Batting records since 1990 against the 5 top Test sides

[Snatch]

Fair to say since 1990, the best 5 test sides have been Australia, South Africa, England, India and Pakistan.

I was interesting in looking at the modern batting records against these very top sides.

Turns out of the batsmen since 1990 (min 1000 runs) there are 12 batsmen who still managed to average >50 even against the 5 top test sides of the last 35 years.

Surprisingly Flower is the best of them when it comes to average.

Those to over >50 against the very best are.

 

[Snatch]

Nice it looks like the SRT thread of highest avg after 100 test matches has led to this thread. Ahhh I love it...

It was actually the Bradman thread, & me reflecting upon the fact Bradman mostly playing against the best opposition team in his career, so I was interested in how the modern batsmen feared when you strip out minnows and ordinary sides of the last 35 years like the WI, NZ & SL.

I was amazed some of them still managed to average over 50 nonetheless. Very impressive.

 

[AhsanAK]

Among These and Looking at the Bowling Lineups These have faced........

I would go with Brian Lara on top with Younis Khan next in line. There presence enough was scary enough to make the bowlers struggle to dish'em out.

 

[Snatch]

What about Sanga, 90 Tests versus the best sides and averaging near on 54. Astonishing this guy.

And Y Khan, wow.

 

[par]

If you leave out India which is not a good bowling side most of the time, the list sees a huge shuffle.

 

[Indiafan]

Unfortunately SRT misses out as he didnt get to play Pakistan much during this period where he was scoring runs everywhere else. Andy Flower was such a phenomenon, wasnt he?

 

[Indiafan]

If you leave out India which is not a good bowling side most of the time, the list sees a huge shuffle.

View attachment 72136

Leave out Pakistan too as Indian legends hardly got to play them

 

[Pantani]

If you leave out India which is not a good bowling side most of the time, the list sees a huge shuffle.

View attachment 72136

What a load of rubbish, touring India is the hardest challenge besides touring Australia. Indian bowlers suck overseas but at home they play like ATGs.

 

[Snatch]

If you leave out India which is not a good bowling side most of the time, the list sees a huge shuffle.

View attachment 72136

Wow Look at Lara against the very best. I remember reading years ago that he tended to get bored against the more ordinary opposition and needed the best opposition to be at his best, and looking at those stats, I now believe it. Outstanding.

 

[Snatch]

What a load of rubbish, touring India is the hardest challenge besides touring Australia. Indian bowlers suck overseas but at home they play like ATGs.

This is a fair comment, both Pakistan and India should be included along with Aust, SA & Eng as the best 5 sides since 1990.

The West Indies were still strong in the early/mid nineties, & really started to slide after 2000. Sri Lanka had some good years with Murali, and NZ in the early 2000s when Fleming was captain, but overall those 3 sides were ordinary.

 

[Indiafan]

Wow Look at Lara against the very best. I remember reading years ago that he tended to get bored against the more ordinary opposition and needed the best opposition to be at his best, and looking at those stats, I now believe it. Outstanding.

Why dont we take a look at "away" records (ie playing in those countries). After all, playing at home is not that great according to everyone here. Sachin was far better than Lara playing away (ie playing the best team at their home)

 

[Snatch]

If you leave out India which is not a good bowling side most of the time, the list sees a huge shuffle.

View attachment 72136

Had to look twice at Gilly's batting SR.

Even Lara's is pretty good being over 60 for his time. Man he could dominate that guy.

 

[Snatch]

Why dont we take a look at "away" records (ie playing in those countries). After all, playing at home is not that great according to everyone here. Sachin was far better than Lara playing away (ie playing the best team at their home)

Mate, there are thousands of different ways to slice up players stats. I just wanted to keep this one simple and see who really were the best against the 5 strongest Test sides of the last 35 years or so. Bradman only got to play against 4 sides, and mostly England, the very best at that time, therefore I just wanted to look at the best modern batsmen against the top 5.

I could have gone top 4, but figured India and Pakistan were quite even so included both.

 

[Buffet]

If you leave out India which is not a good bowling side most of the time, the list sees a huge shuffle.

India is normally good bowling side in India and poor away from India due to lack of pacers.

 

[Buffet]

What a load of rubbish, touring India is the hardest challenge besides touring Australia. Indian bowlers suck overseas but at home they play like ATGs.

Agree here. Facing Indian bowlers in India is different than facing them outside of India.

 

[par]

What a load of rubbish, touring India is the hardest challenge besides touring Australia. Indian bowlers suck overseas but at home they play like ATGs.

For most of the 90s Kumble was the only threat in India. And most of the matches were high scoring matches in India.

 

[Snatch]

For most of the 90s Kumble was the only threat in India. And most of the matches were high scoring matches in India.

I think this is a little harsh actually. They were always good attacks at home and Srinath was an excellent pace bowler.

If you leave out India which is not a good bowling side most of the time, the list sees a huge shuffle.

View attachment 72136

How's Saleem Malik's record against the top sides too Fantastic, underrated player that guy.

But if you look at the number of matches played Lara and Sangakkara were in a class of their own in that query


I think 20 years into the future, people will look back at wonder about Sangakkara's record, whether it's his overall one or his efforts against the best Test opponents. Master batsman & when in form made batting look as easy as Lara and Ponting, which is really saying something.

 

[par]

I think this is a little harsh actually. They were always good attacks at home and Srinath was an excellent pace bowler.

I agree. But India will easily go to the last position among 5 teams you picked in the OP, bowling wise.

 

[Snatch]

I agree. But India will easily go to the last position among 5 teams you picked in the OP, bowling wise.

Possibly, as I said I could have left India out and gone with the top 4 as a relative comparison with what Bradman faced, but found it tough to leave either India or Pakistan out as I think they've been pretty even overall as Test teams since 1990.

 

[Bilal7]

Needs a cutoff of around 45-50 matches otherwise the likes of Root and Kohli who have only played a handful of matches away against those teams will be on the list. Also, Saleem Malik and David Warner really shouldn't be there.

 

[Snatch]

Needs a cutoff of around 45-50 matches otherwise the likes of Root and Kohli who have only played a handful of matches away against those teams will be on the list. Also, Saleem Malik and David Warner really shouldn't be there.

I'd used 1000 runs which is usually indicative.

 

[Bilal7]

I'd used 1000 runs which is usually indicative.

It's not because some of these guys have barely played 10 tests against the top five sides, away. Over a large sample size, the home and away stats balance out but with no cutoff, it just depends on who has had the tougher schedule until now.

 

[Chrish]

These numbers aren't very useful without the distinction of home vs away performance etc.

 

[Convict]

Definitely feels unfair to ignore the players who had to face peak Ambrose and Walsh

 

[Sachin136]

Here are the stats for matches away from home against those 5 teams since 1990.



http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[R0H1T]

What a farce & the joke OP's list is, seriously ~ http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

If we're talking about the 90's why not stick to just the 90's since the tests from 2000 onwards will paint a completely different picture!

Here are the stats for matches away from home against those 5 teams since 1990.

View attachment 72144

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

I have no idea why did he just pick 5 sides, another obvious agenda perhaps?

 

[R0H1T]

Also the rankings change, depending on the opposition you omit but there's always a few constants at the top!

Without SA & SL - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Not without SA & NZ - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Minus SL & NZ - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[Stallion__]

Here are the stats for matches away from home against those 5 teams since 1990.

View attachment 72144

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Why is this table different from OPs? Shouldn't it be same?

 

[Snatch]

I have no idea why did he just pick 5 sides, another obvious agenda perhaps?

Then you can't have been reading since I explained it twice in this very thread.

Mate, there are thousands of different ways to slice up players stats. I just wanted to keep this one simple and see who really were the best against the 5 strongest Test sides of the last 35 years or so. Bradman only got to play against 4 sides, and mostly England, the very best at that time, therefore I just wanted to look at the best modern batsmen against the top 5.

I could have gone top 4, but figured India and Pakistan were quite even so included both.

Possibly, as I said I could have left India out and gone with the top 4 as a relative comparison with what Bradman faced, but found it tough to leave either India or Pakistan out as I think they've been pretty even overall as Test teams since 1990.

 

[R0H1T]

Then you can't have been reading since I explained it twice in this very thread.

If you look at the 90's every team was competitive at some point in time, none were at minnow level & barring a few outliers I don't think there were many whitewashes. In fact since 2000 & 2010's we've had more clean sweeps than 70/80's combined, though due to different reasons.

I'd argue in the 90's when WI was on the decline, there were more competitive teams than any other decade before or since. Taking the top 8 stats would be the right way to go alternatively top 4 could also depend on whether we exclude the WI side, since they fell off a cliff rather quickly after their first test series defeat in 20(?) years.

 

[Snatch]

If you look at the 90's every team was competitive at some point in time, none were at minnow level & barring a few outliers I don't think there were many whitewashes. In fact since 2000 & 2010's we've had more clean sweeps than 70/80's combined, though due to different reasons.

That's just not true, NZ were god awful between about 1991-1996. They were losing to everybody, even at home including SL. And they couldn't even put away Zim at home in 1996. It was only when Fleming took over around 1996-97 that they were anywhere near competitive.

I think SL were still weak in Tests until the mid 90s as well.

I know that Zim fluked that win in Pakistan at some stage there but they were minnows as well.

 

[R0H1T]

That's just not true, NZ were god awful between about 1991-1996. They were losing to everybody, even at home including SL. And they couldn't even put away Zim at home in 1996. It was only when Fleming took over around 1996-97 that they were anywhere near competitive.

I think SL were still weak in Tests until the mid 90s as well.

I know that Zim fluked that win in Pakistan at some stage there but they were minnows as well.

I was talking about top 8, Zim don't feature in that debate. The 90's can really be divided in two halves, first till 95/96 & then the latter half in which WI were no longer the team to beat.

If you're talking about certain series/teams then what about England? They were mauled in India, consistently humiliated by Aus, perhaps a few other series as well where they weren't competitive at all. Looks to me as if you've already decided the top 5 & then presented the data to support a hypothesis, from that Bradman thread. From my very own recollection I can see Ind/Pak/Aus/SA/WI being the best in that decade, since 1990 till say 2016, there's only 3 teams at top consistently & you can guess which ones.

The others have had massive troughs, some of them like Eng were really bad for almost a decade (virtually throughout the 90's) & then someone like SL were good only for a decade or so. In the timespan, 25 years, you've highlighted there's massive turnaround in the fortunes of some teams, even India, whilst only two have been really consistent i.e. SA & then Aus.

 

[Snatch]

I was talking about top 8, Zim don't feature in that debate. The 90's can really be divided in two halves, first till 95/96 & then the latter half in which WI were no longer the team to beat.

If you're talking about certain series/teams then what about England? They were mauled in India, consistently humiliated by Aus, perhaps a few other series as well where they weren't competitive at all. Looks to me as if you've already decided the top 5 & then presented the data to support a hypothesis, from that Bradman thread. From my very own recollection I can see Ind/Pak/Aus/SA/WI being the best in that decade, since 1990 till say 2016, there's only 3 teams at top consistently & you can guess which ones.

The others have had massive troughs, some of them like Eng were really bad for almost a decade (virtually throughout the 90's) & then someone like SL were good only for a decade or so. In the timespan, 25 years, you've highlighted there's massive turnaround in the fortunes of some teams, even India, whilst only two have been really consistent i.e. SA & then Aus.

Here's the win/loss ratio by teams since 1990 and the 5 teams I said were the best, have been very clearly. And this wouldn't change if you took it to the point when the last of those batsmen Kallis & Sanga retired.

In the last 25 years or so it's not even close between England and the West Indies, even if they were better in the early 90s.

 

[Bilal7]

Here are the stats for matches away from home against those 5 teams since 1990.

View attachment 72144

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Amla being the best of the lot, Khan averaging 50+ and more than Sanga and Dravid. #Legends.

 

[Ab Fan]

SL were a very strong bowling attack at home with Murali and Vaas in 2000s.

SL were mediocre in 90s and have been so in this decade.

It's tough actually to make such comparisons. You also got to look at the pitches offered series by series.

Example: Ind vs SA 2015 series in comparison to India vs England in 2016.

 

[Perth93]

How old are you, Snatch?

When did you start watching tests bro?

As my Profile Pic will suggest, I began watching cricket back in the mid 80s, a time when we used to look down upn 'trundlers' like Amby and Walsh.

Suffice it to say, you missed out on some proper test cricket.

And I say that without malice and arrogance, just sadness that you missed out on the BIGGEST team in world cricket in the 80s: the West Indies.

So, from 1990- 1999, if you want to evaluate batsmen or bowlers, the West Indies must be in your search filter.



The reason I grew up adoring Pakistan, despite being a Delhiite, is that I remember the incredible Khan and his team against the caribbeans from 86 to 93.

So let's put it this way. The top 5 teams from 1990 till 2017 should definitely have West Indies in your list: and for the purpose of your list, I'd say your sample size is too old. Post WW2, Cricket has changed every 15 years. The eras are 1945-60, 1960-75, 1975-90 and so on,,,


So if you want to rank batsmen, I'd request you to consider the following 3 periods, because your list would be more fair and accurate. And you'll find new names to research, tbh.


Era 1; 1975 to 1990: Here, you might want to add batsmen like Alan Lamb, Gooch, Border, Chappell, Martin Crowe, Miandad, etc.

Era 2: 1990 to 2005: Slater, Robin Smith, Azhar, Inzi, MoYo, Sehwag etc

Era 3: 2005 till 2020: the current era

My point is, by neglecting west indies, your search parameters don't do justice to Cricket's natural evolution.

1945-60: England, Australia, West Indies, South Africa were top 4 test sides
1960-75: Australia, South Africa, West Indies, England
1975-90: West Indies, Pakistan, New Zealand, Australia
1990-2005: Australia, South Africa, West Indies, Pakistan
2005-current: Australia, South Africa, England, India

So the search parameters must evolve accordingly.

Fair to say since 1990, the best 5 test sides have been Australia, South Africa, England, India and Pakistan.

I was interesting in looking at the modern batting records against these very top sides.

Turns out of the batsmen since 1990 (min 1000 runs) there are 12 batsmen who still managed to average >50 even against the 5 top test sides of the last 35 years.

Surprisingly Flower is the best of them when it comes to average.

Those to over >50 against the very best are.

 

[Sachin136]

Why is this table different from OPs? Shouldn't it be same?

The table in the OP is for home and away matches.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Here's the win/loss ratio by teams since 1990 and the 5 teams I said were the best, have been very clearly. And this wouldn't change if you took it to the point when the last of those batsmen Kallis & Sanga retired.

In the last 25 years or so it's not even close between England and the West Indies, even if they were better in the early 90s.

Why would you look at win loss ratio for rating batsmen? You want to judge batsmen against top 5 bowling attacks, not top 5 teams

 

[Buffet]

Why would you look at win loss ratio for rating batsmen? You want to judge batsmen against top 5 bowling attacks, not top 5 teams

It's a good point. But there havn't been a constant top 5 bowling units if you take the period from 1990. SL was not so gun in 90s, but they were very good in 00s. WI were certainly the top 5 bowling unit in 90s but they were poor after that. So clubbing everyone for a long period like 25 years is meaningless if you are talking about top 5 bowling unit.

To put it in perspective,

SA/Aus bowling average starting from 1990s is 29.

Then you have Pakistan/India/SL/India/WI all 5 in range of 32-34.

If OP is talking about Bradman playing against top bowling side then parallel for this entire period will be Aus and SA bowling unit. Rest of them will fall short by some margin when you start talking about entire period of 25 years.

Against these two bowling units , 21 batsmen have 2k+ runs, but only two batsmen have averaged 50+. Not surprised with those two names, It's SRT and Lara. Others have averaged in 40s. This is a bit unfair for Aus and SA batsmen because their sample size is reduced.