observations which highlight the GOAT's struggles on stickies, most notable among them by Sutcliffe. 

Those stats are not to be taken at face value: 

 

a) Bradman's performance is compared with Bradman's only (there is no benchmark presented to judge his performance)

 

b) Uses methodology such as 

13-Jun-1930

England

8 & 131

wicket had improved by the 4th innings, so only his first innings was affected

 

• Therefore his 131 is dismissed. And when most of Australian side struggled in those conditions esp. the first inning. Has such level of analysis where when it rained at what moment when a batsman batted performed for other players too to gain insights into what is the  benchmark? How are the scores accounted for when a batsmen is on 80 before the rain and scores 20 after the rain. Does he take the entire 100 as scored on sticky wicket for other players? 

 

Another example:

22-Jun-1934

England

36 & 13

both innings affected by rain

 

If we look at the scorecard - Link - most of the Australian team struggled (only one batsman did well) and we do not know the extent of rain interruption in the first inning of England esp. when the author was particular about:

 

"Although rain fell in a significant number of the Tests in which he played, not all necessarily affected the Don’s own innings – here is a listing of all of the Tests in which Bradman appeared which were affected by rain, together with details of the relevant innings:-"

 

11-Jun-1930

England

334

rain affected the pitch after Bradman’s innings

 

 

c) Because of the such discrepancies, the author has even given a disclaimer of "by my reckoning" 

 

 

Even if you take 20% at face value, do we know the percentage for other cricketers esp. through analysis as to exact conditions of rain of when they batted like they did for Bradman. That 20% could very well be acceptable  

 

 

[coffee_rules]

53 minutes ago, zen said:

To me that sounds like blaming stats or even trying to misrepresent it by implying that others factors are not considered or accounted as your favorite player does not measure up on them   

As Ravi Shastri/Sidhu once quoted a famous quote "Statistics are like mini-skirts, shows a lot of things but does not show what is essentially". They are a strawman's delight.

 

Quote

If your post is from a Tendulkar fanboy perspective  - they are the last ones who should be complaining about stats. Many of them have wasted their lives in an effort to blow his horn by relying on stats including combine Tests and ODI runs, attacking players such as Bradman, Richards, Lara, and even Indian ones like Gavaskar, and so on. I am not sure if many of them even enjoy performances of other cricketers   .... At the foremost, we should be cricket fans not an individual cricketer fans 

Fair enough. I don't consider him god, I rate IVAR and Gavaskar higher than him.  But, I wouldn't still not compare him with a Hahane using Statsguru.  But he's a fan's delight to watch cricket. 

 

Quote

 

 

That information is actually acquired from stats by trying to figure out which innings were impacted by sticky wickets. However, this particular information is unreliable by the author's own reckoning as it depends on what the person is able to identify as those conditions, which do not even matter now  

 

 

That's a fair exercise to go to each match report and find out. Why do you say it doesn't matter now? There are no sticky wickets now, but it was there then. Why don't you consider what matters now and not then - fast bowlers/Short pitch bowlers and compare modern players only against dibbly-dobbly medium pacers, the modern batsman will also look like Bradmans.

Edited July 23, 2020 by coffee_rules

[zen]

9 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

As Ravi Shastri/Najot Sidhu once quoted a famous quote "Statistics are like mini-skirts, shows a lot of things but does not show what is essentially". They are a strawman's delight.

 

They do not claim to understand stats either

 

 

Quote

Fair enough. I don't consider him god, I rate IVAR and Gavaskar higher than him.  But, I wouldn't still not compare him with a Hahane using Statsguru.  But he's a fan's delight to watch cricket. 

Their attitude/outputs are similar. It is like saying M3 is like a Ferrari in its category. That does not mean M3 = Ferrari but how M3 performs in its league is similar to how a Ferrari performance amongst its competition. On the other hand, if someone says that that M3 performs like a Corolla, it implies that despite being a sports focused car, it performs like a typical family sedan or how a Corolla performs in sportiness with respect to other family sedans is how M3 performs in sportiness wrt to other sports sedans

 

 

Quote

That's a fair exercise to go to each match report and find out. Why do you say it doesn't matter now? There are no sticky wickets now, but it was there then. Why don't you consider what matters now - fast bowlers/Short pitch bowlers and compare modern players only against dibbly-dobbly medium pacers, the modern batsman will also look like Bradmans.

It is explained in my post above yours. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[coffee_rules]

@zen The "sticky" wicket weakness is not to compare Bradman with others with similar weaknesses to call it irrelavent. Others are already inferior on performance anyway. 

But, if a fellow batsman who is inferior to him  scores a 100 and he fails in a rain affected match, then it's considered a chink in his armour. If they are 20% cases, then it can be proclaimed. Bradman's GOAT doesn't get affected, but at least show where he was vulnerable. 

[zen]

16 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

@zen The "sticky" wicket weakness is not to compare Bradman with others with similar weaknesses to call it irrelavent. Others are already inferior on performance anyway. 

But, if a fellow batsman who is inferior to him  scores a 100 and he fails in a rain affected match, then it's considered a chink in his armour. If they are 20% cases, then it can be proclaimed. Bradman's GOAT doesn't get affected, but at least show where he was vulnerable. 

Are you implying that Bradman because he is Bradman has to score a 100 no matter what the conditions are? So if it is a flat wicket, everyone scores and Bradman scores a 100. If it is a sticky wicket, where the avg is say 20 (we don't know the number) and Bradman still has to score a 100 and a 25-30 won't do 

 

PS that 20% (based on questionable analysis and without knowing the guiding post) = 2 innings in 10. So in a 5 match series of 10 potential innings, that is only 2! Even if he gets 2 ducks but scores 4 100s in remaining 8, that is class leading

 

If you look at my point on Bodyline, I showed that Bradman's performance was in fact class leading when the reference point was understood. Like in Bodyline earlier, here too, we are attempting to judge information without a guide. 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[Trichromatic]

8 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I have read writers of 80s considered 40 as a good average for justifying inclusion, 45 is great. Batting averages shot up in the 90s and beyond. So, for comparing now 50 is what we feel is ATGness. But not so for earlier eras. GRV's 41.xx is around the same as Ganguly and Ravi Shastri. But, GRV is rated higher by all peers who have seen him bat, but will laugh at somebody who says he is the same as Ravi Shastri looking at the stats. 

No, batting averages shot up post 2003. 2003-2012 was one of the easiest time for batting.

 

90s was most difficult, more than 80s. 

 

Bowling averages by decades:

 

Overall figures

Decade	Players	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
1870s	37	3	59	4758	1837	101	7/55	13/110	18.18	2.31	47.1	6	1
1880s	112	29	500	48342	17618	915	8/11	15/28	19.25	2.18	52.8	58	13
1900s	103	41	774	73940	33133	1333	8/31	15/99	24.85	2.68	55.4	87	13
1890s	149	32	571	62052	26149	1038	9/28	15/45	25.19	2.52	59.7	64	15
1910s	98	29	585	51945	24591	914	9/103	17/159	26.90	2.84	56.8	53	11
1950s	351	164	3095	374366	137508	4818	10/53	19/90	28.54	2.20	77.7	233	33
2020s	133	12	230	23853	11505	374	7/113	10/118	30.76	2.89	63.7	17	1
1990s	500	347	6556	700101	321529	10204	10/74	16/220	31.51	2.75	68.6	425	55
1970s	321	198	3974	446566	188130	5896	9/86	16/137	31.90	2.52	75.7	228	31
1980s	382	266	4805	528477	239888	7474	9/52	16/136	32.09	2.72	70.7	346	55
1960s	347	186	3892	448076	178064	5546	8/38	12/101	32.10	2.38	80.7	216	23
1930s	294	89	1679	189322	81544	2536	8/43	15/104	32.15	2.58	74.6	114	23
2010s	600	433	8581	845725	439249	13534	9/127	14/184	32.45	3.11	62.4	552	76
1920s	172	51	948	114614	48620	1462	9/121	13/236	33.25	2.54	78.3	68	11
2000s	586	464	9038	916337	472755	13863	9/51	15/217	34.10	3.09	66.0	522	79
1940s	180	45	909	107012	44926	1271	7/38	11/31	35.34	2.51	84.1	58	6

 

 

Batting averages by decades

 

Decade	Players	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
1940s	180	45	1527	216	44926	234	34.26	105	192	140
2000s	586	464	16468	2127	459217	400*	32.02	945	2051	1831
1920s	172	51	1751	226	48620	251	31.88	99	228	142
2010s	600	433	15906	2001	432804	335*	31.12	866	1995	1727
1930s	294	89	3015	395	81544	364	31.12	161	359	319
1960s	347	186	6671	893	178064	311	30.81	298	882	622
1970s	321	198	7053	938	188130	302	30.76	359	875	719
1980s	382	266	8964	1230	235573	280*	30.45	444	1069	902
2020s	133	12	439	55	11375	215	29.62	15	55	40
1990s	500	347	12147	1583	311162	375	29.45	547	1498	1422
1950s	351	164	5759	738	137508	365*	27.38	237	594	657
1910s	98	29	1066	117	24591	214*	25.91	35	115	130
1890s	149	32	1214	133	26149	201	24.18	39	111	140
1900s	103	41	1573	185	33133	287	23.87	42	146	185
1880s	112	29	1077	120	17618	211	18.40	19	58	141
1870s	37	3	120	15	1837	165*	17.49	1	5	12

 

 

 

1. 1870s-1880s and 1890s-1910s - Cricket was evolving. Amateur to professional. Low batting average, low scores were normal score for teams.

 

2. 1920-1940s - World Wars, interruption in cricket, evolution of batting, high batting averages - Bradman era, some good batsmen, nothing much on bowling side.

 

Bowlers were slow-medium pacers. They were trying to figure out what to do with batsmen e.g. bodyline series. In addition to that bowlers were like labors

1. Game between 2 countries (England and Australia) mostly with some tours to other countries.
2. Very long day - 7 hrs+. English conditions and daylight meant they could play longer.
3. Lot of overs - 120-130 overs were normal)
4. Short cricket season - county cricket was of 4 months and there wasn't much cricket outside that
5. Packed cricket schedule - During that 4 months, a team used to play continuous cricket with 1 or 2 days break between games. That type of schedule happens only in gully cricket only now where you play almost everyday
6. Travel time - other than that team used to spend lot of time in travelling
7. Slow-medium pace bowling
8.  Result - those averages highest in history of game.

Bowling in this era:

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
WJ O'Reilly (AUS)	1932-1938	26	46	9910	3221	136	7/54	11/129	23.68	1.95	72.8	10	3
CV Grimmett (AUS)	1925-1936	37	67	14513	5231	216	7/40	14/199	24.21	2.16	67.1	21	7
H Verity (ENG)	1931-1939	40	73	11173	3510	144	8/43	15/104	24.37	1.88	77.5	5	2
W Voce (ENG)	1930-1937	24	46	5852	2526	97	7/70	11/149	26.04	2.58	60.3	3	2
MW Tate (ENG)	1924-1935	39	68	12523	4055	155	6/42	11/228	26.16	1.94	80.7	7	1
JM Gregory (AUS)	1920-1928	24	42	5582	2648	85	7/69	8/101	31.15	2.84	65.6	4	0

 

 

Batting in this era

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
DG Bradman (AUS)	1928-1938	37	57	5	5093	334	97.94	21	8	4
GA Headley (WI)	1930-1939	19	35	3	2135	270*	66.71	10	5	2
WR Hammond (ENG)	1927-1939	77	127	15	6883	336*	61.45	22	22	4
H Sutcliffe (ENG)	1924-1935	54	84	9	4555	194	60.73	16	23	2
JB Hobbs (ENG)	1920-1930	33	53	1	2945	211	56.63	10	12	1

 

 

3. 1950s - Decade with relief for bowlers - as the cricket start spreading to other countries, and dust of WW2 settled, number of overs and workload reduced and bowlers improved. Likes of Fred Trueman sowed seeds of pace bowling in international cricket. Low bowling averages, and worse batting averages - will share stats below.

 

Bowling in this decade:

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
JC Laker (ENG)	1950-1959	38	72	9783	2992	162	10/53	19/90	18.46	1.83	60.3	8	3
AV Bedser (ENG)	1950-1955	28	51	8370	2917	147	7/44	14/99	19.84	2.09	56.9	13	3
FS Trueman (ENG)	1952-1959	31	60	6200	2685	128	8/31	9/40	20.97	2.59	48.4	5	0
Fazal Mahmood (PAK)	1952-1959	26	43	7815	2765	125	7/42	13/114	22.12	2.12	62.5	12	4
JB Statham (ENG)	1951-1959	47	87	9995	3737	159	7/39	9/88	23.50	2.24	62.8	5	0
R Benaud (AUS)	1952-1959	42	74	11201	3952	165	7/72	11/105	23.95	2.11	67.8	11	1
HJ Tayfield (SA)	1950-1958	30	52	11875	3686	153	9/113	13/165	24.09	1.86	77.6	14	2
RR Lindwall (AUS)	1950-1959	42	77	9470	3687	152	7/43	8/112	24.25	2.33	62.3	7	0

 

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
CL Walcott (WI)	1950-1958	33	57	6	3129	220	61.35	13	11	1
L Hutton (ENG)	1950-1955	38	66	10	3183	205	56.83	8	16	2
GS Sobers (WI)	1954-1959	27	46	7	2213	365*	56.74	6	7	1
ED Weekes (WI)	1950-1958	39	68	5	3383	207	53.69	10	17	6
RN Harvey (AUS)	1950-1959	56	99	8	4573	205	50.25	15	19	5
PBH May (ENG)	1951-1959	59	93	8	4182	285*	49.20	13	20	6

 

 

3. 1960s - Era of covered covered. This is when I guess covered pitches became norm and conditions became more batting friendly resulting in dip in bowling averages and rise in batting averages. So we had batsmen like Barrington and Sobers with 55+ averages.

 

Bowling in 60s:

Except Trueman, no one had sub-25 avg

 

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
FS Trueman (ENG)	1960-1965	36	67	8978	3940	179	7/44	12/119	22.01	2.63	50.1	12	3
LR Gibbs (WI)	1961-1969	42	77	15483	5124	184	8/38	11/157	27.84	1.98	84.1	12	2
GD McKenzie (AUS)	1961-1969	54	102	16132	6644	238	8/71	10/91	27.91	2.47	67.7	16	3
WW Hall (WI)	1960-1969	40	76	8486	4249	146	7/69	9/105	29.10	3.00	58.1	6	0

 

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
GS Sobers (WI)	1960-1969	49	86	10	4563	226	60.03	15	19	7
KF Barrington (ENG)	1960-1968	75	122	15	6397	256	59.78	20	31	4
TW Graveney (ENG)	1962-1969	31	47	3	2292	165	52.09	7	9	1
RB Simpson (AUS)	1960-1968	46	84	6	3995	311	51.21	8	23	6
ER Dexter (ENG)	1960-1968	55	92	8	4232	205	50.38	8	26	4
RB Kanhai (WI)	1960-1969	43	76	1	3739	153	49.85	10	18	2
WM Lawry (AUS)	1961-1969	58	105	10	4717	210	49.65	13	23	5

 

 

4. 1970s - Further evolution of bowling - I believe Lillee was first fast bowler of history of the game, and he inspired likes of Imran Khan, WI, who were relying on slow bowlers, transformed in late 70s with their 4 fast bowlers, India with spin quartet, NZ with Hadlee meant that after 70s bowling was improving and batting averages took a hit.

 

Bowling in 70s

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
DK Lillee (AUS)	1971-1980	35	68	9510	4376	184	6/26	11/123	23.78	2.76	51.6	12	4
RGD Willis (ENG)	1971-1979	51	95	9916	4511	182	7/78	9/118	24.78	2.72	54.4	11	0
AME Roberts (WI)	1974-1980	29	57	7339	3521	140	7/54	12/121	25.15	2.87	52.4	9	2
JR Thomson (AUS)	1972-1979	34	61	7512	3892	152	6/46	9/105	25.60	3.10	49.4	6	0
MHN Walker (AUS)	1972-1977	34	63	10094	3792	138	8/143	8/143	27.47	2.25	73.1	6	0
DL Underwood (ENG)	1970-1979	59	106	15380	5587	202	8/51	13/71	27.65	2.17	76.1	10	4

 

Batting in 70s.

 

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
Javed Miandad (PAK)	1976-1979	25	43	11	2059	206	64.34	6	10	2
IVA Richards (WI)	1974-1980	30	49	2	2736	291	58.21	9	9	2
G Boycott (ENG)	1970-1979	44	77	9	3806	191	55.97	12	21	2
SM Gavaskar (INDIA)	1971-1979	60	108	7	5647	221	55.91	22	25	6
GS Chappell (AUS)	1970-1980	54	96	13	4398	247*	52.98	15	21	6
IR Redpath (AUS)	1970-1976	33	64	7	2861	171	50.19	7	18	3
AI Kallicharran (WI)	1972-1980	53	89	9	3956	187	49.45	11	20	7
GM Turner (NZ)	1971-1977	30	52	4	2370	259	49.37	6	11	0
DL Amiss (ENG)	1971-1977	45	80	9	3487	262*	49.11	11	11	8

 

 

5. 1980s - Those bowler who started in 2nd of 70s were hitting peak in 80s making it one of the toughest decade for batting. WI pacers had luxury of bowling less than 90 overs, they could take long breaks, long run ups and ensure that they maintain pace making it further difficult for batsmen. Add to that matches wouldn't complete full quota of overs for 5 days. Less than 400 overs was normal and even with low scores there were lot of drawn games. 

 

Bowlers in 80s:

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
Imran Khan (PAK)	1980-1989	54	90	2006.4	483	4896	256	8/58	14/116	19.12	2.43	47.0	18	5
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)	1980-1989	53	91	2309.2	628	5574	289	9/52	15/123	19.28	2.41	47.9	28	7
MD Marshall (WI)	1980-1989	63	120	2399.5	512	6434	323	7/22	11/89	19.91	2.68	44.5	22	4
J Garner (WI)	1980-1987	49	93	1814.3	492	4331	210	6/56	9/108	20.62	2.38	51.8	7	0
MA Holding (WI)	1980-1987	45	84	1545.2	338	4302	184	6/21	11/107	23.38	2.78	50.3	9	1
DK Lillee (AUS)	1980-1984	35	64	1492.5	356	4117	171	7/83	11/138	24.07	2.75	52.3	11	3
Iqbal Qasim (PAK)	1980-1988	32	57	1468.2	453	3274	131	7/49	11/118	24.99	2.22	67.2	7	1
RGD Willis (ENG)	1980-1984	39	70	1240.1	274	3679	143	8/43	9/92	25.72	2.96	52.0	5	0

 

Top batsmen:

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
GS Chappell (AUS)	1980-1984	33	55	6	2712	235	55.34	9	10	6
AR Border (AUS)	1980-1989	97	164	30	7386	205	55.11	20	40	4
Javed Miandad (PAK)	1980-1989	76	110	7	5642	280*	54.77	16	26	3
CH Lloyd (WI)	1980-1985	44	61	6	2881	161*	52.38	8	17	1
DM Jones (AUS)	1984-1989	30	53	7	2370	216	51.52	7	9	4
IVA Richards (WI)	1980-1989	78	112	8	5113	208	49.16	15	28	7

 

6. 1990s - While 1980s was tough, still teams were limited to 1-2 good bowlers except for WI. 1990s remains toughest era for batting in last 70 years. Many ATG bowlers, sub-25 avg, diverse skill set, quality and pitch conditions. Not just pace, teams were tested against quality spinners and dustbowls. Wasim, Waqar, Warne, McGrath, Kumble at home, Murali, Vaas, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose - Many teams had great bowlers. Averaging 50 was difficult in this decade. ODI cricket became popular, cricket becmae hit in subcontinent. Teams played lot of ODIs and less tests (especially SC teams).

 

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	1990-1999	69	109	12	5626	217	58.00	22	21	7
SR Waugh (AUS)	1990-1999	89	143	26	6213	200	53.10	18	28	11
BC Lara (WI)	1990-1999	65	112	4	5573	375	51.60	13	29	4
GA Gooch (ENG)	1990-1995	45	83	2	4176	333	51.55	12	17	3
R Dravid (INDIA)	1996-1999	34	58	4	2698	190	49.96	6	16	1
SC Ganguly (INDIA)	1996-1999	32	54	5	2432	173	49.63	7	12	4
PA de Silva (SL)	1990-1999	62	104	9	4448	267	46.82	14	18	6

 

1. Only 4 batsmen averaging 50+ and only 1 with 55+ avg!

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
CEL Ambrose (WI)	1990-1999	71	128	2691.2	728	6224	309	8/45	11/84	20.14	2.31	52.2	21	3
SM Pollock (SA)	1995-1999	38	67	1411.4	407	3294	161	7/87	9/103	20.45	2.33	52.6	10	0
Wasim Akram (PAK)	1990-1999	62	111	2355.4	529	6200	289	7/119	11/160	21.45	2.63	48.9	17	3
Waqar Younis (PAK)	1990-1999	56	101	1863.1	375	5927	273	7/76	13/135	21.71	3.18	40.9	21	5
AA Donald (SA)	1992-1999	59	105	2166.0	544	6200	284	8/71	12/139	21.83	2.86	45.7	19	3
GD McGrath (AUS)	1993-1999	58	112	2326.0	642	6086	266	8/38	10/78	22.87	2.61	52.4	15	1
IR Bishop (WI)	1990-1998	39	69	1264.1	250	3539	145	6/40	8/57	24.40	2.79	52.3	5	0
SK Warne (AUS)	1992-1999	80	146	3762.4	1157	9009	351	8/71	12/128	25.66	2.39	64.3	16	4
CA Walsh (WI)	1990-1999	78	143	3013.1	624	7895	304	7/37	13/55	25.97	2.62	59.4	13	1

 

Check the number of wickets and compare those with bowlers of 80s. 

 

7. 2000s - Flat pancakes - easiest era for batting especially from 2003-2012. Except Steyn, this phase didn't produce any ATG bowler and conditions were big factor in that. Bowlers were probably good, but flat pitches meant they struggled most of the time. Result - lot of players averaging 50+. I remember reading an article in newspaper back in 2002 if 55 is new 50. You had Dravid, Sehwag, Sanga, Kallis, YK, Chanders, Ponting, Hayden, Mahela and many other making merry of this phase and scoring a lot. High scoring drawn games weren't unusual in this phase. Bowlers struggled to average below 25 during this time. Of course there was quality in batting, but it was boosted further by conditions.

 

Batting averages in from 2003-2012: 

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
JH Kallis (ICC/SA)	2003-2012	93	162	22	8525	224	60.89	16995	50.16	33	31	9	958	68
BC Lara (ICC/WI)	2003-2006	41	75	2	4381	400*	60.01	6968	62.87	16	11	7	549	45
KC Sangakkara (SL)	2003-2012	89	154	13	8171	287	57.95	14990	54.50	26	32	8	999	27
Younis Khan (PAK)	2003-2012	53	95	9	4967	313	57.75	9254	53.67	15	17	10	558	23
S Chanderpaul (WI)	2003-2012	83	146	27	6798	203*	57.12	15235	44.62	21	33	9	707	30
Mohammad Yousuf (PAK)	2003-2010	48	87	7	4431	223	55.38	7876	56.25	14	17	5	559	32
RT Ponting (AUS)	2003-2012	105	188	17	9132	257	53.40	15392	59.32	27	45	11	1033	45
MJ Clarke (AUS)	2004-2012	88	146	15	6910	329*	52.74	12342	55.98	22	24	6	785	30
MEK Hussey (AUS)	2005-2012	78	135	15	6183	195	51.52	12343	50.09	19	29	12	683	39
R Dravid (ICC/INDIA)	2003-2012	95	168	19	7674	270	51.50	17480	43.90	22	35	6	946	15
V Sehwag (ICC/INDIA)	2003-2012	88	156	6	7687	319	51.24	9151	84.00	20	28	15	1085	81
HM Amla (SA)	2004-2012	65	114	9	5323	311*	50.69	10222	52.07	18	23	6	666	8
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2003-2012	89	151	16	6834	248*	50.62	12841	53.22	20	31	4	845	29
DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	2003-2012	90	155	9	7323	374	50.15	14518	50.44	22	27	10	827	36
GC Smith (ICC/SA)	2003-2012	98	174	11	8114	277	49.77	13570	59.79	25	33	10	1020	23
ML Hayden (AUS)	2003-2009	66	122	10	5546	380	49.51	9141	60.67	18	19	7	663	46
KP Pietersen (ENG)	2005-2012	92	158	8	7414	227	49.42	11771	62.98	22	29	9	899	73
AN Cook (ENG)	2006-2012	87	154	10	7117	294	49.42	14940	47.63	23	29	5	815	10
AB de Villiers (SA)	2004-2012	80	135	15	5894	278*	49.11	10858	54.28	14	29	3	680	45
VVS Laxman (INDIA)	2003-2012	90	153	27	6094	200*	48.36	12355	49.32	13	41	8	762	3

 

 

For ex - bowling figures from 2003 - 2012

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
M Muralitharan (ICC/SL)	2003-2010	55	102	2982.1	666	7899	363	8/46	12/82	21.76	2.64	49.2	31	11
GD McGrath (AUS)	2003-2007	33	66	1278.5	399	3130	141	8/24	9/68	22.19	2.44	54.4	6	0
DW Steyn (SA)	2004-2012	60	112	2096.2	418	7115	299	7/51	10/91	23.79	3.39	42.0	18	4
SK Warne (AUS)	2004-2007	38	74	1804.4	344	5371	217	6/46	12/246	24.75	2.97	49.8	14	4
SM Pollock (SA)	2003-2008	41	80	1575.5	448	4051	148	6/39	8/104	27.37	2.57	63.8	2	0
M Ntini (SA)	2003-2009	73	139	2615.3	525	8649	305	7/37	13/132	28.35	3.30	51.4	16	4
PM Siddle (AUS)	2008-2012	36	66	1299.2	334	3933	138	6/54	9/104	28.50	3.02	56.4	6	0

 

Steyn was only ATG bowler produced by this era.

 

8. 2010 - Intial years were still flat, but post 2012-13, teams saw retirement of their main pillers and while undergoing transformation phase, they tried to maximise home advantage by making bowling friendly pitches on consistent basis. This gave new wings to bowlers. Whole new crop of sub-25 averaging bowlers and 55 average which was norm in 2010s for great batsmen was pushed back to 50. ICC controlled chuckers and boards gave favorable home conditions - which meant classic swing and seam bowling, pace and bouce, classic off spin which was dying were back in the game. Evolution of T20s game limelight to leggies. 

 

Bowling since 2013

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
DW Steyn (SA)	2013-2019	33	59	1005.0	242	2962	140	6/8	11/60	21.15	2.94	43.0	8	1
PJ Cummins (AUS)	2017-2020	29	55	1082.5	259	3004	136	6/23	10/62	22.08	2.77	47.7	4	1
K Rabada (SA)	2015-2020	43	78	1335.1	270	4523	197	7/112	13/144	22.95	3.38	40.6	9	4
JM Anderson (ENG)	2013-2020	75	142	2679.2	748	7020	299	7/42	10/45	23.47	2.62	53.7	16	2
R Ashwin (INDIA)	2013-2020	59	109	2600.1	562	7240	302	7/59	13/140	23.97	2.78	51.6	22	6
VD Philander (SA)	2013-2020	52	96	1483.0	416	3795	157	6/21	9/51	24.17	2.55	56.6	6	0
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	2013-2020	48	92	2082.0	510	5129	210	7/48	10/154	24.42	2.46	59.4	9	1
M Morkel (SA)	2013-2018	41	76	1252.2	317	3597	145	5/21	9/110	24.80	2.87	51.8	2	0

 

Batting since 2013

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
SPD Smith (AUS)	2013-2020	68	121	15	6968	239	65.73	12612	55.24	26	27	4	772	40
KC Sangakkara (SL)	2013-2015	19	37	1	2355	319	65.41	4226	55.72	8	11	2	244	18
KS Williamson (NZ)	2013-2020	62	107	12	5429	242*	57.14	10015	54.20	18	27	4	604	13
V Kohli (INDIA)	2013-2020	72	120	8	6349	254*	56.68	10605	59.86	24	17	8	707	18
AB de Villiers (SA)	2013-2018	34	56	3	2871	164	54.16	5219	55.01	8	17	5	344	19
Younis Khan (PAK)	2013-2017	39	75	8	3534	218	52.74	6930	50.99	14	7	5	328	33
DA Warner (AUS)	2013-2020	70	131	5	6261	335*	49.69	8607	72.74	21	26	9	735	44

 

[Mariyam]

On 7/23/2020 at 6:42 PM, zen said:

Good! So how do you define magic on field? To be fair to cricketers of all generations and teams, the magic on field is not going to be tied to your memory or some random match of the team you follow that you saw. Also most cricketers would have moments of "magic" so again is everyone great or are you suggesting that one with more such moments is great. If it is latter, you are delving into stats (subconsciously) .... or worse, promoting greatness based on limited information (based on factors such as what your old neighbor for example tells or fanboyism or even to the line of reasoning where my dog makes me most happy, therefore most magical and the greatest animal) and a copious amount of unknown unknowns 

 

This reply is also to @Gollum @coffee_rules @Trichromatic

 

I look at cricket differently. To me, sport is under the larger umbrella of entertainment. It has a certain feel good factor associated with it. Not very different from watching a movie, which is basically a lazy persons way of releasing serotonin into the system. Much easier than going to a gym.

 

Moments of magic are basically those instances from the game which bring back happy memories and which stay with you for your life. Let me give you some instances.

There is this story that many unrelated buzurgs have told me about Ajit Wadekar. He used to play every Sunday at Shivaji park even after he made it into the senior Indian team. And people used to line up to watch him play. If the crowds were to ask for a 6, he'd oblige and hit a six in the general direction of those who requested the 6. There was this time, when some "seth" was having tea by the Gymkhana balcony. The balcony is right next to the players pavilion and the "seth" apparently said some not so good things to Wadekar about his cricketing abilities. When Wadekar went to bat, he hit a six that broke the teapot. This is a moment of magic. Every person there would never forget that incident. It is going to be etched in the memory of every spectator there till they are called by their maker. This was some non competitive friendly match. But Wadekar did entertain.

 

From our times, Dhoni's six that won us the world cup, Malinga's last ball wicket to win   IPL 2019, Sachin hitting Shoaib and Waqar for sixes and fours in that WC chase, Srisanth's catch are all moments of magic. Even Ashwins superlative performance in the IPL semis against RCB. He bowled Gayle, He c&b ABDV in the same over.

 

And you are right, everyone is capable and has some moments of magic. They are all great.

 

Now that we are done with definitions; lets get to your question of allocating "greatness".

Comparison they say, is the thief of joy.

Cricket is a sport with far too many variables. Pitch, weather, format, era etc. No meaningful comparison is possible. I don't see any merit in comparing the purported greatness of Sachin vs Bradman vs Vivian Richards. It makes no sense and is just an imprecise mathematical prediction to compare what is otherwise incomparable.

 

I don't see the need to compare greats. Sachin is a national hero. He has served, he has bled for India. He has won us the world cup. He has entertained and has given us a lifetime of memories. Just because some vlookup function on excel says he scored 2.33 less runs on an average than Bradman on 4th day of tests with overcast conditions, doesn't change the fact that he will *always* be remembered fondly. And as a great.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Mariyam

[Trichromatic]

28 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

This reply is also to @Gollum @coffee_rules @Trichromatic

 

I look at cricket differently. To me, sport is under the larger umbrella of entertainment. It has a certain feel good factor associated with it. Not very different from watching a movie, which is basically a lazy persons way of releasing serotonin into the system. Much easier than going to a gym.

 

Moments of magic are basically those instances from the game which bring bang happy memories and which stay with you for your life. Let me give you some instances.

There is this story that many unrelated buzurgs have told me about Ajit Wadekar. He used to play every Sunday at Shivaji park even after he made it into the senior Indian team. And people used to line up to watch him play. If the crowds were to ask for a 6, he'd oblige and hit a six in the general direction of those who requested the 6. There was this time, when some "seth" was having tea by the Gymkhana balcony. The balcony is right next to the players pavilion and the "seth" apparently said some not so good things to Wadekar about his cricketing abilities. When Wadekar went to bat, he hit a six that broke the teapot. This is a moment of magic. Every person there would never forget that incident. It is going to be etched in the memory of every spectator there till they are called by their maker. This was some non competitive friendly match. But Wadekar did entertain.

 

From our times, Dhoni's six that won us the world cup, Malinga's last ball wicket to win   IPL 2019, Sachin hitting Shoaib and Waqar for sixes and fours in that WC chase, Srisanth's catch are all moments of magic. Even Ashwins superlative performance in the IPL semis against RCB. He bowled Gayle, He c&b ABDV in the same over.

 

And you are right, everyone is capable and has some moments of magic. They are all great.

 

Now that we are done with definitions; lets get to your question of allocating "greatness".

Comparison they say, is the thief of joy.

Cricket is a sport with far too many variables. Pitch, weather, format, era etc. No meaningful comparison is possible. I don't see any merit in comparing the purported greatness of Sachin vs Bradman vs Vivian Richards. It makes no sense and is just an imprecise mathematical prediction to compare what is otherwise incomparable.

 

I don't see the need to compare greats. Sachin is a national hero. He has served, he has bled for India. He has won us the world cup. He has entertained and has given us a lifetime of memories. Just because some vlookup function on excel says he scored 2.33 less runs on an average than Bradman on 4th day of tests with overcast conditions, doesn't change the fact that he will *always* be remembered fondly. And as a great.

 

While it may feel that statistical comparison is only objective way, bolded part is what newbies who learn to filter statsguru miss out.

 

Those are just numbers on surface and most of the variables are not taken into acccount.

 

For ex - does anyone has number how many runs KP has scored when degrees of swing is more than 5? No, no one does and that's why people rely on their observation, not on numbers.

Moreover, innings and performances are not judged by final numbers? Even methods using those numbers are ful of holes and assumptions which reflect lack of understanding of the game.

[zen]

2 hours ago, Mariyam said:

And you are right, everyone is capable and has some moments of magic. They are all great.

 

Now that we are done with definitions; lets get to your question of allocating "greatness".

Comparison they say, is the thief of joy.

Cricket is a sport with far too many variables. Pitch, weather, format, era etc. No meaningful comparison is possible. I don't see any merit in comparing the purported greatness of Sachin vs Bradman vs Vivian Richards. It makes no sense and is just an imprecise mathematical prediction to compare what is otherwise incomparable.

 

I don't see the need to compare greats. Sachin is a national hero. He has served, he has bled for India. He has won us the world cup. He has entertained and has given us a lifetime of memories. Just because some vlookup function on excel says he scored 2.33 less runs on an average than Bradman on 4th day of tests with overcast conditions, doesn't change the fact that he will *always* be remembered fondly. And as a great.

 

Note that everyone has a different goal including those who go around claiming things such as “Sachin is the greatest including by using/misusing stats”.  

People who love the game more than just a form of entertainment may want to know its history and who the top performers in the sport were/are. The answers cannot be found by simply looking at the players of our team who gave us joy. And if course no one can watch every game that has been played in the history of cricket. To look beyond our known knowns, we have to rely on other means. 

Every ball in cricket can different (And is the understood part - nothing is really apples to apples) therefore what people look for is a relatively large sample size on certain parameters where a player has encountered a variety of challenges that he is presented with. How ppl tackled these challenges (the challenges may not even be exactly the same is again understood) can be seen through stats. 
 

At times, It can even be like who is better at their hobby - Mariyam or Zen). Mariyam loves to write and everyone likes her writing (Say measured through likes/reviews/revenues for example). Zen likes to take pictures but not many like his pictures. So Mariyam is better in her hobby than Zen is in his  .... Through stats, one can even compare the effectiveness of (may be even to get a rough idea) a batsman vs. a bowler by for e.g. looking at how good a batsman is in batting v how good a bowler is in bowling. 

At times, the goal can be to find the greatest, someone with perfect stats, most effective, and so on. Numbers are something most people can relate to and help to discover some common ground. 

PS I quickly wrote this on the phone so ignore grammar/spelling errors

[zen]

Another piece of stats - In 90s, the major sides were - SA, Aus, Pak, WI and Ind. Below is the batting in MO:

 

View overall figures [change view]

Opposition team Australia  or India  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or West Indies

Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 1999

Batting position between 4 and 7

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 27 of 27

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
RT Ponting (AUS)	1997-1999	14	24	3	1071	197	51.00	4	4	3
BC Lara (WI)	1990-1999	27	46	1	2255	277	50.11	6	13	1
SR Waugh (AUS)	1990-1999	45	72	8	3158	200	49.34	8	16	6
Saleem Malik (PAK)	1990-1999	15	28	2	1272	237	48.92	3	5	3
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	1991-1999	32	56	3	2533	179	47.79	9	10	5
JC Adams (WI)	1992-1999	20	35	9	1226	174*	47.15	2	6	4
A Flower (ZIM)	1992-1999	19	34	7	1265	156	46.85	3	7	3
PA de Silva (SL)	1990-1999	40	66	6	2767	148	46.11	9	12	3
RA Smith (ENG)	1990-1996	37	63	12	2343	175	45.94	6	14	3
HP Tillakaratne (SL)	1990-1999	30	48	8	1683	119	42.07	3	11	4
ME Waugh (AUS)	1991-1999	57	95	7	3660	153*	41.59	11	19	10
GP Thorpe (ENG)	1993-1998	47	86	10	3117	138	41.01	4	23	7
Inzamam-ul-Haq (PAK)	1993-1999	24	38	2	1463	177	40.63	3	9	3
SP Fleming (NZ)	1994-1999	20	33	2	1250	92*	40.32	0	11	4
AR Border (AUS)	1990-1994	24	40	7	1252	110	37.93	1	8	5
JN Rhodes (SA)	1992-1999	20	34	4	1119	103*	37.30	1	8	1
AJ Stewart (ENG)	1990-1999	28	52	5	1634	164	34.76	1	11	3
M Azharuddin (INDIA)	1991-1999	30	50	4	1591	163*	34.58	5	5	1
GA Hick (ENG)	1991-1999	31	51	4	1625	178	34.57	3	8	1
CL Hooper (WI)	1990-1999	42	74	6	2337	178*	34.36	5	9	7
KR Rutherford (NZ)	1990-1995	23	41	2	1277	102	32.74	1	11	4
MR Ramprakash (ENG)	1991-1999	26	48	5	1393	154	32.39	1	8	6
N Hussain (ENG)	1990-1998	21	36	3	1067	207	32.33	3	3	5
A Ranatunga (SL)	1990-1999	39	64	5	1876	131	31.79	2	11	8
WJ Cronje (SA)	1992-1999	25	45	3	1302	88	31.00	0	10	3
DJ Cullinan (SA)	1993-1999	23	41	4	1140	168	30.81	3	3	6