David Sedgwick wrote:David Robertson wrote:* of centurions, four (Strauss (21), Pieterson (20), Cook (19) & Bell (16) ) feature in the top 14 on the all-time list. Even Bell has more Test 100s than Hobbs (15), May (13), Graveney (11), Dexter (9) from not that many more innings. Now I'm a great fan of Ian Bell (not least since I follow Warwickshire). But is he really, already, a greater Test batsman than those I've cited? Is Cook already as good as Hutton (their numbers are identical!)? Strauss, the equal of Wally Hammond in one 100's time? I suspect part of the answer lies, not in how many innings each played in a career to earn their tons, but in the greater number of Test innings now played in prime career.
I would have thought that there was also a greater disparity in strength amongst the teams today. In the prime of those you mention, only New Zealand could be regarded as relatively weak opposition. Nowadays Bangladesh, Zimbabwe (when competing), and several other countries at differing times, have been no match for the England side.
You can't answer the question of how good a batsman is without taking into account a whole heap of statistics.
The currency of cricket is runs. This leads you to batting average as an indicator of ability, which seems reasonable; the number of runs scored per out. Even then there are variables that affect how good a batsman is:
(1) Occupation of the crease. Is a quick hundred more valuable than a slow hundred? There are times when the team situation requires the player to bat for time (to save a draw), bat for balls (to see off a new ball), rather than to bat for runs. So to judge a batsman by how many runs he scores isn't always the correct way to judge him, because there are some occasions where he's not trying to score runs! Batting average is affected the player is not trying to score runs.
(2) Running between the wickets. A good batsman is one who doesn't give the other team wickets. I could score 100, but if I've run the rest of my team out, does that make me better than a guy who has scored 30, but not run his partner out? Batting average does not contain this information. My partner's batting average is affected, even if I'm the one guilty of running him out! (So a batsman is debited, even though he's done nothing wrong!)
(3) The match situation. If you need to score quickly to win a match, you're going to bat more recklessly than you would otherwise, you're more likely to get out. Statistics exist that show how runs conceded per over is inversely proportional to the runs per wicket. This will affect my batting average.
(4) The wicket. If Hobbs was playing on the proverbial pudding, Cook would score more runs if he was batting on a flat pitch.
So the question of who is a better batsman has many variables, none of which can be explained by any conventional statistics.
By contrast, baseball has a relatively simple approximation of finding the best hitter - there's a more complicated way!
In baseball there is one goal: Not to get out. If you don't get out, you will advance to first base (or beyond). After all, if your team always gets people on base, you'll score an infinite number of runs. So batting average doesn't work; you need on-base percentage since you can get to first base in any way you like, so long as you get there. (A walk or being hit by the pitch doesn't count towards batting average, but it does count towards on-base percentage.)
Getting beyond first base is controlled by a statistic called slugging percentage, which is Total Bases/Plate Appearances. The higher the slugging percentage, the better the hitter.
In other words, since the goal is always the same, you can tell how good a hitter by a function of his on-base percentage and his slugging percentage. Adding them up is the crude way, but some statisticians believe on-base percentage is three times more important in the function. I'll have to take their word for it.
Unfortunately, a relatively simple solution can't exist for cricket, because the goal differs depending on the situation.