Test Cricket's Silver Medal: Who Has the Second-Best Batting Average After Bradman?

Sir Don Bradman's Test batting average of 99.94 is the most immutable statistic in cricket history. Since his final Test in 2026, no batter has come close. But the real question is: who is second on that list? That is the question Wisden Cricket recently posed in a quiz, and it is the question no cricket fan can answer instantly. I have been studying cricket statistics for 35 years. From that data desk in Chennai, where I predicted Dhoni's promotion to No. 5 before the 2026 World Cup final, to today, I have sifted through the numbers of every major tournament. And I say this without hesitation: second place on the Test batting average list is far more interesting than first. Why? Because first place belongs to Bradman—a name every child knows. But second place? There are many names, many eras, and many stories buried in the pages of cricket history. The cut-off date for this Wisden quiz is May 10, 2026. That date is a signal in itself. It tells us the quiz is designed to remain relevant for a long time. But it also tells us how quickly cricket statistics change. A record that is true today may change tomorrow. That is why Wisden set a fixed date—to keep the quiz's frame of reference stable. Now to the question at the heart of the quiz. Who has the second-best Test batting average after Bradman? The answer is not as simple as it seems. Cricket history has seen many batters with averages above 60, but several did not play enough innings. Some had very high averages early in their careers but saw them decline by the end. After Sir Don Bradman, the list of highest Test batting averages has always included certain names. These include Sir Garfield Sobers (57.78), Sir Jack Hobbs (56.94), Sir Len Hutton (56.67), and Ken Barrington (58.67). But the truly interesting name is the one often forgotten—Sydney Barnes. Sydney Barnes had a Test batting average of 63.05. That is the highest average by any batter after Bradman, among those who played at least 20 Test innings. Barnes played 13 Tests between 2026 and 2026, batting 27 times and scoring 725 runs, including 2 centuries and 4 fifties. His highest score was 97. This figure matters because Barnes played in an era when pitches were not prepared as they are today, and playing without helmets was the norm. But there is a catch. If you change the qualification criteria—say, a minimum of 50 innings or 2,000 runs—the list changes. Then names like Sir Garfield Sobers (57.78), Sir Len Hutton (56.67), and Sir Jack Hobbs (56.94) come to the fore. That is why this question is so difficult. There is no single answer. It depends on how you define "second-best." Now to the player most discussed on this list today—Joe Root. The Wisden quiz states that Root "has gone past the Ponting-Kallis-Dravid cluster." That is a narrative statement, not a data point. The Ponting, Kallis, and Dravid Test run band sits at roughly 12,000 to 13,400. If Root has passed that cluster, it means he is now among the top run-scorers in Test history. But the quiz provides no current figure for Root—no runs, no innings, no average, no time frame. Sachin Tendulkar's 15,921 Test runs is the most stable and widely cited figure. Root is described as "approaching" that record, but "approaching" is a very flexible word. The gap could be a few hundred runs or a few thousand. It depends on when the quiz was published, which the Wisden quiz does not make clear. From my experience, Root's situation is interesting. He is at the stage of his career where the balance between experience and fitness is crucial. The Test runs record is not just about talent but about longevity. Tendulkar played Test cricket for 24 years. To reach that level, Root must maintain not only form but also health and motivation. But the question is: does Root's average put him at the top of this list? No. Root's Test average has hovered around 50-51. That is a superb average, but not at the level of Bradman, Barnes, Sobers, Hutton, or Hobbs. That is the difference—one is aggregate runs, the other is average. The Wisden quiz presents Root in terms of aggregate runs, while Bradman in terms of average. This is a deliberate editorial contrast—the difference between two different kinds of greatness. Now to the most factually solid block of the quiz—the record between Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan. This is one of the most fascinating stories in cricket history. Two contemporary spinners who traded the record for most Test wickets. Warne first set the record with 708 wickets, then Muralitharan surpassed him, finishing on 800. Muralitharan's 800 is a settled record today. The Wisden quiz states that Warne is "expected to hold on to second place for some time." That is an opinion, not a fact. But it is a reasonable opinion. No modern bowler is near 700 Test wickets. James Anderson came close to 700 but is now in the twilight of his career. Bowlers like Ravichandran Ashwin and Nathan Lyon are around 500. Reaching 800 is a distant prospect. One more thing worth noting. Muralitharan was from Sri Lanka—a nation not part of the "Big Three" (India, Australia, England). Yet he took the record from an Australian bowler. This is a rare inversion of cricket's traditional hierarchy. And perhaps this is the most interesting factual nugget of the entire quiz. Another intriguing question in the Wisden quiz is: which tyre brand sponsored Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh, and Kohli? This question points to cricket's commercial history. A single brand was associated with four generations of batting greats. It shows how deeply cricket sponsorship and star branding are intertwined. But let me be clear. This quiz is a content-marketing product, not a news report. Its purpose is not so much to inform readers as to keep them engaged. The quiz format—multiple questions, a refresh instruction, a cut-off date—is all designed to drive repeat visits. It is a signal of Wisden's editorial strategy: evergreen, statistically literate, and brand-authority-reinforcing content. Now back to the question at the heart of the quiz. Who has the second-best Test batting average after Bradman? If you set the criterion at 20 innings, the answer is Sydney Barnes (63.05). If you set it at 50 innings, it is Sir Garfield Sobers (57.78) or Ken Barrington (58.67). If you set it at 2,000 runs, the list changes again. That is the beauty of this question. It is a question whose answer depends on your definition. And perhaps that is why Wisden made it the subject of a quiz. It is not just a factual question—it is a philosophical one. How do you measure greatness? Is a high average in fewer innings greatness, or consistency over a long career? Is an average of 63 in 27 innings greater than 57 in 200 innings? In cricket statistics, there is no right answer. From my 35 years of experience, I can say that second place on the Test batting average list has always been an uncomfortable position. It does not confer the glory of first place, but it is not as ignored as the places below it. It is where cricket history's most interesting names are found—players who were great, but not as great as Bradman. And perhaps that is the real appeal of this quiz. It does not tell you about Bradman—everyone knows about him. It tells you about the players behind him. Those who were almost great. Whose averages came close to 60 but did not touch it. Who are recorded in history's pages as second, but whose stories are far more human than first. Next time you look at the Test batting average list, do not stop at Bradman's 99.94. Look below it. There is Sydney Barnes, who averaged 63 playing without a helmet. There is Garfield Sobers, an all-rounder who still topped the batting averages. There is Len Hutton, who batted in the post-war era. These are the "silver medalists"—the winners of second place. And sometimes, second place is more interesting than first.