Adam Voges is the second-best batsman of all time. The stats say so.
Yes, yes, yes, I realise the sample size of the relevant material isn’t very big (played at least 20 Tests) so you can stop your coughing, but until somebody else puts up better numbers than Voges, then in second place he will remain.
Better than Graeme Pollock, superior to Sachin Tendulkar, usurping Jacques Kallis and waving back at Brain Lara.
Better, in fact, than everybody bar Don Bradman, who isn’t likely to relinquish his grip on top spot. If ever, actually.
But back to Voges. A good, solid operator who, with years of first-class cricket behind him, took his belated chance with both hands and firmly endorsed the adage of not being able to buy experience.
All achieved under the forever loosening scythe of Old Father Time, Voges’ late flowering was a nice and simple lesson for not only cricketers but sportsmen and women the world over, of never giving up because you just never know when fate is going to deal you a decent hand.
It is inevitable that what he achieved will induce a retort by some of being a consequence of the era played in; of weaker bowling attacks and flatter surfaces; of a lack of patience showed by the younger generation. But therein lies the crux of the argument that pits era against era.
It generally makes for good conversation but always without a definitive answer.
There are seemingly indisputable facts formed by a proximity to a particular time. George Best had few equals as a footballer to many of my dad’s age, but those who have only seen Lionel Messi may disagree. I’ve not seen a golfer capable of getting anywhere near Tiger Woods in his prime, but I wasn’t around to see Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus strutting their stuff.
I could go on and on, renegotiating the same circle time and again without ever spying a finish line.
If some kind of reasoning can be applied to such a quandary then it is usually via the medium of stats. What else, really, is there by which to judge?
There will never be a completely reliable method as eyewitness accounts are subjective but at least numbers add something tangible, the meat to the bone if you like. Yet even then, the full story cannot be trusted to a computer screen or spreadsheet.
Not even Voges himself would place his ability as a batsman alongside some of the luminaries mentioned, but it’s hardly his fault that the West Indians he faced didn’t have Curtly Ambrose and Malcolm Marshall galloping in, or the New Zealand vintage of 2016 weren’t led by Richard Hadlee.
It was thought-provoking the other year when suggestions were made regarding the stats from the pink-ball Test matches existing outside of those gathered from the red-ball equivalent; of the novelty element rendering whatever was achieved as needing an asterisk against it.
Not necessarily a silly idea, but where would the line be drawn if you went down that road?
Not all Test cricket has been played on covered wickets, with DRS, with neutral umpires, or with the benefit of artificial light. A couple of those points may be a touch facetious but you get my drift.
It’s an imperfect method but until the day comes when every individual has an identical environment and set of circumstances, in all of its manipulative glory, it’ll simply have to do.
Cricket exists in a sea of stats, it always has and it always will. Their relevance may come and go depending on what’s in vogue at the time – Peter Moores was slaughtered for supposedly relying on them during England’s disastrous 2015 World Cup but T20 franchises are increasingly basing their strategies on data – but they’re not going away.
So while you can mock all you like, Adam Voges is the second best batsman of all time.
Why? The stats say so.
Fox
Roar Guru
Fox
Roar Guru
"George Best had few equals as a footballer" Well certainly not when it came to a drinking competition,violent outbursts and his arrest sheet..
Matth
Guest
I feel sorry for Adam Voges. He got dropped just as he was hitting his straps. His average was just about to explode.
Alec Swann
Expert
Sheek You may have missed the point somewhat. If you have to explain that it's written with tongue firmly in cheek then it doesn't really work.
sheek
Roar Guru
Alec, What utter rubbish & nonsense. Fast bowler Bill Johnston was the outstanding batsman of the 1953 Ashes tour of England, averaging 102. Forget that he had 16 not outs in 17 innings & therefore only actually averaged six runs per visit to the crease. Also forget that Neil Harvey scored 2040 runs for an average of 65.80 or Keith Miller scored 1433 runs at 51.17. And Harvey was the best bowler on the 1953 tour, the stats say so. He took just four four wickets for 43 runs at an average of 10.75. Forget that Ray Lindwall took 85 wickets at 16.40. Also forget that the afore-mentioned Johnston took 75 wickets at 20.54. Let's stop this nonsense & rubbish now. Stats are informative, they are not definitive.
Swanny
Guest
I'd still take Viv Richards at 64
qwetzen
Guest
Not as badly as the skipper. He managed an incredible 16.5 batting average over the 5 Tests. Let's tear into him instead!
qwetzen
Guest
"gutsing"? What is "gutsing"? Is it a Merv Hughes related activity?
Shane Potter
Guest
Failed dismally in England when it really mattered.
Rod
Guest
If you take all there stats into consideration you get a better idea. From memory over all class of cricket and over 300 games Bradman average is about 90. That is enough to suggest what a unbelievable player he was . Voges is about 48
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Yes, it is 20 innings and not 20 Tests. Some stats gurus, such as Ric Finlay, don't seem to have have much faith in an arbitrary cut-off point. If one Test is enough, then New Zealand's Rodney Redmond is up near the summit with an average of 81.50.
The Bush
Roar Guru
How do professional journalists keep making this mistake. It's 20 innings, not 20 tests for the statistical cut off. Voges just happened to play 20 tests.
Celtic334
Guest
Zimbabwe were half respectful back them. Allistair Campbell (Test 27.2, ODI 30.5) Brendan Taylor (Test 34.72, ODI 34.82) Murray Goodwin (Test 42.84, ODI 27.13) Andy Flower (Test 51.54, ODI 35.34) Grant Flower (Test 29.5, ODI 33.52) Neil Johnson (Test 24.18, ODI 36.5 - Test 39.6, ODI 34.84) Tatenda Taibu (Test 30.31, ODI 29.25) Heath Streak (Test 22.35, ODI 28.29 - Test 28.14, ODI 29.82) Andy Blinaught (Test 26.84, ODI 18.96 - Test 37.05, ODI 41.26) Paul Strang (Test 27.06, ODI 22.24 - Test 36.02, ODI 33.05) Henry Olonga (Test 38.52, ODI 34.08) Alright might not have been the same team, but got my thinking they were at least half respectful and probably better than some of the dross going around atm. Think it might be time to call it a day at work and grab a beer. haha
Johnno
Guest
Big difference though is less tests back then, so 21 test would be like 35 today, so Viv had a lot of time to settle in so to speak, and develop his game. Somone did a thing an article last week saying Dean Jones had a better average than Ponting after 52 tests. But 52 tests would be like 70 today, so Ponting raked up 50 tests quicker so less time to develop game.
bigbaz
Roar Guru
True, but nobody else did.
Wayne Mosher
Guest
It's the same with Matthew Hayden's all time top score for Australia. He scored 380 all right, but against ZIMBABWE. Not against England, India or New Zealand, but scored against the basket case that is and was Zimbabwean cricket. Some records should just not count.
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
Yeah but you'd take pills you found on a bathroom floor...
Art Vanderlay
Guest
I think his mum had a bit of a soft spot for him too bb.
Art Vanderlay
Guest
Jeez Alec, please don't clench your teeth at the moment, you'll chop your tongue off!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It's the same as the current player rankings. They take into account quality of the opposition, as well as other performances in the same match (eg, if you scored 200 in a match where there were 5 other centuries including a teammate getting 300, that wouldn't score you as many points as scoring 120 in a match where the next best score by any batsman was 20!) and it''s also weighted to the more recent performances, so over time the older ones drop off, meaning a player having a great 18 months can shoot to the top of the rankings for a period of time. The rankings show what players current ratings are, and they also have the highest ever rating they've achieved in their careers. The overall player rankings list is basically done applying those rules to all players who've played the game based on showing the best ranking that was achieved at any point through their career, rather than one that takes into account their whole career. So it sort of shows how good they were at their absolute best, rather than how good they managed to be over their entire career. As Voges did very well (as shown by his stats) in the time he played, he's still going to do reasonably well on that ranking list. The fact that pretty much all those runs were scored in matches where lots of runs were scored overall has a lot to do with the fact he's as far down as 83. As is the fact that it might require more than 20 tests for a full rating. But the fact is, that if you score all those runs you are still going to have a pretty decent rating, even against poor opposition where lots of runs were scored.