This Numbers Game piece (said column by the way is probably my favourite staple on Cricinfo) got me thinking about how many batsmen have passed the litmus test of having batting averages home and away that are in excess of the magical 50 mark. To me that is the ultimate test of how good a player was more than the number of runs, hundreds or overall batting averages. Applying a threshold of at least 2000 runs scored (both home and away) to ensure that no outliers get included, the lists of players averaging above 49 (just to widen the margin a touch) can be seen here (Home) and here (Away).
First off, its easy to see that 45 players average over 50 in home conditions whereas only 24 do so away demonstrating how much more difficult batsmen have found it over the years to excel outside their most familiar environs. Not surprisingly, Australia and England have the most players in each category given the two teams have been the only ones playing since the inception of Test cricket but Indians (both East and West) haven't done too shabbily either. Most decades are reasonably well represented too with only the 1920s and 1960s a touch on the low side.
Looking at individuals (in descending order of away averages), Bradman as can be expected is head and shoulders above everyone else (read = a nearly 30 run gap between him and the next best) though I wouldn't go as far as S Rajesh (in the same Cricinfo piece above) to say that "he clearly preferred playing in England". An average of 98+ in Australia indicates that he had a pretty jolly time on home wickets too and bowlers weren't exactly queueing up to bowl to him. Apart from him, there are 10 other players who average over 50 both home and away. The English trio of Barrington, Hammond, and Hutton are not a surprise at all and in fact Hutton is the only one (apart from Sir DG of course) to average 55+ both home and away. Hammond of course would have won a lot more games for England and been recognised as the world's best if not for a certain Aussie rival. And Barrington was probably the best batsman in the world during the 60s (though hardly ever recognised as such) and surprisingly, didn't play an away match until five years after his debut at home! Another under-rated player is the only South African who averages over 50 at home and is the first of the modern greats to show up in both lists. That allied with the fact that he is only 24 wickets away from 300 scalps and 19 short of 200 catches means that Kallis will set an all-round mark that will be potentially even more unmatchable than Tendulkar's century of centuries. The genial Springbok is followed by two of his contemporaries and arguably India's two best batsmen ever, Tendulkar and Dravid and they're also the first sub-continental batsmen to show up in this list. If not for the poor series he had in England and Australia in 2011, Tendulkar would have joined Hutton in the 55+ home and away club and now of course that looks unlikely to happen. I wrote a fair bit about Dravid's stats in my retirement tribute here but one thing I didn't mention was how he was equally effective at home despite a middling start where he averaged just above 40 in his first 16 matches at home. These two are followed by the only other Australian in this list and arguably that should settle the debate on who their best batsmen ever has been after the Don. The younger Chappell is again not as feted as some other Australian batsmen have been over the years but he averaged over 40 everywhere he played and did really well in the subcontinent (albeit missing out on series in India due to the Packer years). Sunil Gavaskar is at ninth place and the only thing separating him from the Indian duo above is that he more often than not had to play a lone hand (especially away). And unlike Dravid, who averaged less than 35 in two countries, Gavaskar (like Chappell) did excellently wherever he played. At number ten on the list but in some ways deserving of the biggest accolades of all eleven, is Andy Flower. The Zimbabwean didn't get as many opportunities as some of the others in the list and admittedly his record is the most variable of the lot but when you consider that he also kept wicket and captained for much of his career in a team that was getting beaten all the time, just being on this list is a phenomenal achievement. And finally, the man who some consider the greatest all-round cricketer ever (despite the statistical claims of Kallis), but who is primarily remembered for his batting rounds off the eleven. Sobers is only the second southpaw on this list so does that suggest that right-handers have been better over the years?
So there you have it, the list of the eleven best batsmen ever and you read it here first. There's very honourable mentions for Richards, Sangakkara, and Weekes, all of whom average over 49 both home and away and the Sri Lankan at least definitely has the opportunity to nudge his away average over the golden mark and get on to the elite list. And amongst other currently active players, Hussey and Ponting have probably run out of time, but Clarke, de Villiers, and Cook certainly have the potential and Pietersen will probably consider himself an outside chance to make it. The big question though is, will this be the last generation to play enough Test matches to go past 2000 runs home and away?
First off, its easy to see that 45 players average over 50 in home conditions whereas only 24 do so away demonstrating how much more difficult batsmen have found it over the years to excel outside their most familiar environs. Not surprisingly, Australia and England have the most players in each category given the two teams have been the only ones playing since the inception of Test cricket but Indians (both East and West) haven't done too shabbily either. Most decades are reasonably well represented too with only the 1920s and 1960s a touch on the low side.
Looking at individuals (in descending order of away averages), Bradman as can be expected is head and shoulders above everyone else (read = a nearly 30 run gap between him and the next best) though I wouldn't go as far as S Rajesh (in the same Cricinfo piece above) to say that "he clearly preferred playing in England". An average of 98+ in Australia indicates that he had a pretty jolly time on home wickets too and bowlers weren't exactly queueing up to bowl to him. Apart from him, there are 10 other players who average over 50 both home and away. The English trio of Barrington, Hammond, and Hutton are not a surprise at all and in fact Hutton is the only one (apart from Sir DG of course) to average 55+ both home and away. Hammond of course would have won a lot more games for England and been recognised as the world's best if not for a certain Aussie rival. And Barrington was probably the best batsman in the world during the 60s (though hardly ever recognised as such) and surprisingly, didn't play an away match until five years after his debut at home! Another under-rated player is the only South African who averages over 50 at home and is the first of the modern greats to show up in both lists. That allied with the fact that he is only 24 wickets away from 300 scalps and 19 short of 200 catches means that Kallis will set an all-round mark that will be potentially even more unmatchable than Tendulkar's century of centuries. The genial Springbok is followed by two of his contemporaries and arguably India's two best batsmen ever, Tendulkar and Dravid and they're also the first sub-continental batsmen to show up in this list. If not for the poor series he had in England and Australia in 2011, Tendulkar would have joined Hutton in the 55+ home and away club and now of course that looks unlikely to happen. I wrote a fair bit about Dravid's stats in my retirement tribute here but one thing I didn't mention was how he was equally effective at home despite a middling start where he averaged just above 40 in his first 16 matches at home. These two are followed by the only other Australian in this list and arguably that should settle the debate on who their best batsmen ever has been after the Don. The younger Chappell is again not as feted as some other Australian batsmen have been over the years but he averaged over 40 everywhere he played and did really well in the subcontinent (albeit missing out on series in India due to the Packer years). Sunil Gavaskar is at ninth place and the only thing separating him from the Indian duo above is that he more often than not had to play a lone hand (especially away). And unlike Dravid, who averaged less than 35 in two countries, Gavaskar (like Chappell) did excellently wherever he played. At number ten on the list but in some ways deserving of the biggest accolades of all eleven, is Andy Flower. The Zimbabwean didn't get as many opportunities as some of the others in the list and admittedly his record is the most variable of the lot but when you consider that he also kept wicket and captained for much of his career in a team that was getting beaten all the time, just being on this list is a phenomenal achievement. And finally, the man who some consider the greatest all-round cricketer ever (despite the statistical claims of Kallis), but who is primarily remembered for his batting rounds off the eleven. Sobers is only the second southpaw on this list so does that suggest that right-handers have been better over the years?
So there you have it, the list of the eleven best batsmen ever and you read it here first. There's very honourable mentions for Richards, Sangakkara, and Weekes, all of whom average over 49 both home and away and the Sri Lankan at least definitely has the opportunity to nudge his away average over the golden mark and get on to the elite list. And amongst other currently active players, Hussey and Ponting have probably run out of time, but Clarke, de Villiers, and Cook certainly have the potential and Pietersen will probably consider himself an outside chance to make it. The big question though is, will this be the last generation to play enough Test matches to go past 2000 runs home and away?
Comments