Jacques Kallis is on top of this list, pipping Ricky Ponting to second place © Getty Images

Recently Cricinfo came out with their Player of the Decade article. It was the compilation of 1-2-3 positions posted by over 38 reputed players/journalists. The final results were quite impressive and very fair. However it is true that the jury, while using the decade numbers available, still finally made their informed subjective selections. They would obviously have considered factors beyond numbers since for some players such as Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Ponting, Muralitharan etc, numbers tell only part of the story.

I have decided to do a pure numbers-based analysis of the decade from all relevant angles and come with my own list of the top players. This is not to find any holes in the Cricinfo list but to study along with it. Let me say that I have not been asked by Cricinfo to do this and this is on my own initiative.

A typical paragraph in the said article might have run.

"He scored ****** Test runs at a high average of **.**. More than half these runs were scored away. In ODIs his compilation was ****** runs at a middling average of **.** and an outstanding strike rate of ***.*. In addition he picked up a total of *** international wickets at averages way below the average for the decade. His fielding was brilliant and he took *** catches. His team had a better than **% winning record in both Tests and ODIs. He led his team through player change phases very effectively".

Or parts of this paragraph for different players. I have made all efforts to translate each of these "*****"s to measurable and rateable numbers.

Some guidelines.

1. Tests and ODIs will get equal weight (50%/50%). I do not think many would have complaints with this. T20 will not be considered since only around 100 matches have been played.

2. Batting and Bowling will get equal weight (35%/35%). This also should not bother anyone other than those who would oppose this in order to push up their favourite players. However I have always felt that the Bowlers get a raw deal and I will not be a party to that.

3. For key factors such as Runs scored and Wickets captured I will use the unadjusted figures since we are only considering the past 10 years and there have not been many variations during this period.

4. For batting and bowling performance measurements, I will only use the standard accepted measures such as Average, Strike rate, RpO et al. I will not use any derived measures. This makes sense.

5. Fielding, in the form of catches and stumpings, will carry some weight (5%/5%). Oh I know this will benefit the wicket-keepers. I am quite comfortable with that especially as that is the most difficult task on the field.

6. Wins will carry some weight (4%/3%). I know this will elicit complaints from supporters of players whose teams have not performed well. However winning is the most important part of any sport and we have to recognize that.

7. Some weight will be given to captaincy (3%/3%), only in the form of number of matches captained since the previous point would have taken into account the results. The captain clearly shoulders a major additional responsibility in addition to the batting, bowling and wicket-keeping tasks and this factor has to be recognized.

8. For ODIs some weight will be given to success in the major events such as World Cups and ICC Cups (3%). 2 World Cups and 5 ICC Cups were held during this period. After all these are Blue Ribbon events and merit special recognition.

9. Since I will not be taking in the match level performances, I will give some weight (3%/2%) for the number of Man of the Match awards secured. This may not be perfect but is a clear indicator to the contributions by the players towards achieving wins.

10. The period 2000-2009 will be implemented strictly irrespective of mid-series positions.

11. Other than the common-sense based points weight, this will be a completely objective analysis based on known irrefutable facts and no assumptions or derivations.

12. This is an analysis of what was achieved during the decade. Injuries, non-selections, boycotts, home country problems, opt-outs, ICC bans (ICL???), backstage manipulations et al have no relevance here. If I have to make allowance for Tendulkar's injury during early 2000s, I also have to make allowance for the enforced absence of the talented Pakistani players over the past few years. No, those doors are closed. It is what was achieved on the field during the decade which will count.

13. For the purposes of this analysis I have fixed the minimum criteria as either 5000 international (Test+ODI) runs or 200 international wickets. 82 players quailfy. Anyone who misses these numbers is unlikely to be even in the peripheral vision of any jury.

At no stage should the readers forget that the purpose is to find out the Player of the decade, based on all relevant factors, including batting, bowling, fielding, captaincy responsibilities, team performances, successes et al. These are Batting or Bowling analyses.

Let us view the table now. The Players of the decade table is presented bwloe.

No RtgPts  Player                Test     ODI  Cricinfo
                                               Position
 1. 57.22  Kallis J.H           31.42   25.80     2
 2. 52.18  Ponting R.T          27.21   24.97     1
 3. 48.45  Pollock S.M          22.24   26.21
 4. 47.62  Muralitharan M       24.84   22.78     4
 5. 46.25  Jayasuriya S.T       19.16   27.09
 6. 44.69  Tendulkar S.R        19.93   24.75     6
 7. 44.27  Gilchrist A.C        21.07   23.20     3
 8. 42.83  Gayle C.H            18.23   24.60
 9. 41.00  Flintoff A           19.54   21.46
10. 40.31  Lee B                17.53   22.78
11. 40.02  Sehwag V             18.91   21.11
12. 39.97  Vettori D.L          19.87   20.10
13. 39.94  Sangakkara K.C       20.91   19.03
14. 39.78  Jayawardene D.P.M.D  21.80   17.98
15. 39.18  Dravid R             21.73   17.44     9
16. 38.96  McGrath G.D          18.65   20.31     5
17. 37.72  Ganguly S.C          15.33   22.39
18. 37.70  Hayden M.L           21.83   15.87
19. 37.69  Vaas WPUJC           18.03   19.67
20. 37.15  Smith G.C            20.66   16.49
21. 36.58  Warne S.K            22.93   13.65     7
22. 34.72  Harbhajan Singh      16.86   17.87
23. 34.52  Ntini M              17.35   17.16
24. 33.59  Mohammad Yousuf      17.54   16.05
25. 33.45  Clarke M.J           13.42   20.03

Note: Lara and Chanderpaul are outside the top-25. 

Jaques Kallis had huge numbers supporting him and there is no doubt he deserved his top position on this basis. It is also certain that his team's lack of success has not helped him a lot.

- 16490 runs / 399 wickets / 201 ct-st / 209 wins / 34 MOMs / 13 captaincies.

Ricky Ponting has his team successes supporting him and he deserves his second place. Not to forget his own personal contributions towards achieving these wins. He could very well have been on top.

- 18561 runs / 3 wickets / 239 ct-st / 301 wins / 2 WC + 2 ICC wins / 36 MOMs / 318 captaincies.

There is a surprise at the third position. Shaun Pollock shows that he is one of the under-rated all-rounders. The averages and rpo figures are amongst the best of this decade.

- 4731 runs / 535 wickets / 135 ct-st / 181 wins / 23 MOMs / 142 captaincies.

Muralitharan with his tally of 898 wickets is in fourth position. Jayasuriya is in a deserved fifth position with 12527 runs and 205 wickets. Gilchrist with 12373 runs and 759 ct/st dismissals follows. The summary of formulae used. Given below are numbers to get maximum wt values for Tests/ODIs.

Runs:     10000/10000
Wkts:     600/400
BatAvge:  60/60
BowAvge:  20/20
Ct/St:    400/400
Wins:     150/200
Capts:    150/200
MOMs:     16/30
ODI S/R:  1.25 for max
ODI Rpo:  3.0 for max.

To download the complete set of tables, please right-click here and save the file.

I am sure when the esteemed jury voted they took into consideration the non-numerical factors. That would have been the correct thing to do. As such, Ponting, with the type of team building he has done on the field could be comfortably placed at the top. The impact Muralitharan has on Sri Lankan cricket would have propelled him into the third position and the same with Gilchrist, even after retirement. Nothing needs to be said about the colossus, Tendulkar. His mid-table position is certainly justified.

Now it becomes a bit murky. The ignorance of Jayasuriya and Shaun Pollock by the jury is baffling. Until 6 months back Jayasuriya has been magical on the field. Shaun Pollock is as good an all-rounder as Kallis. Kallis might be ahead by a mile in batting but Pollock is in front by three-fourths of a mile in bowling. His accuracy in ODI cricket is legendary. Gayle's continued poor performances under Lara's captaincy might have counted against him. Also he did not have a great test decade. Flintoff was injured too often to be under serious consideration. Brett Lee was also a better ODI bowler than in Tests.

As far as Lara is concerned, he was forced into a hurried retirement by the non-Trinadian-clique at the end of the World Cup, when he had couple of years of top-level Test cricket ahead of him. He still had a pretty good Test decade but his ODI performances during the decade were quite indifferent and I am surprised that one juror even voted him at the top.

Overall I would say the jury did an excellent job. The numbers analysis supports them quite strongly. For once a committee approach has worked very well.

My 1-2-3 ??? Kallis, Ponting, Tendulkar/Muralitharan. Did I hear someone say, only 3. Tough luck, it is my selection. And if you add Gilchrist & McGrath, two of my favourite cricketers, we have the Cricinfo top-6.

(This piece has been written in collaboration with Anshu Jain: Updated on Sunday, Jan 16/17)

Based on Alex Tierno's excellent suggestion I had worked on Batting Power Factor - a simple measure to determine the most destructive ODI innings through simple, easy-to-create methodologies. The article was well-received because of the simplicity of the idea. My thanks to Alex.

It follows logically that I should create a similar Power Factor for bowling. I had asked for suggestions. The simplest and most effective suggestion, closest to what I myself was thinking, came from Anshu Jain. My thanks to Anshu.

The requirements are set out below.

1. The methodology should be easy to understand and easy to work out. I have been influenced by Sattvir who mentioned that he wanted to calculate the IPF for each innings as he watches TV. There should be no need to go to the net to get the batsman average or bowler strike rate or whetever. Everything should be available from the Scorecard. A calculator might be needed.

2. The first factor to be recognized is the number of wickets captured. This is the most signicant of a bowler's contributions in a match. It should be recognized that in a 10 over spell, capturing more number of wickets is progressively more difficult. Unlike batting where a batsman can play 150 balls and score 200 runs, here the bowler achieves all in a spell limited to 20% of team overs.

3. The batting position of wickets captured is also important. Not necessarily the batting average.

4. Bowling accuracy is important but only in relation to the team numbers. By itself the bowling accuracy figure means very little as explained below.

India: 150/50 overs (Lee 10-2-25-2,Johnson 10-1-40-2,Watson 10-1-35-1) 
India: 250/50 overs (Lee 10-0-45-2,Johnson 10-1-40-2,Watson 10-0-55-1) 

Johnson has identical analysis in both matches. However his bowling in the first match is below-par and in the second batch is above-par. Lee has been above-par in both matches and Watson is below-par in both matches.

So the Bowling Accuracy index will be determined based on the bowler's numbers as well as the team's numbers.

I considered briefly and discarded the "% of team wickets" measure since good 4 and 3 wicket performances, where the "% of team wickets" figure was 100, moved up drastically in an unjustifiable manner. This is quite unlike the "% of team score" measure which moves in a 10%-20% band.

Methodology used:

The base is the wicket points. The following are the points allotted. There is a progressive increase for each wicket.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
7  15  25  37  50  64  80  100

To determine the wicket quality, batting position is determined rather than batting average. Anyhow the best batsmen normally bat within no.4. Also if Ponting bats at no.10 his wicket is nowhere as important as at no.4. If a team is reduced to nothing for 3 or 4, it is normally quite difficult to recover. The bowler who captures top order wickets is rewarded and the bowler who captures low order wickets is penalized. This is based on the following formula.

Wickets 1 -  4: 2.0 points
Wickets 5 -  6: 1.5 points
Wickets 7 -  8: 0.75 points
Wickets 9 - 11: 0.25 points

The total for all wickets is added and divided by the number of wickets to arrive at the Wicket Quality Index value. The highest value for WQI is 2.0 (the bowler all whose wickets are 1-4) and the lowest value for WQI is 0.25 (the bowler all whose wickets are 9-11).

The Bowling Accuracy Index is determined by dividing the "Other bowlers' RpO" by the Bowler RpO. The highest ratio value for relevant spells is 10.16 (Walsh's 5 for 1 against SLK). In fact in 3882 such spells only 10 values are above 4 and represent completely bizarre situations, as perfectly illustrated by the Walsh spell. Hence these ratios are first capped at 4.0 and then the square root taken to arrive at the BAI. The index maximum is thus 2.0. This halving is to enure that for a bowler to get a par factor of 1.0, he has to perform at a level twice that of the team. Also to ensure parity with the WQI values. The highest value for BAI is 2.0 and the lowest value for BAI is 0.23.

Now the BPF is determined by multiplying the WP (Wicket Points) by WQI and BAI.

Let us look at the table and the top-20 performances. Only bowlers who captured 3 or more wickets are considered.

No Bowler         MtNo For  Vs  Analysis  WktPts  WQI  BAI   BPF

 1 Gilmour G.J    0031 Aus Eng 12.0-6-14-6  64.0 1.71 1.67 182.39
 2 Bichel A.J     1976 Aus Eng 10.0-0-20-7  80.0 1.43 1.52 173.32
 3 McGrath G.D    1970 Aus Nam  7.0-4-15-7  80.0 1.43 1.41 161.62
 4 Johnston D.T   2843 Ire Can 10.0-4-14-5  50.0 1.80 1.79 161.36
 5 Mendis B.A.W   2735 Slk Ind  8.0-1-13-6  64.0 1.42 1.77 160.30
 6 Muralitharan M 1826 Slk Nzl 10.0-3- 9-5  50.0 1.55 2.00 155.00
 7 Imran Khan     0325 Pak Ind 10.0-2-14-6  64.0 1.54 1.56 153.71
 8 Bond S.E       1986 Nzl Aus 10.0-2-23-6  64.0 1.58 1.42 143.70
 9 Vaas WPUJC     1776 Slk Zim  8.0-3-19-8 100.0 1.41 1.02 143.65
10 Joshi S.B      1504 Ind Saf 10.0-6- 6-5  50.0 1.40 2.00 140.00
11 Edwards F.H    2069 Win Zim  7.0-1-22-6  64.0 1.71 1.28 139.55
12 Simmons P.V    0777 Win Pak 10.0-8- 3-4  37.0 1.88 2.00 138.75
13 Umar Gul       2043 Pak Bng  9.0-2-17-5  50.0 1.65 1.67 137.63
14 Aaqib Javed    0685 Pak Ind 10.0-1-37-7  80.0 1.57 1.07 134.73
15 Vaas WPUJC     1950 Slk Bng  9.1-2-25-6  64.0 1.62 1.28 133.59
16 Wasim Akram    0311 Pak Aus  8.0-1-21-5  50.0 1.90 1.41 133.56
17 Styris S.B     1843 Nzl Win  7.0-0-25-6  64.0 1.50 1.38 132.54
18 Strang B.C     1242 Zim Bng 10.0-2-20-6  64.0 1.62 1.26 131.55
19 Streak H.H     2034 Zim Eng  9.0-3-21-4  37.0 1.88 1.89 131.45
20 Waqar Younis   1724 Pak Eng 10.0-0-36-7  80.0 1.68 0.97 130.43

Gilmour's innspell in the World Cup semi-final, rated by many as the best ever bowling performance of all time, comes in top place. 4 top wickets plus 2 of the next 3, complemented by oustanding bowling accuracy figure, contribute to this top position.

The seven wicket spells of Bichel and McGrath are in the next two positions. Bichel captured wickets 2-8. McGrath's spell included 6 of the top-5. Also note the bowling accuracy of both these spells.

D T Johnston took 5 of the top-6 wickets. Every one knows what Mendis did against India in the Asia Cup Final. He took 3 of the top-6 wickets.

Muralitharan's 5-wkt haul, all in the top-6, coupled with a bowling accuracy which is better than his team's figures by more than 4 times has propelled his performance to the top-5. Imran Khan's 6-14 demolition of India is next, followed by Bond's 6-23 against Australia.

Vaas's best ever ODI bowling effort of 8 for 19 is next. He would have captured all 10 wickets but for the introduction of Muralitharan. Joshi's 5 wickets were in the top-8 and he had an RpO figure of 0.6, way below his team's. This takes him to tenth place.

Note the high placement of Simmons' 4 for 3 against Pakistan. Aaqib Javed's 7 for 30 against India is in 14th position since the bowling accuracy just about matched the rest of the bowlers. Waqar Younis' 7 for 36 finds its way into the top-20.

To view/download the complete 3-wkt bowler list, limited to BPF of 50.0 points and above, please click/right-click here and save the file.

I have created an alternative version of the table based on the suggestion of Unnikrishnan in that I have used the Batting quality total points as it is, without dividing by the number of wickets. This has then been multiplued by the BAI value. The points for the 4 batting groups are 10(1-4), 7(5-6), 3(7-8) and 1(9-11) to get a reasonable final number. To view/download the revised 3-wkt bowler list, limited to BPF of 30.0 points (not comparable to the main table) and above, please click/right-click here and save the file.

I am happy that Gilmour stays on top. A few 7-wkt hauls have been pushed down and great 4-5 wkt spells have moved up because the differential values of the base points has been taken out of the equation.

	Sachin Tendulkar: on top in both forms of the game © AFP

Finally the analysis many of you have asked and been waiting for patiently. This has been on the drawing board for the past six months and I have had quite a few exchanges with many readers to fine-tune the analysis. Lot of care has been taken care to equalise performances by the players across years and across formats.

First, the "Twelve Commandments" followed in doing the analysis.

1. Equal weight for Tests and ODI. T20 internationals not included since many top players have not played any T20-I matches and anyhow very few matches have been played. Let the number of T20-I matches cross 1000 before we consider it worthy of inclusion in this type of analysis.
2. Recognise longevity measures but make sure that the total weight does not exceed 20%.
3. Especially for ODI, recognise and incorporate the important fact that during the early 20 years very few ODI matches were played.
4. While evaluating batting average related measure for ODIs, work out an equitable method which is fair to the top order who can build long innings but get dismissed often and late order batsmen who do not have time to build long innings but remain unbeaten more often.
5. Recognise the fact that runs scored against stronger teams should carry additional weight as compared to runs scored against lesser attacks.
6. Recognize how the batsman has performed in comparisons to his peers.
7. Use only career level figures. Match performances, while very relevant would make it difficult to be equitable to Tests and ODIs.
8. Since this analysis is limited to batsmen who played between 1969 and 2009, work out the algorithms based on these years. In other words, keep out of the equation Bradman's outrageous figures. An average of 60.00 is the pinnacle, not halfway down the pole. This has helped to rationalise the analysis quite well.
9. Since this is a pure batsman-based analysis, exclude the non-batting factors such as Captaincy, Results, World Cup wins, Wicketkeeping load etc. Richards and Ponting might have won more matches and World Cups than Tendulkar and Lara but that should not be used to decide who is ahead in this batting analysis.
10. I also decided that I would sum the points at rounded integer level and would tie batsmen who have similar points. I would not use decimal points to separate any groups.
11. The Balls played information is available for Test players with 100% certainty only for the past 15 years. After a long deliberation I decided not to use this since it would mean I would have to extrapolate this based on team balls played for over 25 years of Test matches. That would not have been fair to the earlier batsmen, especially the attacking ones.
12. Finally I thought long and hard and decided not to use the IPF, the new ODI measure suggested by Alex Tierno. The main reason for this is that this is primarily an innings-level performance measure. The secondary reason is that this is a derived measure, not a basic one.

As usual there has to be a minimum criteria. I have decided on 2000 Test runs and 1977 ODI runs (so that Clive Lloyd is included). I am not going to do a batsman analysis which keeps Lloyd out but Vaas/Akram in. 116 players qualify and this is quite a substantial sample size. No Test player of note misses out. The only one who comes to mind is Shahid Afridi, who is one of the ODI greats but has scored only 1683 Test runs, and is unlikely to add more.

The following are the points allotted for different measures.

Tests:  Runs scored     - 100 
        Adjusted runs   -  50 (adjusted for matches played during career)
        Batting average - 200 
        % of Team score -  50
        Bowling quality -  50 (weighted by runs scored)
        Peer comparison -  50 (batting average comparison)

ODIs:   Runs scored     - 100 
        Adjusted runs   -  50 (adjusted for matches played during career)
        Batting average - 100 (adjusted for not outs)
        Scoring Rate    - 150  
        Bowling quality -  40 (weighted by runs scored)
        Peer comparison -  30 (batting average comparison)
        Peer comparison -  30 (strike rate comparison)

The "Adjusted runs" measure requires an explanation, especially for ODIs. This is best explained with an example. Take the case of Zaheer Abbas. He had a career span of 12 years. That is fine and represents a long career. However the problem is that he played only 62 ODIs during this period. Compare this with Mohammad Yousuf who, in a similar 12-year career, has played 278 matches, over 4 times more. An adjustment is needed and this is explained below.

The average number of ODIs per year played by Pakistan during 39 years is 19.7. The average number of ODIs played by Pakistan during Zaheer Abbas's career is 8.00. The runs scored by Zaheer Abbas are multiplied by a factor 2.46 (19.7/8.0) and points allotted for this measure. For Mohammad Yousuf, his career span number for Pakistan is 29.4 and the multiplying factor is 0.67 (19.7/29.4). Thus this redresses the wide imbalance which exists in the number of matches, especially ODIs, played over the years.

Note that the country figures rather than individual player figures are used since the player might not play due to injuries or non-selection. Note also that the base country is used as the base for doing this calculation for the player. Since the number of matches played by various countries varies by a factor of 2.5 to 1, comparisons with a single across-countries base would go haywire.

This is also done for Tests although the variations are far less for Tests.

For Tests, additional credit is given for away averages as compared to overall batting averages. Also away runs scored carry additional weight. The peer comparison is only on batting average.

For ODIs, a measure in between the Batting average and Runs per innings is determined, based on the number of innings and not outs and then the weighting points arrived at. Independent peer comparisons are done on both batting average and strike rate.

For both Tests and ODIs, the bowling quality is used by summing the product of "innings runs scored" and "average of other team bowling average" and dividing the "sum for all innings" by the "career runs scored". A very effective manner of doing this as proved by the fact that Gooch, who faced the formidable West Indian and Australian attacks, has a Test bowling quality figure of 31.98 (index value of 42.1), while Atapattu who has scored tons of runs against the weaker attacks has a bowling quality figure of 40.55 (index value of 10.0).

Now let me unveil the tables. These tables are current upto Test # 1944, which produced the unlikeliest of wins essayed by a resurgent and dynamic England side against a flat and insipid South Africa.

The best batsmen across formats - across years

                                    Test   ODI   Test    ODI
                                    Runs  Runs    Pts    Pts
                                                  500    500

  1  801  Tendulkar S.R       Ind  12970 17394  402.4  398.1 #
  2  726  Lara B.C            Win  11953 10405  395.5  330.9
  3  725  Richards I.V.A      Win   8540  6721  361.2  363.5
  4  723  Ponting R.T         Aus  11557 12311  379.9  342.8 #
  5  689  Kallis J.H          Saf  10479 10409  371.0  318.4 #
  6  677  Dravid R            Ind  11256 10765  375.6  301.6 #
  7  665  Border A.R          Aus  11174  6524  389.6  274.9
  8  662  Waugh S.R           Aus  10927  7569  374.1  287.7
  9  654  Inzamam-ul-Haq      Pak   8830 11739  334.6  319.3
 10  651  Javed Miandad       Pak   8832  7381  349.6  301.6
 11  647  Sehwag V            Ind   6248  6981  318.0  328.5 #
 12  644  Chappell G.S        Aus   7110  2331  363.4  280.5
 13  638  Mohammad Yousuf     Pak   7401  9543  328.8  309.2 #
 14  635  Gilchrist A.C       Aus   5570  9619  292.3  342.3
 14  635  Hayden M.L          Aus   8626  6133  331.1  303.8
 16  622  Chanderpaul S       Win   8669  8250  329.5  292.2 #
 17  621  Gavaskar S.M        Ind  10122  3092  374.6  246.3
 18  620  Waugh M.E           Aus   8029  8500  304.5  315.5
 19  615  Lloyd C.H           Win   7515  1977  336.2  278.5
 19  615  Greenidge C.G       Win   7558  5134  322.9  292.1
 21  614  Jayawardene D.P.M.D Slk   9123  8518  332.9  280.7 #
 21  614  Jayasuriya S.T      Slk   6973 13428  260.5  353.4 #
 23  612  Haynes D.L          Win   7487  8648  305.0  307.3
 24  611  Kirsten G           Saf   7289  6798  315.3  296.1
 24  611  Zaheer Abbas        Pak   5062  2572  285.3  326.1
# Player still active

No surprises for guessing who is at the top. The little maestro, Tendulkar, leads both Test and ODI tables, the Test table narrowly and ODI table by a comfortable margin so that he is placed in an unassailable position at the top of the combined tables. He has 801 points and leads the next batsman by a whopping 10%. He is likely to widen the gap further and is likely to have a near-12% gap by the time he decides to hang up his golden willow.

What does one say of Tendulkar. If one takes away the freakish numbers of Bradman, there is no one to touch Tendulkar. More than the runs he has scored, the manner in which he has scored, the balance, technique and poise he exhibits at the crease, his demeanour and impeccable behaviour, the way he conducts himself on and off the pitch, one could go on. Possibly the best thing I could say is that he is a role model, not just for the public, but for the other players.

After the wide gap comes Lara who just about edges ahead of Richards by single point. Two great West Indian batsmen, two of the greatest ever, are virtually tied for the second place. They are so close together, I am going to discuss them together.

Richards was by far the better ODI batsman than Lara, as evidenced by his second place in the ODI list. However Lara was quite a bit ahead of Richards in Tests, as again evidenced by his second place in the Test table. However what has happened is that each has wiped out the shortfall almost exactly with Lara gaining a point in this exchange. I do not need to say anything more of the two greats who, in different eras, have taken ODI and Test batting to great levels of entertainment. That they enjoyed varying degrees of success as team players and leaders was a reflection of the state of West Indian cricket at their respective times.

Ponting is a well-deserved fourth, couple of points behind. Those who question his leadership capabilities should not forget his batting achievements in both forms of the game. He is fourth in all the tables. In view of his age and form I expect Ponting to comfortably move the two West Indian greats to third/fourth places by end of 2010, or possibly earlier. It would be a well-deserved second place.

After some daylight, there is a surprise at the fifth position. Kallis is positioned here, ahead of Dravid. Kallis and Dravid are almost the same at Test level while Dravid is somewhat behind Kallis at ODI level. Anyhow I have heard many negative comments on these two great players. There is no doubt that Kallis has done most for South Africa amongst all players (let us not forget 509 international wickets). In what Dravid has done for India, he might be lagging behind only Tendulkar and Kapil Dev, and might be matched by Kumble and Gavaskar. Would Kallis and/or Dravid move above the two West Indian stalwarts is a difficult-to-answer question. Possibly Kallis who plays in both formats.

Two Australian fighters, Border and Steve Waugh, come in next. Both epitomized the never-say-die spirit and were responsible, through their batting (and captaincy) for the recent Australian revival. Only the churlish would begrudge their places at the top-10.

Now we get the two great Pakistani batsmen, Inzamam-ul-Haq and Javed Miandad. In a way these two are similar to the Australian duo who preceded them. Great fighters who would not give an inch. They were part of the great successes enjoyed by Pakistan over the years. In terms of contribution to the team cause, only Imran Khan would be ahead of them.

Note how closely positioned are Greenidge and Haynes.

The top-10 has 3 Australians, 2 Indians, 2 West Indians, 2 Pakistanis and one South African batsmen. A fair distribution, one would say, with 5 countries represented. For the record, Jayawardene, Gooch, Martin Crowe, Andy Flower and Habibul Bashar are their countrys' best batsmen.

If there is one placing which has surprised me most, it is that of Sehwag, who almost made it to the top-10. Arguably the most destructive batsman of all time, keep a watch on this eleventh placed batsman. Sehwag is moving fast and how. One more series of matches like the recent Sri Lankan ones would move him up in between the two Pakistani greats and then who knows where he might end. And remember that this high position is without being given any credit for his extraordinary Test strike rate.

To view/download the complete all-time list, updated on 7 Jan 2009, please right-click here and save the file.

Because of the length of the article I am not dwelling on the individual tables in depth. Suffice to say that Tendulkar, Lara, Border, Ponting, Dravid, Gavaskar, Steve Waugh, Kallis, Greg Chappell and Richards form the perfect-10 of the Test arena over the past 40 years.

To view/download the complete Test list, please right-click here and save the file.

And amongst the ODI-10 of Tendulkar, Richards, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Gilchrist, Lara, Sehwag, Zaheer Abbas, De Silva and Saeed Anwar, only Zaheer Abbas might raise a few eyebrows. However readers would do well to remember that 2500+ runs in 62 matches at an average of 47.63 and a strike rate of 84.5 is exceptional, amongst the top-5 of all time. I am assuming that, as Hussey and Dhoni have done, he would have maintained these numbers in 120+ matches. Then his high ranking points make sense and he fully deserves this position. He was as free-scoring as Richards and as graceful as Gower.

To view/download the complete ODI list, updated on 7 Jan 2009, please right-click here and save the file.

A request to readers. You have every right to comment negatively. Every right to fault this analysis. Every right to be upset. Every right to disagree. What you do not have is the right to be abusive, personal or otherwise, to me or to the other readers or to the great players themselves or to other countries. Your comment will, then, be seen by one person only, me. I have also decided that I will not do a follow-up analysis on this. This work has been done with lots of consultations and should not, and will not be, changed based on reader comments, however valid these may be.

A few readers have asked for the methodology used. This has been summarized in a text file. To view/download this document, please right-click here and save the file.