An overview
In every cricket club, bar, pub and grandstand since time immemorial, debate has raged over the greatest cricketer of all time. Is it a batter, a spinner, a fast bowler? Does batting on uncovered wickets have a greater impact on a batter’s average than wearing a helmet or using a bigger bat? What about eight ball overs, front foot no-balls, protective equipment, better fitness and coaching analytics? How do they factor into the debate? And would you rather have watched peak Barry Richards for only a few tests, or 10 years of Michael Clarke? Then the ultimate question in all great sporting debates: How do you compare disciplines and eras?
Inspired by Bill Simmons’ The Book of Basketball, I (Baldy) set out to answer these questions. The result: the Top Order Podcast Test Cricket Hall of Fame.
This was no small task, and ground rules had to be established. Therefore, the Hall of Fame is not a single list. Instead, it is split into tiers, which represent the elite clubs of cricketers.
Rather than simply debate whether Viv Richards is better than Warnie, or whether the exploits of Bill Ponsford in the 1920s are greater than those of Graeme Smith and Alastair Cook, I wanted to dive deeper, to somehow find a way to justify each individual spot in the rankings. And, of course, more questions emerged:
Did Barry Richards have enough impact on the game to make it to the elite?
How long before Stuart Broad qualifies for the XI?
Does Mark Waugh belong in the same club as his brother Steve?
And so many more.
So before we get to the top 100, let’s look at structure of the Hall of Fame . . .
How it works
The tiers explained
There are five tiers that represent the different levels of the Hall of Fame. We start with ‘The Club’ and range up to the top tier, ‘The Immortals’. Do not despair if you’re reading this and your favourite player (or you!!) are only in ‘The Club’. Simply making it into the Hall of Fame is an outstanding achievement.
There are 100 names on this list. And there will only ever be 100 names. For every player added in future, another name drops off to keep it at 100. This is also a living list — constantly evolving and changing. The names and rankings changed dozens of times as I compiled the list, and then when the Top Order debated who should be on it, and who should go where.
So let’s go. From 100 to 66, we have ‘The Club’.
5. The Club
Hey — just because you are in ‘The Club’, you are no slouch. You are a great of the game. That might have become a widely overused phrase this century, but you must be truly great to make this list. Plenty of outstanding cricketers have not made the final cut. Those in ‘The Club’ have most likely impacted the game significantly (Sir Frank Worrell), or have carved out a statistical record that demanded inclusion, despite their overall impact on the game not being as significant as those in the higher tiers (VVS Laxman).
And apologies to Adam Voges, but longevity counts here. Unless your peak two or three years redefined the game of cricket or provided a ground-breaking change in how our game is played, you need the runs (or wickets) on the board.
4. The Squad
A tier up from ‘The Club’, but not quite in ‘The Leadership Group’, ‘The Squad’ are the elite of the game. Put any of these 25 cricketers into your XI and they would make an impact on any game, in almost any era. Their records are excellent, but perhaps not quite ‘best-in-their-era’.
3. The Leadership Group
To make it to ‘The Leadership Group’, you do not need to have been a great captain, although for some that helps! The 25 players in this group are elite cricketers, but perhaps not the greatest of all time from their nation, or within their discipline. Their records must be exemplary and they must have been regarded as among the top two or three players in the world at their discipline at some stage during their career.
2. The XI
These players are in the conversation for the greatest cricketers that their nation, their discipline or era has produced. They need to have been at the top of their peer group for a significant amount of time, and also compare favourably to those from other eras.
Almost all the cricketers in this tier had a significant impact on their discipline, or the game in general. If you added them to any side of any era, they would more than likely be the best player in their team, and the opposition. Match-winners and champions every one of them.
Our intention is to keep membership of this tier to 11 players.
1. The Immortals
To be in ‘The Immortals’, or on Mount Rushmore at the Hall of Fame, you must be in the conversation as the GOAT. The Greatest of All Time. As good as Nathan Lyon is, he is not in this tier, and his place on this list at its inception might ruffle more than a few feathers. These are the greatest four cricketers of all time, regardless of discipline or era.
Their performances and impact on the game were undoubtedly the greatest of their generation and stand up to all eras previous and since. Statistically, they are unicorns, unlikely to be equalled or bettered.
Our intention is to keep the membership of this tier to four players.
A question of eras
When comparing players, the tendency is to try to compare the raw numbers, regardless of era. The challenge, of course, is that so much has changed across more than 150 years of the red ball game. The evolution of cricket has seen covered/uncovered wickets; grass versus matted wickets; front-foot/back-foot no-balls; bodyline; changes in fielding standards, helmets; improved professionalism, health, nutrition and training practices, and bat size, to name just a few of the changes over time. To try to give context to the era in which each member of the Hall of Fame played, I have defined four eras of Test cricket:
• The pre-war era (pre-1945)
• The post-war era (1945–76)
• The helmet era (1977–2004)
• The big bat era (2005 onwards)
The pre-war era (pre-1945)
It’s easy to dismiss the pre-war era as one that was not as challenging as the present day. After all, this was an amateur era, where players held jobs in between tours, didn’t train full-time and standards of fielding were much more ‘gentlemanly’ than the present day. Even within the pre-war era, there is a vast difference between the averages of Test batters prior to the 1910s, and between 1910 and 1945. Prior to 1914 and the First World War, barely any players average above 40. By World War II, the greatest players of the era were averaging well into the 60s.[1]
The changing averages of this era are particularly relevant with respect to bowlers. Bowlers in the pre-war era, particularly prior to the 1910s, enjoyed far superior averages compared to modern day bowlers, largely due to the state of the pitches in that era. Remember that the first ‘modern’ electric lawnmower didn’t really appear until the 1900s! I found it very difficult to rate and compare bowlers pre-1900 with others in the 1900s and beyond. As a result, my usual cut-off of 150+ wickets was relaxed in some cases to account for bowlers playing fewer Test matches in this era.
Of course, the two World Wars had a major influence both on the amount of cricket played, and, sadly, claimed the lives of some very promising cricketers. Among the many lives tragically lost to war, Ross Gregory and Hedley Verity are two names that could well have had an impact on this list under different circumstances.
We saw the emergence of South Africa (1889), the West Indies (1928), New Zealand (1930) and India (1932), which meant that there were plenty of new teams on the block, but most matches were still contested for The Ashes, between Australia and England. So we have to factor in a few tours where players feasted on lower quality opposition, but in general it appears the standard of play between Australia and England was as competitive as ever.
One train of thought suggests that cricket in the 20th century was of a lower standard, and therefore it was easier to score runs. But bear in mind the following caveats:
Wickets were uncovered. Overnight rain, or rain in the build-up to the match, could lead to a ‘sticky’. It was not unheard of for teams to declare behind, or overnight, with a low score on the board if the wicket was damp the following morning. Damp wickets made play treacherous, particularly after a burst of sunshine dried out the wicket a little. In the third Test of The Ashes in 1936–37 in Melbourne [3], Don Bradman made 270 batting at 7, having been protected by his teammates until the sun had sufficiently dried the wicket to make it possible to score runs and bat for a significant period of time.
Wickets were also not always grass. Tests could be played on matting, particularly in the sub-continent. The matting was re-stretched each morning by an army of groundstaff, and playing conditions could vary considerably depending on the tightness of the straps holding the matting under tension.
Bowlers used the back-foot no-ball. More on this later, in the post-war era. Just remember that Fred Trueman was bowling from at least 30 centimetres closer to the batter than the likes of Mitchell Starc, Jasprit Bumrah, Lockie Ferguson and Jofra Archer do today.
A final note on this era with respect to the rankings: statistics will play a bigger role in this era than in others, purely because the more subjective forms of analysis (eye test, archival footage, even written material) are not as readily available as they are in modern times.
The post-war era (1945-1976)
The post-war era saw Pakistan make their debut in 1952, the only team to be admitted to the Test arena during this time.
The most important advances in this era were the change to the no-ball rule, and the phasing out of uncovered pitches.
Because of the propensity for fast bowlers to ‘drag’ their back foot after landing behind the bowling crease, administrators were forced to change the no-ball rule to the modern front-foot law. Bowlers now had to move their front foot back at least 30 centimetres to constitute a legal delivery, which of course gave batters a little more time to play the ball.
Uncovered pitches were phased out in Test cricket because they were often dangerous, and provided an uneven contest whenever two teams batted on substantially different surfaces. The impact of covered pitches runs deeper than just safer playing conditions. Players like Jim Laker and Derek Underwood for England, and Ken ‘Slasher’ Mackay for Australia, thrived on uncovered pitches, or matting pitches when grass wickets were unavailable. Their style of bowling has recently started to re-emerge in T20 cricket, where fast ‘darts’ play an almost essential part in the arsenal of a finger spinner. For batters, facing a ‘sticky’ has changed the role of the opener in some respects and eased the burden on the poor nightwatchmen who were forced to sacrifice their wicket and their bodies in the most challenging situations. As a result, the conditions for batting became better and more consistent, more often. Captains, too, were impacted. There were now fewer variables outside their control to consider throughout the course of a match.
The helmet (World Series Cricket) era (1977-2004)
We can thank Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket for many things, but the introduction of the ‘crash helmet’ was a watershed moment in the evolution of the game. At a time when the world was flush with quality express bowlers, the advent of the helmet fundamentally changed the safety prospects of players. Even tail-end batters could feel a little safer in the knowledge that they had some modicum of protection against the bumper.
A focus on fielding and fitness began in this era, with the increased professionalism that money brought to the game, also at the instigation of World Series Cricket. By the turn of the century, fielding was a dedicated discipline — athletic fielding was almost a mandatory skill for all batsmen, and we saw the fielding prowess of Jonty Rhodes, Ricky Ponting, Paul Collingwood, Chris Harris and many others change the course of games with catches and run outs.
Sri Lanka (1982), Zimbabwe (1992) and Bangladesh (2000) were all introduced as Test playing nations in this era. Sadly, the competitiveness of each of these three nations over this period (and the next period) did not meet with expectations. Of particular relevance to this list is the fact that series regularly resulted in lop-sided matches, and some substantial stat-stuffing. (More on that later). But while team success has not materialised, all three nations have produced players worthy of Hall of Fame consideration. It is worth noting that current World Test Champions, New Zealand, took more than 30 years to record their first Test victory. Success takes time. The impact of teammates on the success of some individuals and how that influences their standing in our rankings (for better or for worse) is of particular interest during this era.
The big bat era (2005 onwards)
This could equally be called the 21st century era, or the millennium era. Since 2005, levels of professionalism have continued to increase, and changes to the equipment have also defined the playing conditions of Test cricket.
Expansion also introduced two new Test-playing nations: Ireland (2018) and Afghanistan (2018). We haven’t yet seen the impact of this expansion, as both nations have played very few tests to date. But, to be fair, the new entrants have been far more competitive than traditional strugglers Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and, to certain extent, Sri Lanka were in their fledgling years.
The growth of professionalism has dramatically increased the stamina and athleticism of players. Health and vitality are closely monitored, and the overall fitness and recovery is far superior. Whether or not load management decreases or increases the likelihood of injury is a point of fierce debate. Of the guests we've spoken to on the podcast, there is a definite trend that emerges. Prior to 2005, the concept of nutrition, load management, and rest-and-recovery was spoken of, but not a discipline as ingrained in the life of every professional cricketer as batting, bowling and fielding are.
There is now a heavy diet of three-format cricket, with constant touring, franchise leagues, bilateral series and regular World Cups and ICC tournaments. It is a packed schedule, and in 2021 we are starting to see players make decisions about which teams they represent and even pick and choose when they represent their country as bio-secure bubbles have become an all-important part of touring life.
Perhaps the biggest impact on cricket in the past 20 years has been the size of the bats that players are using. Not only is the size much larger than bats even 20 years ago, the fabrication techniques and even the composition of the willow itself have completely changed. Now much drier and lighter, bats can hit a ball much further than ever before, with a significantly larger sweet spot providing greater margin for error.
The introduction of T20 cricket has also fundamentally changed the outlook and approach of the modern Test cricketer. Now, attack is foremost in the batter’s mind. Dour and attritional survival can at times seem like a distant memory, and players regularly appear ill-equipped or ill-tempered to deal with challenging surfaces. In an era where bat has dominated ball, on the occasions when assistance is offered by the surface or conditions, a result well inside four days is entirely possible — maybe even probable. By contrast, players are more confident to attack, can access any area of the ground and willing to chase targets in the fourth innings that would once have felt insurmountable. Captains must now factor into their decision-making that a lead of 350+ in the final innings of a Test match is less safe than it once was.
Finally, the advent of pink-ball, day-night tests throw up a new set of challenges. The conditions under lights, and the ball, are vastly different, so teams are adapting to the changes with different tactics and approaches about how to play the game. Will we see a separate set of records and statistics for day-night tests? To redress the balance of bat against ball, will all future tests feature a pink ball?
[1] There’s an outlier in that group, and we’ll get to him much, much later on.
Other stuff…
Numbers or the eye test?
Here at the Top Order Podcast we love a good stat — some more than others (Baldy!) — so of course stats have played an important role to justify possible inclusions (and exclusions). It pains me very much to recognise that my childhood batting hero, Allan Border, who has a great record, has been surpassed statistically by another ‘AB’ — Abraham Benjamin de Villiers (check out his record, it is underrated!). But what works in Border’s favour is the context of his career: his reluctant captaincy, uplifting a downtrodden side to become the best in the world and his exploits against England in the white-hot cauldron of Ashes cricket, all count towards his overall legacy. As much as I would like it to, winning a World Cup does not count. More on that later, but the point remains: a player’s impact on their team and the game in general will have a bearing on where they sit in the rankings.
What the &^@* is StatRank?
(This section gets pretty nerdy — continue at your own risk, or skip ahead to ‘What about white-ball cricket?’ if stats and numbers aren’t your thing.)
When I started this project, I had a few people ask 'How are you going to compare eras?’ It's a great question — one that's even harder once you start to explore the possible options. At my disposal, I had Microsoft Excel, Cricinfo’s StatsGuru and an almost inexhaustible fount of nerdy stats analysis from which to draw.
Having identified the eras, it was a relatively simple (although time-consuming) process of extracting the stats for each player in each era, for batting and bowling, and the overall career batting and bowling stats as a starting point.
The selection of a cutoff point was an interesting (for me) exercise. How do we avoid the 'Adam Voges phenomenon' — a player who had a short career that is more likely a statistical outlier, as opposed to a career like Barry Richards, which, while short, spoke volumes for the quality of player he was throughout his career. With no disrespect to Adam Voges, he is no Barry Richards.
Here are the cutoff points that I established for consideration for entry to the Hall of Fame:
Overall
Batting: 2000 runs @ 35.00 or better
Bowling: 125 wickets @ 35.00 or better
In each era
Batting: 1000 runs
Bowling: 50 wickets
These cutoffs represent (roughly) 15–20% of the highest number of runs/wickets scored by the leading player in each category. Heuristically, it looks like a number that is enough to separate the part-timer from the true batter or bowler, particularly when you throw in the requirement for an average of 35 or better. In each era, the requirement is a lot more relaxed — where a player appears in the Hall of Fame, I've tried to include their stats from each particular era as an extra comparison point.
At the conclusion of all 100 players being released, I'll add the full tables for each discipline for each era.
But how to compare longevity versus peak performance?
It's a fact that there is more cricket played today than in years past. It follows then that more Test matches equals more runs scored, and more wickets taken. These 'counting stats' heavily favour players who have been fortunate enough to play in the more modern eras. That is not to say that longevity is not a positive trait for these players — more cricket means more scrutiny and more opportunity to 'slump' (and peak!).
So how do we reconcile this when comparing eras? We already have batting average (runs per completed innings), bowling average (runs per wicket) and strike rate (balls per wicket) as a way of measuring runs and wickets as a ratio. In my analysis I've measured 100s and 50s when batting, and 10w/match and 5w/innings when bowling, as measures of how dominant a batter or bowler has been in a given innings or match. But how do you compare Bradman (52 tests, 80 innings) with Tendulkar (200 tests, 329 innings), or Sid Barnes (27 tests, 50 innings) with Murali (133 tests, 230 innings)? To compare these stats, I have introduced the following four measures as a way of comparing how often a batter and bowler dominates a match:
Hundreds per 100 innings
Fifties per 100 innings
5 wickets in an innings per 100 innings
10 wickets in a match per 100 matches
You'll see these stats added to the traditional stats in each player profile in the Hall of Fame.
That's all well and good — but how do you rank players with StatsRank?
You'll notice that for each era (and overall) I've indicated the position that each player achieves in each stat compared with players in that era. For instance, it's no surprise that with 29 hundreds in just 80 innings, Bradman's figure of 36.25 hundreds per 100 innings ranks first all-time.
Interestingly, the top 10 in that category features players from all eras, ranging from just 22 tests played (George Headley) to 134 tests (Kumar Sangakkara).
But in order to create a single measure for summarising all the possible metrics for batting and bowling excellence, I wanted to find a way to combine several of these measures into one. That's StatRank. Here's how it works.
Of the qualifying players, the top performance in each category gets a score of 100, and the bottom performer gets a score of zero. Everyone else falls somewhere in between. For example, runs scored:
SR Tendulkar: 15,921 runs scored = 100 points
GA Gooch: 8,900 runs scored = 50 points
DN Sardeai: 2001 runs scored: 0 points
I do this for the following batting statistics, then add all the scores together for a total possible score of 400:
Runs
Average
100s
100s per 100 innings
That's a balanced list of two overall measures (runs, 100s) as well as measures of frequency (average, 100s per 100 innings).
I do the same thing for bowlers, adding the scores for the following categories for a total possible score of 500:
Wickets
Average
Strike Rate
5wi
5wi per 100 innings
In this case, there are two absolute measures (wickets, 5wi) as well as three measures of frequency (average, strike rate and 5wi per 100 innings).
Each player's StatRank is how they rank as a batter or bowler among the other batters (225) and bowlers (132) that qualify.
What about white-ball cricket?
While Test cricket is considered the pinnacle of the game, it would be unfair to exclude ODIs and T20s from a cricket Hall of Fame. That is why there will likely be further editions of the Hall of Fame exclusively for the top 50 (see what we did there!) ODI and T20 cricketers of all-time. Female cricketers will be represented, too, and we’re considering whether women’s cricket is best recognised in a separate Hall of Fame covering all three formats, or alongside the male cricketers in a single ODI/T20 Hall of Fame. All these future halls will give us even more to talk about, and you as a reader or listener something else to while away those long hours on the bus to and from work, beside the pool on holiday or in the smallest room in the house.
A final note
It is highly unlikely that the four of us on the Top Order Podcast will completely agree on the content of this list, and it will change all the time. Unhappy with where Williamson, Smith and Kohli sit right now? Just wait two years, at least one of them should be in a higher tier. Where they are on this list is where we see them now, if they never played another Test. This is a live list. Some players may move up the list as their careers progress. Which is another reminder that players will inevitably drop down and even slip out of the Hall as new players push for inclusion!
Because this initial concept was developed by Baldy, the order is his at this point. But throughout the profiles you’ll find notes and arguments from Raj, Binksy and Lippy whenever they disagree, or want to spice up the conversation.
So here it is, the five tiers of the Top Order Podcast Cricket Hall of Fame . . . counting down the greatest men’s Test cricketers from 100 to 1.
Sources and references
1. ESPNCricInfo. Batting Records | Test Matches (2000 runs @ 35.00)
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;qualmin1=35;qualmin2=2000;qualval1=batting_average;qualval2=runs;size=200;template=results;type=batting
2. ESPNCricInfo. Bowling Records | Test Matches (125 wickets @ 35.00)
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;qualmax1=35;qualmin2=125;qualval1=bowling_average;qualval2=wickets;size=200;template=results;type=bowling
3. ESPNCricInfo. Test Scorecard. Australia versus England, Melbourne 1937
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-australia-1936-37-61729/australia-vs-england-3rd-test-62643/full-scorecard
4. Wikipedia. Lawn mower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_mower#Invention