Waugh ranking on Top 100 list sparks debate

Since we published the first instalment of our Top 100 players of the 21^st Century, the debate has raged, and rightly so. Cricket is a global game we all love, and we all have our favourite moments, our favourite players, heroes and villains.

We expected, and encouraged, debate. We set out to present a new look at old stats and set a clear cut-off date. This was to be a 21^st century list, so performances only after 1 January 2000 could be counted.

But one ranking has – so far – overshadowed all others. How could we rank Stephen Rodger Waugh at 70, below the likes of Vaughan, Strauss and Bell?

For starters, remember that only Waugh’s final 44 Test matches come into consideration, which means he is judged on the fewer than 3,000 runs he scored.

So let’s put this in perspective.

Only four – yes, four – out-and-out batsmen with fewer than 3,000 runs made the top 100.

The other three were contemporary guns Virat Kohli (ranked No.49), Steve Smith (71) and Joe Root (82).

Smith and Root are both below Waugh on the list (despite boasting better batting averages in the qualifying period) because neither can be said to have had the same impact Waugh did, even considering only his final four years.

Kohli was considerably higher in the rankings largely due to his remarkable recent summer in Australia; in foreign conditions, against an attack that ripped through England in 2013-14, he reigned supreme, scoring more runs and hundreds than any Indian has ever scored in one series in Australia.

(Incidentally, while Smith scored more runs than him in that series, Kohli earns significant bonus points for doing it overseas, and other factors were considered in the disparity between their rankings – but that’s another argument altogether)

That Kohli bettered Tendulkar and co was one thing, that he did it against a world-class attack was another, and that he did it with the responsibility of the captaincy thrust on his shoulders in that first Test took it to an altogether new level.

Despite the fact we can only factor in his 2,825 runs, Waugh’s influence as a captain and a leader and his continued excellence as a batsman earn him what we believe is an impressive spot on the list.

So let’s dig a little deeper.

Waugh accumulated those runs (roughly 25 per cent of his career output) at 53 with 11 hundreds. Outstanding in anyone’s language.

But when were those hundreds scored, and against whom?

Well two came against Bangladesh, the lowest-ranked Test nation of the time.

Six others were in dead rubbers.

The other three – in New Zealand, India and England – were outstanding innings, but our argument is that Waugh’s magnificent legacy as one of the all-time great Test batsmen was established during the brutal 1990s, when he faced some of the world’s best-ever fast bowlers and emerged triumphant.

Was Waugh a better player than Vaughan, Strauss and Bell?

In our opinion, absolutely.

But that’s not the question being asked.

Image Id: ~/media/B83CE1F2280349AAA559F4EC2B16684A

Moreover, was Waugh a better player from 2000 onwards than Bell, Cook and Strauss?

We don’t believe so.

And why not?

Brilliant as a leader and a batsman, Waugh certainly had a sizeable impact in the 44 Tests he played. Which is why he made the list at 70.

But Strauss (twice) and Vaughan (against one of the greatest-ever Test teams) were Ashes-winning captains also, and scored at least twice as many runs as Waugh in the specified period, while Bell has double the centuries of Waugh and was Player of the Series in the 2013 Ashes (as was Vaughan, incredibly, on the losing side in 2002-03).

As an aside, in their final 44 Tests, Strauss (2,826), Vaughan (2,790) and Bell (2,786) all scored a remarkably similar number of runs as Waugh (2,825) in his final 44 Tests. And while admittedly Waugh’s runs were scored at a considerably greater average than all three, the Englishman have the sizeable advantage of having the other significant chunks of their careers (Vaughan 36 Tests, Strauss 56, Bell 66) post 2000 being factored into the equation, and it is that extra output that contributes greatly to their rankings being higher than Waugh’s.

As a further aside, Strauss and Bell were the only two batsmen to have scored 20 Test hundreds this century to be ranked outside the top 40, while VVS Laxman, Michael Hussey and Justin Langer were the only batsmen with fewer than 20 hundreds to make the top 40, meaning volume counted for plenty, but not everything.

Counting down the Top 100

• 100-91 
• 90-81 
• 80-71 
• 70-61
• 60-51
• 50-41