@@haydenaustin-eames8084 Yeah that's my recollection also, once he had a team of absolute weapons his utility decreased, that's also why his last innings of 80 was so cool, coming in with his side in trouble.
I remember people saying that the dominance of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, etc above him actually hurt his performance in his later years because he was constantly coming in after the majority of runs had already been scored.
If memory serves me right, impact index had penned an article on the best test batter at every position. AB de Villiers was the best batter at both Nos. 5 and 6 as per that.
Yes, also the third best batter in history acc to them, behind Don and Peter May. Though their methology was a flawed one that didn't account for early or late career dips, and more often than not punished players with long career, or great players that played too long.
If I remember right, one of the factors was how much you outscored your teammates and opponents in every match bringing dips in career into account. This is why Bradman in their stat was head and shoulders ahead of everyone. Also, that's how Peter May was so high. Where I found them a little arbitrary was that they put a lot of weight on Series defining performances but the choices for the same were a little subjective.
@@ritankarroy4789 Yes and No. They had several metrics for judging the best batter, including the Run tally index, which you are referring to, other included pressure impact, failure rate, new ball impact, etc. With SD they were chosen based on an impact of more than 4(times better than others) in a critical match or really high impact series and then the total impact in the series was double for the player. Was definitely debateble what they did. But a more serious problem was this, say batter A debut at 20 and has a match impact of 40 for the next 5 year, then hits his peak with MP of 65 for next ten and then dips to 35 for last 4 years, thus his total impact would be 52. Now batter B comes around at 24 has one low year with 40, then hits peak with 60 for next 7 years and finally is average of 45 for 3 and then retires at 35. Now his Impact would be 54. Their methodology absolutely disregard that A was much greater for much longer and treats both their careers as same. They were so oblivious to this that they even write in the book how if sachin had retired after the world cup 2011 he would be Indian's highest rated batter ahead of dravid, instead he continues and tank his impact, instead of realizing you know may be we should factor career lengths into our calculations as well. It's the reason Mattew f**k**g Hayden is rated higher than sachin in their book.
Smith's south africa's batting line up was stacked, having Amla and Kallis come before ABD is a cheat code. is Amla , Kallis, ABD, the best 3,4,5 line up in test cricket history?
Hmm, that's a great question. Probably for sustained excellence at the same time, they could be. Dravid, Tendulkar, Azharuddin would be on overall greatness, but they only batted together for a dozen or so Tests. The Ganguly version would be up there too
Shiv Chandrapual for me, best of ABD start to came when he started to bat at 4 in Test but he is solid number 5. Misbah though is rare breed who transformed himself and his team as a package both skipper and number 5 batter he clears everyone.
I've always been of the opinion that no Australian all-time XI is complete without Border or Steve Waugh in there to bring that fighting quality they did. This has just reinforced my own personal decision to pick Waugh in the line-up.
You can pick 3 or 4 all time Australian teams and they would all be crazy strong. Even someone like Mike Hussey would probably only find a spot batting at 5 in the 3rd or fourth team.
I cannot fucking believe it. Just yesterday I posted a comment on Reddit on how I was casually trying to make an all time great test XI and the only, and I mean only position I was finding difficult to lock was the number 5 one. And today I see this video. This is one spooky coincidence.
Love this kind of analysis despite it kind of being meaningless. But that's the fun of it. AB de Villiers was something special but I think we can scratch off the keeper part. 21% of all Test matches is not enough.
I would love your analysis of bunnies to certain bowlers. Warnie had his bunnies, but he was kind of Brian Lara's bunny. Do particular batters have strengths and weaknesses to particular bowlers, which might not translate to other bowlers with the same style (e.g. Warnie and Mcgill)?
I would love for you to use match factor in every video,in my opinion its the most important metric,some people may think that rabada is a better test bowler than steyn(not to say rabada isnt a great, one of my favourites)but match factor is the important one for sure
Why is 5 the last truly specialist position? What is behind that statement? I don’t understand why 5 is any more specialist that opener, 3, or 7 The way I understand it: 1 takes the first ball, plenty of openers don’t like batting at 1 2. Openers should really be your best players of fast bowling and new ball movement. They should have a tight defence, know where their off stump is to leave, and be able to get in the zone quickly after a fielding innings. These days there are multiple ways to do this, you have attacking openers like Warner or Rohit and you have more traditional openers like Cook or Braithwaite. 3 is a specialist position, you need to be able to bat like an opener if you’re in early, or more like a number 4 or 5 if they put on a good opening partnership. These days career of Ollie Pope shows how much this is a specialist position as he has struggled to come to terms with this position, despite his clear talent and ability to play fantastic innings. 4 the best, most complete player in the team, needs to be a good player of all types if bowling, usually the best player will want to bat at 4. Occasionally you have someone at 3 or opener who just happens to be the best and prefer things in that spot. 5. You need to be able to save the day if you’re 20-3 and you need to be able to come in and hurt teams that are tiring if it’s going well.
6 is often an allrounder, which is a specialist role if not a specialist batting position. All rounders can obviously bat at other positions, usually 4-7. 6 needs to be like 5, able to dig a team out of trouble or be a punisher of tiring attacks. Often 6 is a position for a counter attacking batter. 6 is also more likely to need to bat with the tail. 7 is traditionally the wicket keeper’s spot, though of course some of the best wicket keeper’s batters have batted higher and some specialist gloves people have batted lower if they are primarily in the team because of uncommon talent at taking catches and stumpings as keeper. 7 needs to be able to bat with the tail. They need to have different gears and be able to farm the strike. In the post Adam Gilchrist world, 7 is a specialist position. 8 needs to be a bowler with at least some kind of batting ability. Teams with 4 bowlers who are really number 11s are exposed in modern cricket. 9-11 are not specialist positions, they are just for bowlers and you order them from least bad to worst at batting. Sometimes you might promote someone with a bit of talent at hitting big shots higher than more defensive players like late career Stuart Broad, whose defence was not great but he could hit a 6 or two on a good day, Tim Southee is a similar one, and there are other examples of bowlers who have height, strength, and decent hand eye, to be a lower order hitter at 9 or 10 but not really the batting chops to be an 8 or above and be a reliable player to play a longer innings.
Also. In a less serious way, I think the best no.11s provide some comic relief! Chris Martin for being genuinely terrible, Phil Tufnell falling over, Trent boult’s unorthodox technique, Anderson getting a cheer because for some reason he had only one real good shot, the reverse sweep! McGrath was always amusing too
I heard it as saying position 5 in a team lineup is the final specialist batter in that side. Number 6 traditionally an all rounder, 7 keeper 8-11 picked for bowling. Not this is the last one that isn't something else as well
where does vvs laxman lie among batsman overall in your view. He played probably some of the best knocks ever in tough spots and helped win India game with tendulkar and dravid in the team as well. Not easy to estimate him. Was it that he was not consistent. It would be fun to research on vvs type players, who played some of the best all time games but were not the best 2 players in the team or best players in world.
Do a video on test crickets greatest no 3 ever with players like ricky pointing,rahul dravid,kumar sangakara,hashim Amla,Kane Williamson and of course sir don Bradman as part of the discussion. Will be eagerly waiting for that video.
I wonder if in the next couple of years we see Brook and Root swap batting spots and JR has an opportunity to take those #5 run numbers to a much higher level.
Pant might have to give up Keeping all together if that is to be the case. The strains of wicket-keeping on the body eventually start to show effect, drastically. Don't think Pant can outscore Brook as a no.5. Also, ironically, don't think Pant can bat with such freedom if he gives up the security of his other skill i.e. wicket-keeping.
My guess is he'll continue to be brilliantly attacking and also get out as a result. Leaving him stuck in the low-forties avg- which is still super good.
Suprised to see vvs not being in list of matches played he seemed like perennial no 5 for India The line flower played as a opener from no 5 summarised why he was the best 5 in my eye
None of Kholi's weaknesses in test cricket ( off -stump). Or even Joe Root's ( bouncy ball). No drop off in form like Smith or Kholi. Can blitz the socks off of any of the players above when it comes to scoring quickly. Could go one. Let's not forget that he averages over 50 in ODI cricket with a strike rate of over 100- and no one is coming close to touching that shit even now in 2024. Scored hundreds in all kinds of tough conditions when other batters crumble into a pile of dust. And you know, South Africa is a really hard place to bat. So, for me, yes, he is the best batter I have ever seen.
There is no such thing as "greatest", it is a question of era's. You cant compare, flat wickets and bat technology of today compared with even the late 1990s. So it becomes an issue of "rencency" bias.
My whole memory of Steve Waugh was him coming in at 5 with a lot of work to do and saving the innings.
True of the mid 90s, not so true after he took over the captaincy.
@@haydenaustin-eames8084 Yeah that's my recollection also, once he had a team of absolute weapons his utility decreased, that's also why his last innings of 80 was so cool, coming in with his side in trouble.
He ended West Indies 22 years of domination from 5.
I remember people saying that the dominance of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, etc above him actually hurt his performance in his later years because he was constantly coming in after the majority of runs had already been scored.
Andy Flower for me.
The pressure of basically being your team's only bat, for his whole career, can not be understated enough.
If memory serves me right, impact index had penned an article on the best test batter at every position. AB de Villiers was the best batter at both Nos. 5 and 6 as per that.
Yes, also the third best batter in history acc to them, behind Don and Peter May.
Though their methology was a flawed one that didn't account for early or late career dips, and more often than not punished players with long career, or great players that played too long.
If I remember right, one of the factors was how much you outscored your teammates and opponents in every match bringing dips in career into account. This is why Bradman in their stat was head and shoulders ahead of everyone. Also, that's how Peter May was so high.
Where I found them a little arbitrary was that they put a lot of weight on Series defining performances but the choices for the same were a little subjective.
@@ritankarroy4789 Yes and No. They had several metrics for judging the best batter, including the Run tally index, which you are referring to, other included pressure impact, failure rate, new ball impact, etc.
With SD they were chosen based on an impact of more than 4(times better than others) in a critical match or really high impact series and then the total impact in the series was double for the player. Was definitely debateble what they did.
But a more serious problem was this, say batter A debut at 20 and has a match impact of 40 for the next 5 year, then hits his peak with MP of 65 for next ten and then dips to 35 for last 4 years, thus his total impact would be 52. Now batter B comes around at 24 has one low year with 40, then hits peak with 60 for next 7 years and finally is average of 45 for 3 and then retires at 35. Now his Impact would be 54. Their methodology absolutely disregard that A was much greater for much longer and treats both their careers as same. They were so oblivious to this that they even write in the book how if sachin had retired after the world cup 2011 he would be Indian's highest rated batter ahead of dravid, instead he continues and tank his impact, instead of realizing you know may be we should factor career lengths into our calculations as well.
It's the reason Mattew f**k**g Hayden is rated higher than sachin in their book.
10:00 I never thought that Athers and Nasser would be mentioned on this channel for their batting, only for their commentary.
I have Abd in my all time xi, but at 6 with sobers at 5.
Either way abd just doesn't get enough credit for being the incredible test batter he was.
So what i learned from this is that root would have been bradman if he batted at 5
Yes, please. More A.B Devilliers vids please. I feel like some Jarrod Kimber treatment could shine an honorable light on his ODI career as well.
@@tessierashpool8957 I want this too !!
Smith's south africa's batting line up was stacked, having Amla and Kallis come before ABD is a cheat code. is Amla , Kallis, ABD, the best 3,4,5 line up in test cricket history?
Hmm, that's a great question. Probably for sustained excellence at the same time, they could be. Dravid, Tendulkar, Azharuddin would be on overall greatness, but they only batted together for a dozen or so Tests. The Ganguly version would be up there too
Yesss
Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly might disagree!
@dip_08 ganguly had an average of 42, not an atg batsman,
@vuyani6729 but only 37 at #5. ABD had an average of 62 at #5.
Shiv Chandrapual for me, best of ABD start to came when he started to bat at 4 in Test but he is solid number 5.
Misbah though is rare breed who transformed himself and his team as a package both skipper and number 5 batter he clears everyone.
Today its probably Daryl Mitchell.
Of all time ABD
if it's just for no. 5 then I'll pick Suresh Raina.
Daryl has been really poor this year
Average in mid 20s
It's 100% Travis Head
@@niggin9271
Wow Suresh Raina in test cricket.
What a pick !!!
@@RaviKanti-y5c I'm speaking of white ball
I've always been of the opinion that no Australian all-time XI is complete without Border or Steve Waugh in there to bring that fighting quality they did.
This has just reinforced my own personal decision to pick Waugh in the line-up.
You can pick 3 or 4 all time Australian teams and they would all be crazy strong. Even someone like Mike Hussey would probably only find a spot batting at 5 in the 3rd or fourth team.
Fun fact: Tendulkar averages about 65 against Top 8 opposition batting at number 5 in Tests.
A B de Villiers is too much to compete .
I cannot fucking believe it. Just yesterday I posted a comment on Reddit on how I was casually trying to make an all time great test XI and the only, and I mean only position I was finding difficult to lock was the number 5 one. And today I see this video. This is one spooky coincidence.
Love this kind of analysis despite it kind of being meaningless. But that's the fun of it. AB de Villiers was something special but I think we can scratch off the keeper part. 21% of all Test matches is not enough.
I would love your analysis of bunnies to certain bowlers. Warnie had his bunnies, but he was kind of Brian Lara's bunny. Do particular batters have strengths and weaknesses to particular bowlers, which might not translate to other bowlers with the same style (e.g. Warnie and Mcgill)?
What a wonderful video!
I would love for you to use match factor in every video,in my opinion its the most important metric,some people may think that rabada is a better test bowler than steyn(not to say rabada isnt a great, one of my favourites)but match factor is the important one for sure
Who thinks rabada is better than steyn
Why is 5 the last truly specialist position? What is behind that statement? I don’t understand why 5 is any more specialist that opener, 3, or 7
The way I understand it:
1 takes the first ball, plenty of openers don’t like batting at 1
2. Openers should really be your best players of fast bowling and new ball movement. They should have a tight defence, know where their off stump is to leave, and be able to get in the zone quickly after a fielding innings. These days there are multiple ways to do this, you have attacking openers like Warner or Rohit and you have more traditional openers like Cook or Braithwaite.
3 is a specialist position, you need to be able to bat like an opener if you’re in early, or more like a number 4 or 5 if they put on a good opening partnership. These days career of Ollie Pope shows how much this is a specialist position as he has struggled to come to terms with this position, despite his clear talent and ability to play fantastic innings.
4 the best, most complete player in the team, needs to be a good player of all types if bowling, usually the best player will want to bat at 4. Occasionally you have someone at 3 or opener who just happens to be the best and prefer things in that spot.
5. You need to be able to save the day if you’re 20-3 and you need to be able to come in and hurt teams that are tiring if it’s going well.
6 is often an allrounder, which is a specialist role if not a specialist batting position. All rounders can obviously bat at other positions, usually 4-7. 6 needs to be like 5, able to dig a team out of trouble or be a punisher of tiring attacks. Often 6 is a position for a counter attacking batter. 6 is also more likely to need to bat with the tail.
7 is traditionally the wicket keeper’s spot, though of course some of the best wicket keeper’s batters have batted higher and some specialist gloves people have batted lower if they are primarily in the team because of uncommon talent at taking catches and stumpings as keeper. 7 needs to be able to bat with the tail. They need to have different gears and be able to farm the strike. In the post Adam Gilchrist world, 7 is a specialist position.
8 needs to be a bowler with at least some kind of batting ability. Teams with 4 bowlers who are really number 11s are exposed in modern cricket.
9-11 are not specialist positions, they are just for bowlers and you order them from least bad to worst at batting. Sometimes you might promote someone with a bit of talent at hitting big shots higher than more defensive players like late career Stuart Broad, whose defence was not great but he could hit a 6 or two on a good day, Tim Southee is a similar one, and there are other examples of bowlers who have height, strength, and decent hand eye, to be a lower order hitter at 9 or 10 but not really the batting chops to be an 8 or above and be a reliable player to play a longer innings.
So… I really don’t see what makes 5 any more specialist than plenty of these others. Plenty of no. 4s or no. 6s would be able to do 5 no problem!
Also. In a less serious way, I think the best no.11s provide some comic relief! Chris Martin for being genuinely terrible, Phil Tufnell falling over, Trent boult’s unorthodox technique, Anderson getting a cheer because for some reason he had only one real good shot, the reverse sweep! McGrath was always amusing too
I heard it as saying position 5 in a team lineup is the final specialist batter in that side. Number 6 traditionally an all rounder, 7 keeper 8-11 picked for bowling. Not this is the last one that isn't something else as well
@@Aragorn1964 I don’t think you understood what Jarrod was saying
What was Misbah doing in that List, Tuk Tuk masterclass
So many interesting take aways, but makes me wonder, who would be the best first change bowler of all time?
Ah Shiv! Our great batsman who is so underrated, but extremely valuable and dogged.
Amazing video. Please do Number 6 and No 7 as well
Steve Waugh is my second cousin.
My vote is firmly with Chanderpaul.
Love from New Zealand. ♥
Micheal Clarke any day for the leader the manager
where does vvs laxman lie among batsman overall in your view. He played probably some of the best knocks ever in tough spots and helped win India game with tendulkar and dravid in the team as well. Not easy to estimate him. Was it that he was not consistent. It would be fun to research on vvs type players, who played some of the best all time games but were not the best 2 players in the team or best players in world.
This feels like an Eek question which snowballed into a glorious avalanche
Do a video on test crickets greatest no 3 ever with players like ricky pointing,rahul dravid,kumar sangakara,hashim Amla,Kane Williamson and of course sir don Bradman as part of the discussion. Will be eagerly waiting for that video.
I wonder if in the next couple of years we see Brook and Root swap batting spots and JR has an opportunity to take those #5 run numbers to a much higher level.
VVS Chandrapaul
Root dominating some of these charts is actually mad
Steve Waugh is the greatest no.5 batsman in test history.
I am surprised how M E K Hussey is not featured in this list, he must be having avg in high 50s.
The cutoff was 2000 runs at 5. Hussey missed it by just 22 runs.
steve waugh. stats or not. he was a pinnacle or gritty cricket getting through hard times and batting yourself to a winning position.
All time? ABD. Although I'd say by the time he retires pant will be running him close
Pant might have to give up Keeping all together if that is to be the case. The strains of wicket-keeping on the body eventually start to show effect, drastically.
Don't think Pant can outscore Brook as a no.5. Also, ironically, don't think Pant can bat with such freedom if he gives up the security of his other skill i.e. wicket-keeping.
Abd
This was a statistical masterclass...amazing insight.
Has to be Allan Border
Andy Flower the greatest Zimbabwean Batsman
I thought VVS Laxman
Chanderpaul, by a mile.
Rishabh Pant will end this discussion in the future
My guess is he'll continue to be brilliantly attacking and also get out as a result. Leaving him stuck in the low-forties avg- which is still super good.
Suprised to see vvs not being in list of matches played he seemed like perennial no 5 for India
The line flower played as a opener from no 5 summarised why he was the best 5 in my eye
Rishabh Rajendra Pant
Everyone sleeping on the GOAT Salman Ali Agha.
Inzi
odi plzzzz
Michael Clarke.
ABD, VVS
Waugh > VVS. VVS played more tests at no 6 that at 5. And Waugh also has way better stats
Temba bavuma
Agreed. Ab has to be the best no.5 test batsman, i think it's only ABD that has a case to play in all time 11's of all the three formats.
I dont think he makes it into t20 internationals
@@S02055I'd pick him on reputation alone
Gotta be ABD.
Fawad Alam is the only right answer...
VIVBALL
ABD is greatest ever batsman... Open for debate!!!
lol no
@@Ramiperera lol yes. A reflection of your debating prowess.
None of Kholi's weaknesses in test cricket ( off -stump).
Or even Joe Root's ( bouncy ball). No drop off in form like Smith or Kholi. Can blitz the socks off of any of the players above when it comes to scoring quickly.
Could go one. Let's not forget that he averages over 50 in ODI cricket with a strike rate of over 100- and no one is coming close to touching that shit even now in 2024. Scored hundreds in all kinds of tough conditions when other batters crumble into a pile of dust. And you know, South Africa is a really hard place to bat. So, for me, yes, he is the best batter I have ever seen.
Chandrapaul possibly. People rating Laxman above his is ridiculous the never ending PR and their fans who overrates them
There is no such thing as "greatest", it is a question of era's. You cant compare, flat wickets and bat technology of today compared with even the late 1990s. So it becomes an issue of "rencency" bias.
What u on about
There's hardly any flat pitches these days in test cricket
Jarrod just used graphs to prove Steve Waugh is the best #5 of all time.