Best Batsman in Tests: Steve Smith of Australia celebrates after scoring a century during the second day of the 1st Cricket Test between Australia and West Indies in Perth, Australia.
Test cricket is becoming increasingly decisive in the T20 era, with most matches ending with a win/loss record rather than a draw. Given that a Test win requires the winning team to all out the opposition at least once, this means that bowlers have rarely performed as well in Tests as they do in the current era. Is. Which also shows that batting in Tests has become more challenging than before.
Only 33 batsmen have historically scored at an average of over 50 per innings and played at least 30 Test matches. And there are only three such batsmen in the current era – Steve Smith, Australia’s Marnus Labuschagne and New Zealand’s Kane Williamson with averages of 60.89, 59.43, 53.83. Table 1 List of currently active batsmen (those who played at least one Test in 2022) with at least 30 Tests under their belt, ordered by batting average.
Chart appears incomplete? Click To remove AMP mode
Steve Smith is one of only three batsmen to average over 60 and have played at least 30 Tests. Fellow Australian Donald Bradman with 99.94 and Englishman Herbert Sutcliffe with 60.73 are the other two.
Comparing only batting averages is flawed – a batsman in one era could face better (or worse) bowlers than someone in another era. Then, there are changes in rules, conditions and technology (covering pitches; limit of bouncers per over; introduction of helmets; DRS – to name just a few).
We need a method of normalization that accounts for changes across eras and enables comparisons across batsmen. One way to measure how a batsman has fared in his time is by the extent to which he has outperformed his peers. Then we can compare this margin with the margins of other batsmen.
To do this, we find the difference between a player’s batting average and the average number of runs scored by all other batsmen during the period the player was active. For example, Sachin Tendulkar averaged 53.78 between his debut in 1989 and his retirement in 2013. All other players averaged 33.34 during this 24-year period. The difference between Tendulkar and the rest in his timing is 20.44. We call this difference the “net average”.
Click To subscribe to our Data newsletter
Table 2 Shows the top batsmen ordered on “net average”. Dawn tops the list by far – his 99.94 average was 67 runs (and change) higher than the run average of batsmen during his era – a “net average” that is more than double that of the next best batsman on the list – Labuschagne with 29.55. Smith is a little behind. Tendulkar is at 17th and Kohli at 38th position.
While it is useful to limit this analysis to batsmen who have played at least 30 matches, we cannot rank batsmen solely on “net average”. This is because longevity matters in Test cricket and even elite batsmen face a decline in their ability to score towards the end of their careers.
chart 1 Plots the “net average” against total runs scored by batsmen who have played at least 30 Tests. The chart is illuminating – it also marks those batsmen (red dot) who have a “net average” of around 20 or more and have scored more than 7,000 runs as truly elite in Test cricket .
This analysis is not exhaustive, ideally, batsmen should be further classified based on batting position. But suffice it to say that the Don once again stands apart (literally) in terms of his high net average, the sheer volume of runs Tendulkar has scored. South Africa’s Jacques Kallis, Sri Lanka’s Kumar Sangakkara, Australia’s Smith and Chappell, West Indies’ Garry Sobers, Brian Lara, Pakistan’s Javed Miandad and England’s Wally Hammond among others left out of the elite list. They really are the best ever.
srinivasan.vr@thehindu.co.in
Source: espncricinfo.com
Read also: Cricketers’ dilemma: Test match preparation or IPL rich spinners
Listen to our Data Point podcast: How ‘The Hindu’ data team covers elections using night light and census data
A week after the Gujarat elections, The Hindu’s data team breaks down the evolution of their election coverage.