As a follow-up to the epochal fourth innings batting performances, this analysis covers the great bowling performances. Again let me emphasize that this is a predominantly objective selection, based loosely on the Wisden-100 tables, but also incorporating my own perceptions. Let me also emphasize that this covers only individual bowling performances, not team bowling performances. That is for a later article.

The fourth innings bowling performances are quite different to the batting performances. The alternatives in front of the batting teams in the fourth innings are two-fold. Whether the target is 100 runs or 500 runs, the objective is to win if one can or go for a draw. It allows batsmen to play pre-dominantly defensive innings, help their team to draw the matches and be recognized. The bowlers have very few choices. Whether they are defending 100 runs or 500 runs, they have to go for a win. It is not possible to bowl for a draw other than the rare instances of, say, 100 runs in 15 overs or so. Bowlers win matches and this dictum is all the more true in the fourth innings. Truly great teams have invariably had great bowling attacks. Whether the attack is dominated by one great bowler or 3/4 equally great bowlers, this is true.

This also makes the search for non-winning great performances in fourth innings quite difficult. After searching far and wide, I have been able to locate two such performances. Consequently 11 of these 13 performances have been winning ones. Only one has been in a dead rubber situation. There is a fair distribution over the years. One pre-WW1, two are bowling performances in between wars and the rest after WW2 including one during the current decade. The countries are well-represented.

Let us look at the 13 performances. These performances are presented more or less in the Wisden-100 list order. Not that the order matters. Readers should note that the complete bowling spell is indicated by the term "innspell" and a specific unbroken bowling stint is called "spell".

1. MtId: 0437 Year: 1957 Test# 4 of 5 (0-2) South Africa won by 17 runs

    Saf 340 all out.
    Eng 251 all out.
    Saf 142 all out.
    Eng 214 all out (Tayfield H.J: 37.0-11-113-9).

South Africa took a useful first innings lead of 89 runs but were then dismissed for 142 by a strong English bowling attack. England, with an excellent batting lineup led by May, Compton and Cowdrey looked poised to score the 230 runs needed. The fearsome pair of Adcock and Heine did very little. Then Tayfield took over and bowled 37 consecutive 8-ball overs and captured 9 English wickets for 113 runs taking South Africa to an unlikely narrow win. The low target, quality of English batting and the number of wickets captured meant that Tayfield's innspell was adjudged the best ever bowling bowling performance in the Wisden-100 analysis. There can be very few dissenters to this conclusion.

2. MtId: 1443 Year: 1999 Test# 2 of 2 (0-1) India won by 212 runs

    Ind 252 all out.
    Pak 172 all out.
    Ind 339 all out.
    Pak 207 all out (Kumble A: 26.3-9-74-10).

As matches go, this was a veritable rout by India. Pakistan's poor first innings, coupled with India's effective second innings meant that Pakistan had before them an impossible task of scoring 420 runs on a wicket turning square. I would not normally have placed Kumble's 10-wicket innspell in the top drawer amongst fourth innings bowling performances taking into account all these conditions. However the fact that this was a historic innspell, one of only two achieved by bowlers in 133 years has made me select this. It is also the second best innspell in the Wisden-100 tables. Kumble bowled beautifully taking full advantage of the turn and bounce offered. The miracle was not the 10-wicket haul but the fact that three other excellent bowlers bowled 34 overs and did not pick up a wicket. It was also very sporting of the Pakistan batsmen not to have gifted their 9th or 10th wicket to someone else.

3. MtId: 1804 Year: 2006 Test# 3 of 3 (1-0) Sri Lanka won by 134 runs

    Slk 231 all out.
    Eng 229 all out.
    Slk 322 all out.
    Eng 190 all out (Muralitharan M: 30.0-11-70-8).

Two average first innings, followed by a very good Sri Lankan second innings, meant that England had a tough task of 325 runs, albeit on their own home ground. Then Muralitharan bowled his heart out and captured first 7 wickets, before Hoggard was run out. Then he captured Lewis' wicket and there was a swinging last wicket stand which was ended by Jayasuriya. Muralitharan had the outstanding figures of 8 for 70 and Sri Lanka tied the series. This is the only performance of the current decade included in this selection. This was also at Nottingham, not at Kandy or Galle.

4. MtId: 0179 Year: 1929 Test# 4 of 5 (0-3) England won by 12 runs

    Eng 334 all out.
    Aus 369 all out.
    Eng 383 all out.
    Aus 336 all out (White J.C: 64.5-21-126-8).

This is the only dead-rubber performance included. England had an unbeatable 3-0 lead against Australia in Bradman's welcome series. Three healthy innings left Australia to score 349 runs to win. White, the slow left arm spinner, bowled 65 overs, almost continuously, against the strong Australian lineup and captured 8 wickets for 126 runs. A margin of 12 runs reinforces the magnificence of the innspell.

5. MtId: 0905 Year: 1981 Test# 3 of 6 (0-1) England won by 18 runs

    Aus 401 for 9 wkts.
    Eng 174 all out.
    Eng 356 all out.
    Aus 111 all out (Willis R.G.D: 15.1-3-43-8).

This is more known as Botham's test (and Ashes). However, there is no doubt that the win was set up by Botham but was achieved by Willis with his magnificent innspell, defending a very low total of 130. England, after following on and 82 in arrears at the fall of the seventh wicket, were rescued by Botham, with support from Dilley and Old. Then Willis took over and this was one of the most devastating fourth innings bowling performances ever. Incidentally the first 5 performances occupy the first 5 positions in the Wisden-100 table.

6. MtId: 1243 Year: 1994 Test# 2 of 3 (0-0) South Africa won by 5 runs

    Saf 169 all out.
    Aus 292 all out.
    Saf 239 all out.
    Aus 111 all out (de Villiers P.S: 23.3-8-43-6).

This match has some similarities to the Botham/Willis match. The target was even lower at 116. Australia, with its strong batting lineup was expected to waltz through. However SCG always offers help for the faster bowlers and de Villiers took over the defence of the meagre total.He captured the first 4 wickets. Then Donald moved in and claimed the next 3 wickets. Australia rallied through McDermott and reached 110 for 8 and looked like winning. Then Warne was run out and de Villiers dismissed Healy and McGrath to carve out a 5 run win. In some ways this must be the unlikeliest win, comparable to West Indies win by a single run, an year earlier. And let us not forget who was bowling at the other end, the white lightning, Donald.

7. MtId: 0849 Year: 1979 Test# 1 of 2 (0-0) Pakistan won by 71 runs

    Pak 196 all out.
    Aus 168 all out.
    Pak 353 for 9 wkts.
    Aus 310 all out (Sarfraz Nawaz: 35.4-7-86-9).

After two low innings, Pakistan posted a competitive total and set Australia an imposing 381 to win. Sarfraz Nawaz bowled, arguably the finest innspell by a Pakistani bowler and captured 9 wickets for 86 runs to win the match for Pakistan. The other batsman was run out. At 305 for 3, Sarfraz dismissed 5 batsmen for 0. The amazing thing was that 38 overs by Imran Khan and Mushtaq Mohd did not produce a wicket. This was an unlikely bowling performance by a pace bowler. Unlike Willis and de Villiers who ran through Australia in fewer overs, this was somewhat like the innspell of White in that Sarfraz bowled 35 8-ball overs.

8. MtId: 1143 Year: 1990 Test# 3 of 4 (0-1) West Indies won by 164 runs

    Win 446 all out.
    Eng 358 all out.
    Win 267 for 8 wkts.
    Eng 191 all out (Ambrose C.E.L: 22.4-10-45-8).

It doesn't often happen that a West Indian pace bowler runs through a team. There are other equally fearsome and intimidating bowlers who participate in the clean-up act. This was a rare instance. England were set over 350 runs to win and Ambrose bowled a Willis-type innspell, capturing 8 wickets for 45 and helped dismiss England for 191. Since the attack included Bishop, Marshall and Moseley, this effort is all the more praise-worthy.

9. MtId: 0390 Year: 1954 Test# 4 of 4 (1-0) Pakistan won by 24 runs

    Pak 133 all out.
    Eng 130 all out.
    Pak 164 all out.
    Eng 143 all out (Fazal Mahmood: 30.0-11-46-6).

Pakistan were babes-in-the-wood in this series. This was only their second series, both away. They were pitted against the mighty England, led by Hutton, May, Compton, Graveney, Tyson, Wardle and Statham. They trailed 1-0 and everybody expected England to walk away with a 2-0 series win. Three innings below 165 meant that England's mighty lineup had to score only 167 for a win. England reached 109 for 2, confirming all these predictions. Then Fazal Mahmood, the master of swing, took over and took the next 5 wickets for nothing, finishing with 6 for 46. England were dismissed for 143, leaving Pakistan winners by 24 runs. Pakistan drew the series and Pakistan's pace bowling pedigree, true even today, was appreciated. This must be one of the greatest upsets ever in the history of Test cricket.

10. MtId: 0009 Year: 1882 Test# 1 of 1 (0-0) Australia won by 7 runs

    Aus  63 all out.
    Eng 101 all out.
    Aus 122 all out.
    Eng  77 all out (Spofforth F.R: 28.0-15-44-7).

This was the famous "Ashes" test. Three very low innings meant that England had to only score 85 for a win. Spofforth took the central stage and bowled 28 4-ball overs continuously, capturing 7 for 44 and the "Ashes" legend was born. It is quite difficult to comprehend a wicket in which 40 wickets fell for 363 runs and a wicket was captured every 27 balls.However we have to admire Spofforth's effort since this represents the lowest total ever defended. This performance just about gets into the top-50 of Wisden-100 table in view of the very strong bowler-friendly conditions.

11. MtId: 0510 Year: 1961 Test# 4 of 5 (1-1) Australia won by 54 runs

    Aus 190 all out.
    Eng 367 all out.
    Aus 432 all out.
    Eng 201 all out (Benaud R: 32.0-11-70-6).

This match has come in purely for my nostalgic sake. This was the first series I was fortunate enough to hear on borrowed radio, in a hostel room as the junior-most student, trying to pull the wool over the warden's eyes and ears. And Benaud was my favourite cricketer. England had taken a lead of 177. Then Lawry pitched tent and with the help of some lusty late-order hitting by Davidson, Australia reached 432. England had to score 255 for a win. Everyone knew that it was a battle between Benaud and the English batsmen, led by the imperious Dexter. Dexter was batting at his commanding beat and England reached 150 for 1. Then Benaud essayed one of the finest spells of leg-spin bowling ever, pitching into the rough created by Davidson. He dismissed Dexter and picked up the next 6 wickets. Davidson and Simpson finished the job and Australia ran out winners by 54 runs. Benaud captured 6 for 70.

12. MtId: 0277 Year: 1946 Test# 2 of 3 (1-0) Match drawn

    Eng 294 all out.
    Ind 170 all out.
    Eng 153 for 5 wkts.
    Ind 152 for 9 wkts (Bedser A.V: 25.0-4-52-7).

This is the only drawn match in this list. Even though India were only playing their 9th match, they were quite strong with a lineup boasting of Merchant, Mushtaq, Mod, Hazare, Amarnath and Mankad. England took a first innings lead of 124 and set India a target of 278 to win, a tough ask at Manchester against a powerful English attack. The first two wickets were captured by Pollard. Then Modi and Hazare steadied the ship. However Alec Bedser bowled beautifully and captured the next 7 wickets. India were 138 for 9 and looked like losing. However Sohoni and Hindlekar stood firm and avoided defeat. Bedser's innspell of 7 for 52 represents one of the finest closing innspells in a drawn match.

13. MtId: 0149 Year: 1923 Test# 2 of 5 (1-0) England won by 1 wicket

    Saf 113 all out.
    Eng 183 all out.
    Saf 242 all out.
    Eng 173 for 9 wkts (Hall A.E: 37.3-12-63-7).

This is the only innspell included from a losing match. After three average innings, England were set 173 for a win. England had Sandham, Wooley, Mead and Fender in their lineup. Alf Hall, a left arm pace bowler, single-handedly almost denied England a win. He captured 7 for 63, dismissing all the top batsmen. He reduced England to 86 for 6 before Mann and Jupp added 68 runs. Then Hall dismissed both batsmen. He could not claim the last wicket and England ran out winners by 1 wicket. It is worth mentioning here that these were 3-day tests.

The other innspells which came under consideration are listed below.

Statham's 7 for 39 against South Africa during 1955 (a real contender).
R.Peel's 6 for 67 against Australia during 1894.
O'Reilly's 7 for 27 against England during 1934.
Hoggard's 7 for 61 against South Africa during 2005.
McGrath's 8 for 24 against Pakistan during 2004.
Snow's 7 for 40 against Australia during 1971.
Kluesener's 8 for 64 against India during 1996.
Cowans' 6 for 77 against Australia during 1982.
Fazal Mahmood's 6 for 66 against West Indies during 1959.
Underwood's 7 for 50 against Australia during 1968
Warne's 8 for 71 against England during 1994.
Ambrose's 6 for 24 against England during 1994.
Dean Headley's 6 for 60 against Australia during 1998.
Whitney's 7 for 27 against India during 1992.
Kumble's 7/63 against Pakistan at Kolkata in 2005
Gibbs' 6 for 60 against India during 1968 (Drawn match).

In the famous 1-run win by West Indies against Australia during 1993,
the wickets were shared by Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh. Ambrose's 4 for 46 is still
an excellent individual effort.

In a later article we will see team performances in fourth innings. That will do
justice to the multi-pronged bowling attacks.

While the IPL’s idea of bringing in the world’s best players to play for various franchises deserves praise, World Series Cricket (WSC) envisioned by Kerry Packer in 1977 was a watershed moment in the game’s history. It was the first time that the world’s best players were roped in to play for three teams: WSC Australia, WSC West Indies and WSC World XI. Sadly, the huge upheaval that WSC caused has meant that the top quality cricket played in the two seasons is often forgotten.

The contests involved Test matches, known as ‘SuperTests’ and limited overs games. The WSC is renowned for many innovations, many of which are still in use in the modern game. The idea of day-night cricket, the use of the white ball and coloured clothing went a long way in popularising the game. The Test matches in particular, showcased some of the most compelling cricket pitting the world’s best batsmen against supreme fast bowlers. The first season in 1977-78 played in Australia saw WSC Australia play two three match series against the other two teams. The second season in 1978-79 featured a triangular Test series among the three teams in Australia and the latter half of the season saw a five match series between WSC Australia and the WSC West Indies in the Caribbean.

The performance of the three teams across the two seasons is summarised below. The World XI played fewer matches, but had a glittering array of stars including top batsmen Viv Richards, Barry Richards and Gordon Greenidge, a bowling attack featuring West Indian pacemen and the all rounder Imran Khan. Viv Richards and other West Indians also played for the WSC West Indies later in the season. The World XI was by far the best team then and this is clearly seen in their exceptional record of five wins in six matches.

Performance of three teams involved in World Series Cricket (SuperTests)

Team	Played	Won	Lost	Drawn
WSC Australia	15	4	7	4
WSC West Indies	11	3	4	4
WSC World XI	6	5	1	0

The table below shows the performance of top batsmen across the seasons of WSC. Viv Richards came into the World Series with great confidence, after having scored 1710 runs in 1976, which remained a Test record till 2006. He certainly lived up to his reputation scoring four centuries at an average of 64.05. The fact that this was achieved against the finest fast bowlers lends further weight to the fact that he was the best batsman in the world at that point. Barry Richards played just four Tests in his career, but his batting in WSC showed just what cricket had missed.

Greg Chappell vindicated his status as one of the best players of fast bowing and his tally of over 1400 runs at an average of 56.60 with five centuries put him in a league of his own. The bowling that he faced included the likes of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Joel Garner and Imran Khan. Many batsmen wilted in the face of hostile pace bowling and they averaged well below their overall Test averages. David Hookes, on the other hand, despite being fairly new to international cricket, performed superbly in World Series Cricket, but rather surprisingly turned out to be a failure in international cricket after the two years.

Performance of top batsmen in World Series Cricket

Batsman	Team	Matches	Innings	Runs	100	50	Average
Barry Richards	World XI	5	8	554	2	2	79.14
Vivian Richards	West Indies and World XI	14	25	1281	4	4	55.69
Greg Chappell	Australia	14	26	1415	5	4	56.60
David Hookes	Australia	12	22	769	1	7	38.45
Clive Lloyd	West Indies and World XI	13	21	683	1	3	37.94
Gordon Greenidge	West Indies and World XI	13	23	754	1	4	35.90
Ian Chappell	Australia	14	27	893	1	5	35.72

WSC was the most difficult test for batsmen due to incredible line up of pace bowlers present then. Many batsmen failed to perform at the end of the series and only a few were able to counter the aggressive bowling consistently. While the performance of Roberts, Holding, Lillee and Imran was more or less expected considering their reputation, the showing of the South African all-rounder Mike Procter and Garth le Roux was highly impressive. Dennis Lillee picked up the most wickets for Australia and was ably supported by Max Walker and later Jeff Thomson.

Performance of top bowlers in World Series Cricket

Bowler	Team	Matches	Wickets	Average	5	10
Garth Le Roux	World XI	3	17	15.88	2	0
Mike Procter	World XI	4	14	16.07	0	0
Imran Khan	World XI	5	25	20.84	0	0
Michael Holding	West Indies	9	35	23.31	1	0
Andy Roberts	West Indies and World XI	13	50	24.14	1	0
Joel Garner	West Indies and World XI	7	35	24.77	1	0
Max Walker	Australia	7	28	25.42	2	0
Dennis Lillee	Australia	14	67	26.86	4	0
Jeff Thomson	Australia	5	16	29.75	1	0

The table below compares the averages of batsmen prior to World Series Cricket and after it ended. Viv Richards entered the tournament in the best form of his career and was the top batsman across the two seasons. His average did fall a little later on in his career after the WSC. Greg Chappell, who reaffirmed his status as Australia's best batsman with superb performances during the WSC years was remarkably consistent in his performances even after WSC.

Gordon Greenidge played most of his Test cricket after the end of World Series cricket and his average in this period did not deviate much from his overall record. His performance in the WSC though dropped well below his career record. Zaheer Abbas had a much better period post the WSC, but he averaged only 34 prior to WSC. His performance across the two seasons also was not very good as he averaged below 30. Ian Chappell played majority of his career before the World Series, but his average during WSC fell well below his career mark. Clive Lloyd's average during WSC was poorer than his performances prior to and post the WSC years. Barry Richards’ career ended prematurely when South Africa were banned from International cricket, but his class was very much evident with his superb showing during WSC.

Performance of batsmen before and after World Series Cricket

Batsman	Matches before WSC	Average before WSC	Matches during WSC	Average during WSC	Matches after WSC	Average after WSC
Viv Richards	26	56.69	14	55.69	93	48.32
Greg Chappell	51	53.20	14	56.60	36	54.78
Gordon Greenidge	17	47.18	13	35.90	89	43.82
Zaheer Abbas	26	34.41	4	30.57	49	45.02
Clive Lloyd	63	43.35	13	37.94	45	52.16
Ian Chappell	72	42.86	14	35.72	3	31.60
Barry Richards	4	72.57	5	79.14	-	-

Further proof that the mainstream Australian and West Indian teams badly missed their best players who were participating in the World Series can be seen by comparing their performance before, during and after the WSC period. The Australian team’s performance went down drastically in the WSC years when they were trounced 5-1 by England and squeezed a 3-2 win over India. Only after majority of the players got back into the main side did the team start performing consistently again. West Indies on the other hand were getting to be a top side in 1976 after their impressive win over England, but during the WSC, their performance was ordinary. After the WSC though, they were the best side in the world by a distance as their win-loss ratio indicates.

Performance of Australia and West Indies in the non WSC years and WSC years

Team	Matches before WSC years (four years)	Win-Loss ratio before WSC years	Matches played during WSC years	Win-Loss ratio during WSC years	Matches after WSC years (four years)	Win-Loss ratio after WSC years
Australia	33	2.28	18	0.54	45	0.81
West Indies	32	1.20	11	1.50	25	4.00

World Series Cricket, apart from benefiting the game in general with all the innovations and improved salaries for players, featured some of the toughest contests ever seen. Despite the Tests never being accorded official status, the performance of the players during WSC is one of the surest ways to measure quality.

The first innings of a test match is a completely open-ended one. What should one aim at? What is a good score? Should one consume time or attack more? Is 225 for 1 at close of play on the first day better than 300 for 4 or vice versa? No one can forecast with any degree of certainty the answers to these questions.

The second innings at least is more defined. There are some targets to aim at. If the opponents score 500 or thereabouts, the first target is to avoid follow-on. If the score in front is around 350, the normal target is to overhaul it. If the first batting has scored 200, the second batting team has to be wary of a difficult pitch but, in general, looks for a substantial lead.

The third innings is clearer. If a team has followed on or trails by a substantial deficit, the first target is to clear the deficit and then build on setting a reasonable target. If the two first innings are comparable, then a substantial target score has to be aimed at. If the team is batting with a substantial lead, then it is only a question of timing the declaration, leaving enough time to win. However the third innings is the one where serious strategising starts. The seeds of the result aimed for are sown here.

However the fourth innings is the purest one. Whatever the team started with is the winning target. It could be 1 or 836 (both are actual targets in test matches). This number is clearly available to both teams. While time/overs/weather are factors, this target never changes. There is no D/L creeping in Tests somewhere there, moving the goal-posts. The innings played which we never forget are also outstanding fighting ones. Great defensive innings, often as valuable as attacking match-winning innings are played in the fourth innings.

In this article I have looked at a baker's dozen of epochal performances in fourth innings. Before you sharpen your keyboard skills to shoot off a comment, note the adjective used. "epochal", not "greatest". These are my selections, mostly using objective analysis such as Wisden-100 tables, but also incorporating some from the lower reaches of the table, innings which were truly great. I have tried to take innings which matter, avoiding dead-rubber situations such as Butcher's 173. I have also avoided situations where two great innings were played, each supporting the other (Bradman/Morris, Gilchrist/Langer, Gilchrist/Katich et al). Finally I have selected only one innings per batsman.

Let me mention that the top 7 from the fourth innings performances from the Wisden-100 table find their place here. In addition I have selected 6 more performances. There are 7 winning performances, 4 from drawn matches and 2 from lost matches. There are two innings from pre-ww1 days. Only in the period between the two wars is there no innings selected. This is a reflection of a batting (read Bradman) dominated era. There is one innings from the 1950s.

As I have already said this is my selection, 75% objective and 25% subjective. Readers will have their own favourite fourth innings and are welcome to send in their comments referring to these innings. The only requirement is that you have to take the trouble of looking up the concerned scorecard and give some details. Rather than posting comments such as "What about Inzamam's 95", the comments which are likely to get published are the ones where a better insight into the concerned innings are provided.

Let us look the performances. These are published in reverse chronological order so that no one says why is this in first position or not in first position.

1. MatchId: 1760 Year: 2005 Match drawn.
England:      444
Australia:    302
England:      280 for 6
Australia:    371 for 9 (Ponting 156)

This was the third test in the 2005 Ashes series. The series was tied at 1-1. England got a healthy lead of 142 and then declared leaving Australia to get 423 to win in about 100 overs. Australia lost Langer early. Then Ponting played probably his best match-saving innings for Australia and scored 156. He was dismissed when there were still nearly 5 overs left. However the Australian last wicket pair of Lee and McGrath saw through 27 balls and earned a very honourable draw.

2. MatchId: 1658 Year: 2003 Pakistan won by 1 wkt.
Bangladesh:   281
Pakistan:     175
Bangladesh:   154
Pakistan:     262 for 9 (Inzamam 138*)

If ever Bangladesh is threatened with demotion from Test cricket they should show a video of this match, lost only because of an out-of-the-world innings by Inzamam. Bangladesh scored 281 runs and took a lead of 100+ runs. They were then dismissed for 154, leaving Pakistan the relatively easy task of scoring 261 for a win. The strong Pakistani batting lineup was expected to win comfortably by 6/7 wickets.

From a comfortable position of 62 for 1, Pakistan lost wickets regularly and were soon down at 164 for 7. Inzamam was steady as a rock and added 41 with Shabbir and 52 with Umar Gul. The 9th wicket fell at 257 but Inzamam scored the winning run and carried Pakistan to a wonderful one wicket win. Only the cricket-challenged crowd would dismiss the innings as against minnows. It was far from true and Inzamam's wonderful innings has to be accorded due respect, as also the Bangladeshis.

3. MatchId: 1594 Year: 2002 New Zealand lost by 98 runs.
England:      228
New Zealand:  147
England:      468 for 6
New Zealand:  451 a.o (Astle 222)

The first innings were low-scoring ones and England got a lead of 81. Then they declared leaving New Zealand to score 550 to win in about 190 overs. Astle came in at 189 for 4 and played arguably the most attacking and defiant innings in Test cricket. He scored 222 in 168 balls against a potent English attack of Caddick, Hoggard, Giles and Flintoff. New Zealand scored at nearly 5 runs per over. Chris Cairns came in at no.10 and added 118 for the tenth wicket with Astle.

Only those who did not watch the telecast would say this was an innings in which nothing was at stake. I watched every ball and I could clearly see that the English players were desperate. Met us not forget that there was Chris Cairns, a top all-rounder at the other end. The commentators kept on saying that Astle could not continue this, but he did. For the last two wickets Astle added 150 runs in 15 overs. One more hour of this mayhem and New Zealand would have won.

4. MatchId: 1453 Year: 1999 West Indies won by 1 wkt.
Australia:    490
West Indies:  329
Australia:    146
West Indies:  311 for 9 (Lara 153*)

This classic was rated the second best innings ever in the Wisden-100 list. Australia scored big in the first innings and took a lead of 161 runs. Then Walsh and Ambrose dismissed Australia for 146, leaving West Indies to get 308 for a win. Lara entered at 78 for 3. There was some support from Adams but soon West Indies were 248 for 8. Then Ambrose lasted for nearly 90 minutes and 39 deliveries and helped add 54 for a win. When he was out, West Indies still needed 6 runs for a win.

Walsh, with a 7.5 batting average somehow lasted 5 balls and Lara scored the winning boundary off Gillespie. The bowling attack was a very good one comprising of McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and MacGill. Lara sculpted probably the greatest of fourth innings chasing wins. It stands second only to Bradman's 270 in the Wisden-100 list. I was privileged to watch every delivery of this classic.

5. MatchId: 1442 Year: 1999 India lost by 12 runs.
Pakistan:     238
India:        254
Pakistan:     286
India:        258 (Tendulkar 136)

Two low scoring first innings totals meant that India had a small lead of 16. Pakistan had a much better second innings and set India 271 runs to win. Shahid Afridi scored 141 out of this total. India were 6 for 2 when Tendulkar walked in. Soon India lost more wickets and were 82 for 5. That too against a potent attack of Wasim, Waqar and Saqlain. Everything seemed over. However Tendulkar and Mongia added 136 runs when Mongia played the wildest shot imaginable and departed.

By now Tendulkar's back spasm was getting worse and he tried an attacking stroke and was dismissed when 16 runs were still needed. The Indian tail batted like novices and lost the last three wickets for 4 runs. Tendulkar took the team to a 95% level but could not finish the job. This innings has a lot in common with Inzamam's innings and Lara's innings. It must be mentioned that the Pakistani tail and West Indian tail supported their respective senior batsmen in a much better manner.

6. MatchId: 1360 Year: 1997 Australia won by 2 wkts.
South Africa: 209
Australia:    108
South Africa: 168
Australia:    271 for 8 (Mark Waugh 116)

Yet again a case of two low first innings scores meant that South Africa took a first innings lead of 101 runs. Then McGrath, Warne and surprisingly Bevan dismissed South Africa for 168. Australia needed to score 270 for a win against a reasonable attack, led by Donald. They were 30 for 2 when Mark Waugh entered. Although he lost partners regularly, he played a master class of 116. Other than Elliott, he received scanty support.

The only blot was that Mark Waugh was dismissed at 258 (shades of Tendulkar at Chennai). However this was the Australian tail, made of sterner stuff. They added the required 13 runs and added value to Waugh's innings.

I could have easily added the Gilchrist match-winner against Pakistan during 1999. The only negative (okay, not the correct term, let me say diluting) factor was that Gilchrist and Langer supported each other very effectively.

7. MatchId: 1315 Year: 1995 Match drawn.
South Africa: 332
England:      200
South Africa: 346 for 9
England:      351 for 5 (Atherton 185*)

This was the ultimate defensive innings. There might have been better and longer defensive efforts in the earlier innings. However when we come to the last innings of the tests, this is at the pinnacle.

South Africa made a useful 332 in their first innings, and after securing a good first innings lead of 132, set England a winning target of 478 runs in a million overs. Atherton opened the innings and was there 11 hours and 165 overs later. He faced 492 balls in an amazing display of concentration, temperament, technical excellence and sheer guts. That too against a powerful attack led by Donald and Pollock. This innings stands comparison with similar efforts like Hanif, Gavaskar and Barrington.

8. MatchId: 0990 Year: 1984 West Indies won by 9 wkts.
England:      286
West Indies:  245
England:      300 for 9 decl
West Indies:  344 for 1 (Greenidge 214*)

While Astle's was the ultimate attacking innings, Greenidge's match winning 214 was the ultimate attacking and winning innings. Two middling first innings meant that England led by 41 runs. Then England declared at 300 for 9 very early on the fifth day, leaving West Indies to score 342 for a very unlikely win. England would have hoped to win comfortably with Willis, Botham and Foster in their ranks. What followed was straight off the "twilight zone".

Haynes got out soon. However Greenidge went on the attack. Gomes provided attacking support. Greenidge scored 214* in 242 balls and West Indies won by 9 wickets with nearly 15 overs to spare. They scored at over 5 runs per over and still had the fearsome duo of Richards and Lloyd padded on. Botham, who captured 8 wickets in the first innings, conceded nearly 6 runs per over in the second. The margin of victory and the resources yet available makes this one of the most incredible victories ever.

9. MatchId: 0854 Year: 1979 Match drawn.
England:      305
India:        202
England:      334 for 8
India:        429 for 8 (Gavaskar 221)

England took a first innings lead of 103 and then declared at 334 for 8 leaving India more than 150 overs to score the massive 438 to win. India finished day 4 comfortably placed at 76 for no loss. On the fifth day Chauhan helped add 213 with Gavaskar and then Vengsarkar added 150 with Gavaskar. India were 366 for 1 at one stage and the highest chase ever appeared still within grasp. Then Vengsarkar was dismissed. Kapil Dev came in and went.

The body blow was when Gavaskar was dismissed at 389. Then Viswanath and Yashpal left going for the win and India had to shut shop for the most honourable of draws. they fell 9 runs short. Gavaskar's effort matches his last Test innings of 96. Neither produced a win, but were jewels in his crown.

10. MatchId: 0498 Year: 1960 Match tied.
West Indies:  453
Australia:    505
West Indies:  284
Australia:    232 (Davidson 80)

Contrary to the rest of the matches presented herein, this match produced two huge first innings. First Sobers anchored West Indies to 453 with an attacking 132. Norman O'Neill responded with 181 and with very good support from other batsmen, Australia posted 505 for a first innings lead of 52. West Indies scored 284 leaving Australia to score 233 for a win.

Australia slumped to 92 for 6 and a West Indies win was on the cards especially as the bowling attack was Hall, Worrell, Sobers, Ramadhin and Valentine. Then the two all-rounders, Davidson and Benaud added 134 for the sixth wicket and Australia were coasting for a win. Davidson was unfortunately run out for a top-drawer innings of 80. Two more run outs followed and the first tie resulted. Davidson's 80 ensured a memorable result. Not to forget his other innings of 44 and 12 wickets in the match.

11. MatchId: 0320 Year: 1950 Australia won by 5 wkts.
South Africa: 311
Australia:     75
South Africa:  99
Australia:    336 for 5 (Harvey 151*)

This was a peculiar match. After a good South African first innings of over 300, there were two sub-100 innings with the spinners Tayfield and Johnson dominating the bat. Australia started the fourth inns needing to 336 to win and no one would have given them even 10% chance against Tayfield and Mann. They started poorly and Harvey walked in at 59 for 3. Then he produced his best innings for Australia with a 5 hour match winning knock of 151.

He was well-supported by Loxton and McCool. Tayfield and Mann bowled 100 overs between them and took only 5 wickets on a wearing pitch. Harvey dominated the bowling completely.

12. MatchId: 0088 Year: 1906 South Africa won by 1 wkt.
England:      184
South Africa:  91
England:      190
South Africa: 287 for 9 (A.D.Nourse 93*)

The first three innings were sub-200 efforts and the net result was that South Africa had to score 284 to win on a wearing pitch. They lost wickets steadily and only White stood firm. Their top batsmen, Sinclair and Faulkner departed and South Africa were 105 for 6 when Nourse walked in. He added 121 priceless runs with White and these two were well on the way to a win when White was out at 226. Vogler and Scwarz followed soon and South Africa were 239 for 9, staring at the barrel.

Nourse stood firm and with the support of Sherwell who scored 22, added 48 for the last wicket to win a memorable match by 1 wicket. The English attack was led by the deadly Blythe.

13. MatchId: 0074 Year: 1902 Jessop G.L 104 (England won by 1 wkt)
Australia:    324
England:      183
Australia:    121
England:      263 for 9 (Jessop 104)

This was the famous "We will get 'em in singles" match. This match is almost identical to the previous match in every manner. A big Australian first innings letting them get a substantial lead of 141 and then an Australian collapse for 121 leaving England to get 263 for a win. England tumbled to 48 for 5 when Jessop walked in. He played the only he could have. He attacked the bowling and added over 100 with Jackson. Then he himself fell at 187, having scored 104 out of the 139 added while at crease.

The innings lasted an hour and quarter and I estimate he faced no more than 50 to 60 deliveries. Jessop fell while still 76 runs short. however Hirst took over and orchestrated the win with a fluent 58, possibly uttering the famous words mentioned at the beginning.

Given below are some of the other innings which came to my attention and could easily have been included.

Sutcliffe      135 vs Aus (1929)
Headley        223 vs Eng (1930)
McCabe         189* vs Saf (1936)
Mitchell       189 vs Eng (1947)
Hazare         122 vs Win (1949)
Nurse          168 vs Nzl (1969)
Randall        174 vs Aus (1977)
Vengsarkar     146 vs Pak (1979)
Gavaskar        96 vs Pak (1987)
Miandad        102 vs Win (1988)
De Silva       143 vs Zim (1998)
Jayawardene    123 vs Saf (2006)
Smith          154 vs Eng (2008)
Shakib-al-Hasan 96 vs Win (2009)

Once more let me repeat my requests to readers.

Comment on these innings, by all means. However do not find fault with the list. These are my selections based on very strong objective criteria and some subjective inputs. Three months later my baker's dozen might look different.

Please send your own entries. However only entries where there is some insight into the innings will be published. You have to take the trouble of telling me (and the other readers) more than a number and a name.

Ah! I fooled you, didn't I. You must have thought that I have sent an article meant for Fortune or Forbes magazine by mistake to Cricinfo. First let us put that matter to rest. The richest team must be the Indian team which collectively must be earning more than the rest of the teams together. Not that I care two cents about what the players earn. By "richest team" I mean, cricketing riches, in other words, the sum total of matches, runs and wickets which the team members take on to the field. It is also a lighter piece, coming in the wake of some serious and heavy analysis which have been done by me recently.

When a match is being telecast, the broadcasters talk about the experience behind a team in terms of matches played. However the real measures in this aspect are the number of runs scored and wickets captured by the concerned players.

I had done a sub-set of this article for another blog. I used the career figures. As I finished the article I realized that the career-to-date figures are the more appropriate figures to be used. So I applied the career-to-date figures, expanded the scope to matches also and have come out with a more comprehensive article here.

Since it usually happens that these analyses develop further based on user comments, I have done a simple accumulation of career-to-date figures of all 11 players. It certainly will give us some insight into the richness of teams in terms of the aggregates. I could look at the following options in later articles. I would also like the readers to come in with their own takes on these numbers and how these could be interpreted.

- Adding only the runs of the first 7 batsmen
- Add only for career-to-date runs greater than a certain value
- Add the wickets for the best 5 bowlers
- Do a comparison of the two team aggregates and analyse the most matched or ill-matched pairings.

I am aware that these are quantitative measures and not performance oriented. However there is no substitute for experience as the Indian batsmen showed at Dambulla against a New Zealand attack, which can at best be termed good and effective. It must be understood that the aggregates normally keep on increasing for a team but take a dip when senior player(s) retire.

The other thing I have done is not to show the top-10 accumulations. That would be quite silly on my part since the same team is likely to occupy the top-10 positions in terms of aggregates. Instead I have taken the top 8 teams + ICC XI and found the best for each of these teams and then ordered the tables accordingly. The other key feature is that I have taken the first innings figures. In other words, the test-beginning values. The second innings values would be higher, but this is a very minor matter.

Let us look at the tables. I have also provided the relevant details for the players who played in the particular innings for the top 3 teams. The support files provide the complete data.

Top teams based on number of Tests played

2008 1887 India           861 vs Aus
          Gambhir G            18
          Sehwag V             61
          Dravid R            126
          Tendulkar S.R       151
          Laxman V.V.S         97
          Ganguly S.C         110
          Dhoni M.S            30
          Harbhajan Singh      70
          Zaheer Khan          57
          Kumble A            131
          Sharma I             10
2005 1768 ICC XI          818 vs Aus
          Smith G.C            40
          Sehwag V             37
          Dravid R             92
          Lara B.C            118
          Kallis J.H           94
          Inzamam-ul-Haq      102
          Flintoff A           53
          Boucher M.V          85
          Vettori D.L          65
          Harmison S.J         36
          Muralitharan M       96
2006 1819 Australia       811 vs Eng
          Langer J.L          102
          Hayden M.L           86
          Ponting R.T         107
          Martyn D.R           67
          Hussey M.E.K         13
          Clarke M.J           24
          Gilchrist A.C        87
          Warne S.K           142
          Lee B                56
          Clark S.R             6
          McGrath G.D         121

2008 1860 South Africa    707 vs Win
1991 1170 West Indies     701 vs Aus
2007 1845 Sri Lanka       614 vs Aus
2001 1532 England         542 vs Slk
1999 1443 Pakistan        504 vs Ind
2006 1822 New Zealand     415 vs Slk

All 11 players are shown.

The 2008 Indian team against Australia carried on to the field the collective tally of 861 matches. Kumble and Ganguly, with their 100+ Tests were the main contributors for this huge totals. Both were coming to the end of their careers.

Not so surprisingly the ICC XI comes in next with 818 collective Test appearances. Let me mention at this point that the ICC-Aus Test is official as determined by ICC. At no time would I ignore the match, as a few readers have suggested earlier. Flintoff's wickets were against a quality Australian batting line-up and Hayden's runs were scored against a quality ICC bowling attack.

Australia's 2006 team comes in next, just behind the ICC aggregate.

To download the complete all-time list, please right-click here and save the file.

Top teams based on number of career-to-date runs scored

2005 1768 ICC XI        49141 vs Aus
          Smith G.C            3441
          Sehwag V             3181
          Dravid R             7871
          Lara B.C            10818
          Kallis J.H           7337
          Inzamam-ul-Haq       7620
          Flintoff A           2641
          Boucher M.V          3007
          Vettori D.L          1855
          Harmison S.J          347
          Muralitharan M       1023
2010 1964 India         47232 vs Slk
          Gambhir G            2798
          Sehwag V             6691
          Dravid R            11395
          Tendulkar S.R       13447
          Laxman V.V.S         7136
          Yuvraj Singh         1582
          Dhoni M.S            2428
          Harbhajan Singh      1585
2006 1819 Australia     40682 vs Eng
          Langer J.L           7575
          Hayden M.L           7385
          Ponting R.T          9044
          Martyn D.R           4390
          Hussey M.E.K         1225
          Clarke M.J           1179
          Gilchrist A.C        5124
          Warne S.K            2975
          Lee B                1076
          McGrath G.D           639

2010 1962 South Africa  35736 vs Win
1991 1170 West Indies   35090 vs Aus
2010 1964 Sri Lanka     27925 vs Ind
2001 1532 England       27585 vs Slk
2007 1830 Pakistan      25303 vs Saf
2004 1721 New Zealand   20312 vs Aus

Only career-to-date runs exceeding 250 are shown.

The ICC XI tops in batting aggregate. No surprise considering that they had Lara, Kallis, Inzamam and Kallis. If Tendulkar had come in for one of the later three batsmen, the tally would have been still higher. The high run values of Vettori, Flintoff and Boucher have helped the ICC XI>

India's team for the first Test against Sri Lanka clocks in next. The problem has been the low run values for the last three batsmen, Ishant, Ojha and Mithun contributing 180 runs. Even this total drops off drastically in the next two Tests.

Some distance behind in third place is the Australian team of 2006, clocking in at 40682 runs. After this match slowly the top Australian batsmen started going off.

To download the complete all-time list, please right-click here and save the file.

Top teams based on number of career-to-date wickets captured

2006 1780 Australia      1574 vs Saf
          Warne S.K           657
          Lee B               188
          MacGill S.C.G       178
          McGrath G.D         539
2007 1851 Sri Lanka      1290 vs Eng
          Jayasuriya S.T       97
          Vaas WPUJC          320
          Fernando C.R.D       80
          Malinga L.S          85
          Muralitharan M      704
2005 1768 ICC XI         1246 vs Aus
          Kallis J.H          183
          Flintoff A          143
          Vettori D.L         207
          Harmison S.J        138
          Muralitharan M      563

2008 1887 India          1209 vs Aus
2008 1860 South Africa   1177 vs Win
2000 1497 Pakistan        985 vs Win
2000 1506 West Indies     972 vs Eng
1982 0920 England         847 vs Ind
1989 1116 New Zealand     684 vs Pak

Only career-to-date wicket values of above 10 are shown.

Another Australian team of 2006 has the next wicket aggregate, 1574 wickets. This team's attack was led by Warne and McGrath and well supported by MacGill and Lee.

With Muralitharan contributing over half, Vaas nearly a quarter, the Sri Lankan attack of 2007 is in second place with 1290 wickets, way, way behind the Australian attack, which looks like it will not be surpassed for a very long times.

The ICC XI attack, not necessarily the best one at that time, is in third position. I have forgotten the match. However since Kumble had 464 wickets at that stage, a replacement of Vettori by Kumble would have moved them way up.

To download the complete all-time list, please right-click here and save the file.

It can clearly be seen that the experience in terms of matches, runs and wickets, are the cornerstone for success. The top teams shown above have all been very successful, ignoring the hotch-potch ICC XI. I will later do a correlation between the experience factor and the results, especially when there is a significant dip in the numbers, as happened with Australia last year.

Sriram, my in-house Editor has correctly mentioned that I have left the article short and it does not have any analytical conclusions. He is perfectly right. There are two reasons. One is that I wanted to get the reader comments/suggestions and come with a meaningful concluding article. The other is that I have to say something important here.

A regular reader has stated that he will not be visiting this site and stated three reasons. The first is a coloured-glass narrow-minded view on my being India-centric which needs no further look in. However there are two other reasons mentioned which need a response and that too, to the readers, since it concerns them also.

He has said that he will not participate in discussions in this blog because

1. I am not a mathematician/statistician and "only" an IT person. and
2. I have not played cricket.

Both perfectly true. Impeccable statements of 100% veracity. So let me say something on these.

I am proud that I am an Engineer/IT Person/Analyst. Foremost, I love the game, in all its areas, the play, the players, the prose, the analysis and the debates. Without this omnipresent love for the game, it does not matter who one is, one cannot do anything which will carry a very high degree of conviction leading to acceptance. I may not understand Chi-squared methodology or Gini adjustment or the philosophy behind stochastic processes. But I know when a 153 is better than a 400 or when a 2-wicket haul is superior to a 5-wicket haul or under what match conditions would a 50 made at no.7 be far superior to a 150 at no.1 and so on.

When I look at Cricinfo's wonderful analytical brain-bank, what do I see, an MBA, an Engineer, an MS from Kansas and so on. There might certainly be a statistician/mathematician or two there also. However they would be there, not just for their academic qualifications, but for their love of cricket and the ability to weave excellent articles around the dull and dreary numbers.

Let me take the recent theoretical study undertaken by two academicians which is currently doing the rounds. I will not make a single comment on the merits or demerits of this analysis. I may do that at a later date or someone from Cricinfo might do that. I downloaded the article and spent an hour trying to understand the same. I am sorry, I failed. Cricketing statements are interspersed with obscure (for the common man) statistical statements. The numbers do not make sense immediately since these are derived based on complex statistical processes. In other words, this article, possibly great in its own sphere, is not meant for the common man, but for other academics. The reader is expected to accept the findings even if he/she does not understand the basis.

To download the above referenced article, please right-click here and save the file.

I do not work that way. Every one of my articles has to be read and understood by all the readers, none excepted. If they do not understand something, it is my duty to explain. If they point out an error, it is my duty to correct the same. If they suggest something better, it is my duty to incorporate the same or explain why I have not done so. That is the way I have worked for the past two years and will continue to do so. If my articles do not sound technical and complicated enough for the segments of the academic readers, not all, let me add, so be it. I am proud of what I do and more proud of my own rapport with the readers, despite the many arguments I have had with them. And if ever I deviate from these self-imposed principles, send an immediate electronic brickbat.

Also if a reader suggest something unusual, as Soundararajan from Stanford who has suggested the factor, h-index. I have studied the same and am amazed at the simplicity and effectiveness of the same. I am in touch with Soundar to work out how it can be done effectively. At the same time, another reader, Murali, suggested a Gaussian distribution analysis on the top bowler tables. Since I do not understand the methodology completely I have requested him to do the work himself and offered to publish the results. The bottom line is that this is not a scientific journal but a blog, open to all.

Now for the second shortcoming I have. That I have not played any cricket. Eminently true. My highest score is 18 not-out, coming in at no.11, in a school match, played with tennis balls. Although I must add that this score was out of 50 for 9, and we won the match. Coming in at 28 for 9, I closed my eyes, swished and swished, and was incredibly lucky. So I have played no cricket.

Does it make me ineligible to write on or analyse the game. Even though I cannot last 6 balls against Sehwag bowling blind-folded and left-handed, that does not prevent me from understanding the value of his sub-100 innings at Chennai or Dambulla. If this is correct, most of the writers and analysts would have to stop doing what they are doing. Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert or James Agee did not act in films to write on films. Nirmal Shekhar, arguably the best Indian tennis correspondent, probably has not played tennis and so on.

Looking at the other side, a number of past players make good commentators, far fewer players can write and only very few are good analysts. I have worked with quite a few past cricketers and barring two leg-spinners, one very successful and the other, not-so-successful, the others could not understand even the rudiments of cricket analysis.

I apologise if I have gone on. However it needed to be said.

As I had mentioned in my recent article on Muralitharan, this is the right time to have an in-depth look at the great bowlers of our times and before. We have just seen the retirement of one of the all-time great bowlers and the next active bowler is, in Formula-1 parlance, three laps behind.

I have selected the following fifteen bowlers for analysis. Readers might have their own favourites. However I believe that this collection contains the best ever bowlers, barring personal preferences. I have also tried hard to have as wide a selection as possible, covering all the major test playing countries. I did a Test bowlers analysis last year. However this one has removed all the warts from that and is also at the career-end stage for all the fifteen bowlers. I have a major advantage in doing this analysis. Since the analysis is limited to 15 bowlers, I do not need to worry about the wide disparity which existed between around 60 bowlers who were part of my previous analysis.

Australia:      Shane Warne
                Glenn McGrath
                Dennis Lillee
West Indies:    Malcolm Marshall
                Curtley Ambrose
                Joel Garner
Pakistan:       Imran Khan
                Wasim Akram
                Waqar Younis
India           Anil Kumble
                Kapil Dev
Sri Lanka:      Muralitharan
New Zealand:    Richard Hadlee
South Africa:   Allan Donald
England:        Fred Trueman.

A few notes on the selections. I did not select any pre-WW2 bowlers since their figures would have distorted the numbers considerably, especially Sydney Barnes. The three Australian bowlers select themselves. For West Indies I selected their three best bowlers over the past 30 years. Holding for Garner could be an option. However Garner has a bowling average of 20.98 against Holding's 23.69. First I had selected only Imran Khan and Wasim Akram for Pakistan. Then I realized that Waqar Younis led in one key measure (strike rate) and there was no way could miss him. I did not want to drop Wasim Akram since he is the only left-hander in this group.

Kumble selects himself while Kapil Dev, although he has average overall figures deserves a place since he was the leading wicket-taker for quite some time and changed the face of Indian fast bowling. Shaun Pollock is the only one who could challenge Donald's place. I selected Fred Trueman to represent the period between 1947 and 1969. He is also the best modern English bowler. I also followed the basic principle that any bowler who was the best in a key category (wkts/strike rate/rpo) cannot be left out. One could find justifications for including Walsh, Holding, Shaun Pollock, Willis et al. However this is my selection and not a bad one at that. Let me also add that this is not necessarily the top bowlers list. I am sure Holding, Roberts, Pollock et al would be placed higher than a few in this list. However I wanted to have as wide a representation as possible and restricted one country to 3 bowlers.

Now for the measures on which the rating work is done. First let me clarify two fundamental differences to the way I have done such exercises before.

The first is that I have selected ten measures and given equal weight to all. That way I reduce the chances of subjective valuations.

The next is that for each measure, the best gets the maximum points, viz., 10.0 and the others get proportionate points. This reduces the possibility of differential weights and ensures a fair allocation of points.

The following measures are used.

1. Wickets captured.
2. Bowling strike rate (Bpw).
3. Bowling accuracy (Rpo). 
   (These two are components of the Bowling average, but have been considered 
    independently).
4. Quality of wickets captured (Average of dismissed batsmen's batting averages)
5. Away bowling average.
6. % of top order wickets captured.
7. Team load borne by bowler (balls bowled and wickets captured).
8. Ratio of bowling average to peer bowling average - all teams.
9. Ratio of bowling average to peer bowling average - other bowlers of own team.
10.Win index (Combination of two ratios)- (% of win wickets to career wickets 
     and % of win wickets to team win wickets).

Just to summarize, Muralitharan leads in 2 measures (Wickets and Team load factor). The other 8 measures are led by Ambrose (RpO), Garner (Away bowling average), Imran Khan (Dismissed batsman quality), Waqar Younis (Bowling strike rate), Marshall (Peer comparison to all bowlers), Hadlee (Peer comparison to own team bowlers), McGrath (Top order wickets ratio) and Warne (Win index). A very fair distribution of the top positions with nine bowlers leading in one or more measures. There is no domination by one bowler.

There is one point worth mentioning here. There have been a number of comments about the wickets captured by Muralitharan against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I have thought long and hard and decided not to do anything about it. What is the definition of a weak team. India against Trueman in 1952 were much worse than Bangladesh against Muralitharan. England in 1984 were the rabbits against Marshall. How do we value the English wickets against Australia in 2006. It pains me to say this, what about Pakistan during the past few months. And finally where do we place Sri Lanka itself during its first 10 years. Let us not forget that Warne did not bowl against the strong Australian batsmen, nor Kumble against the great Indian line-up and so on. However the fact that the bowlers in the strong batting lineups did not bowl against their own lineups does not make them any less bowlers. Let Muralitharan not get penalized for playing in a weaker team.

If Muralitharan captured wickets against a team including the Flower brothers, Campbell and Goodwin, how can anyone downgrade these wickets. Where do we draw the line. A test wicket is a test wicket. There are enough measures built in to take care of wickets of batsmen of lower quality. If we start down-valuing performances against Bangladesh, what about Tendulkar's recent 105 out of 243, one of his best ever. For that matter, Gilchrist's 144 or Inzamam's 138 were all truly great match-winning innings. So let us put to rest this red herring, once and for all.

A final point to ponder for those doubting Thomases. Zimbabwe have won 8 of their 83 tests played. India won 8 out of their first 83 tests and New Zealand won 4 of their first 83 tests. Nice to remember that the first away test India won was past the 100th test they played (during 1968). Both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have won away tests well before this number.

I understand that this analysis favours the fast bowlers slightly. This is primarily because fast bowlers' strike rates are lower and they have a better chance of capturing top order wickets. However we have to consider the contribution to team causes and taking top order wickets and having lower strike rates are very essential to the team cause. As far as Strike rates and Rpo are concerned there is no need to do any adjustment since these are all great bowlers. Only two of these bowlers, Kumble and Kapil Dev have strike rates exceeding 60. Muralitharan and Warne have strike rates comparable to the pace bowlers. Surprisingly the bowler with the best Rpo figure is Ambrose. This clearly shows that there is no need to do any special adjustment.

Now for the tables.

1. Career wickets captured

Bowler            Value   Points

Muralitharan M      800   10.00
Warne S.K           708    8.85
Kumble A            619    7.74
McGrath G.D         563    7.04
Kapil Dev N         434    5.43
Hadlee R.J          431    5.39
Wasim Akram         414    5.18
Ambrose C.E.L       405    5.06
Marshall M.D        376    4.70
Waqar Younis        373    4.66
Imran Khan          362    4.53
Lillee D.K          355    4.44
Donald A.A          330    4.12
Trueman F.S         307    3.84
Garner J            259    3.24

This table is self-explanatory.

2. Bowling strike rate (Bpw)

Bowler            Value   Points

Waqar Younis      43.49   10.00
Marshall M.D      46.77    9.30
Donald A.A        47.03    9.24
Trueman F.S       49.44    8.72
Hadlee R.J        50.85    8.42
Garner J          50.87    8.41
McGrath G.D       51.95    8.18
Lillee D.K        52.02    8.17
Imran Khan        53.75    7.79
Ambrose C.E.L     54.58    7.62
Wasim Akram       54.66    7.60
Muralitharan M    55.05    7.52
Warne S.K         57.49    6.99
Kapil Dev N       63.92    5.61
Kumble A          66.00    5.16

Waqar Younis is the bowler with the lowest strike rate. It is not surprising to see that the three spinners and Kapil Dev prop up the table, although Muralitharan and Warne are not too far from Wasim Akram.

3. Bowling accuracy (Rpo)

Bowler            Value   Points

Ambrose C.E.L      2.31   10.00
Garner J           2.47    9.12
Muralitharan M     2.48    9.10
McGrath G.D        2.50    8.98
Imran Khan         2.55    8.74
Wasim Akram        2.59    8.49
Trueman F.S        2.62    8.35
Hadlee R.J         2.63    8.29
Warne S.K          2.65    8.18
Marshall M.D       2.69    7.99
Kumble A           2.70    7.95
Lillee D.K         2.76    7.61
Kapil Dev N        2.78    7.49
Donald A.A         2.84    7.19
Waqar Younis       3.25    5.02

One would have expected a spinner like Murali to head this table. It is a surprise that the often-underrated Ambrose is on top with a Rpo value of 2.31. Waqar Younis has topped the previous table and is propping up this table.

4. Average quality of wickets captured

Bowler            Value   Points

Imran Khan        25.76   10.00
Lillee D.K        24.58    9.54
Kapil Dev N       23.83    9.25
Hadlee R.J        23.64    9.18
Marshall M.D      22.97    8.92
Garner J          22.18    8.61
Kumble A          20.51    7.96
Waqar Younis      20.34    7.89
Muralitharan M    20.27    7.87
Donald A.A        20.06    7.79
Ambrose C.E.L     20.01    7.77
Wasim Akram       19.56    7.59
McGrath G.D       19.22    7.46
Warne S.K         18.48    7.17
Trueman F.S       17.80    6.91

Imran Khan's wickets were of high quality as proved by his high placing here. Warne's and McGrath's low placing is the result of many late order wickets and the fact that they played for a very strong batting lineup. Muralitharan is also pulled down by the number of wickets against the weaker teams. However his figures are still higher than those of Warne.

5. Away wicket bowling average

Bowler            Value   Points

Garner J          20.33   10.00
Ambrose C.E.L     20.39    9.98
McGrath G.D       21.23    9.70
Marshall M.D      22.25    9.35
Hadlee R.J        22.37    9.31
Donald A.A        23.51    8.93
Wasim Akram       23.97    8.77
Lillee D.K        24.18    8.70
Warne S.K         25.27    8.33
Trueman F.S       26.16    8.04
Imran Khan        26.29    7.99
Waqar Younis      26.29    7.99
Muralitharan M    27.02    7.74
Kapil Dev N       32.69    5.83
Kumble A          37.36    4.26

Garner has captured his away wickets at an incredible average of 20.33, closely followed by Ambrose with an away average of 20.39. In fact Garner, Ambrose, McGrath and Warne have an away bowling average which is better than their home bowling average. Kumble's away bowling average was abysmal. Look at the huge daylight which exists between Murali and Kapil/Kumble.

6. % of top order wickets captured

Bowler            Value   Points

McGrath G.D       0.501   10.00
Donald A.A        0.497    9.92
Kapil Dev N       0.494    9.84
Ambrose C.E.L     0.475    9.46
Lillee D.K        0.468    9.33
Imran Khan        0.462    9.21
Trueman F.S       0.453    9.04
Marshall M.D      0.445    8.87
Hadlee R.J        0.439    8.75
Waqar Younis      0.437    8.72
Garner J          0.406    8.09
Wasim Akram       0.394    7.86
Kumble A          0.383    7.64
Muralitharan M    0.350    6.99
Warne S.K         0.318    6.35

Just over half of the wickets captured by McGrath are top order wickets. The three spinners prop up the table, with figures around a third of the total wickets. This is to be expected.

7. % of team load borne

Bowler            Value   Points

Muralitharan M    0.361   10.00
Hadlee R.J        0.298    8.26
Kumble A          0.296    8.21
Warne S.K         0.281    7.77
Lillee D.K        0.275    7.62
Imran Khan        0.267    7.40
Donald A.A        0.253    7.01
Wasim Akram       0.250    6.92
Marshall M.D      0.249    6.89
McGrath G.D       0.247    6.85
Ambrose C.E.L     0.244    6.76
Garner J          0.243    6.74
Trueman F.S       0.242    6.71
Waqar Younis      0.239    6.63
Kapil Dev N       0.222    6.14

This is a composite value taking into account the work load in terms of balls bowled and the resultant wicket captures. Muralitharan is way out on top having shared captured 39% of his team wickets and bowling 33% of his team balls. 6 of the pace bowlers fall below 25%.

8. Peer comparison of average to all peer bowlers

Bowler            Value   Points

Marshall M.D      1.550   10.00
McGrath G.D       1.527    9.84
Ambrose C.E.L     1.514    9.76
Garner J          1.509    9.73
Muralitharan M    1.478    9.53
Hadlee R.J        1.447    9.33
Trueman F.S       1.435    9.25
Donald A.A        1.433    9.24
Imran Khan        1.410    9.09
Waqar Younis      1.363    8.79
Wasim Akram       1.361    8.77
Lillee D.K        1.332    8.59
Warne S.K         1.295    8.35
Kumble A          1.107    7.14
Kapil Dev N       1.085    7.00

This is a comparison of the bowler's bowling average with that of his peers, exactly measured from his first test to last test. Marshall, McGrath and Ambrose stand at over 150%. Kumble and Kapil Dev just about stay either side of 110%.

9. Peer comparison of average to own team peer bowlers

Bowler            Value   Points

Hadlee R.J        1.534   10.00
Muralitharan M    1.418    9.25
Imran Khan        1.377    8.98
Ambrose C.E.L     1.233    8.04
Donald A.A        1.197    7.80
Lillee D.K        1.188    7.74
Kapil Dev N       1.181    7.70
Marshall M.D      1.170    7.63
Trueman F.S       1.169    7.62
Garner J          1.156    7.54
Wasim Akram       1.151    7.51
McGrath G.D       1.149    7.49
Kumble A          1.125    7.33
Waqar Younis      1.123    7.32
Warne S.K         1.017    6.63

This is a comparison of the bowler's bowling average with that of his peers, from his own team, exactly measured from his first test to last test. As expected, the two so called weak-team bowlers, Hadlee and Murali are on top, Hadlee exceeding 150%. Warne just about goes past 100%, which is understandable. A surprise is Kumble's somewhat low figure. This is a reflection of Kumble's somewhat high bowling average nearing 30. This is not too different from his contemporary bowlers.

10. Performance in won matches

Bowler            Value   Points

Warne S.K         0.500   10.00
McGrath G.D       0.492    9.84
Marshall M.D      0.486    9.73
Muralitharan M    0.477    9.54
Lillee D.K        0.451    9.01
Waqar Younis      0.440    8.81
Donald A.A        0.426    8.51
Trueman F.S       0.419    8.38
Ambrose C.E.L     0.414    8.27
Kumble A          0.401    8.01
Hadlee R.J        0.398    7.96
Garner J          0.393    7.86
Wasim Akram       0.384    7.68
Imran Khan        0.364    7.27
Kapil Dev N       0.198    3.96

This is done by doing a composite calculation involving two ratios. The first is the ratio of the bowler wickets in won matches with his own career wickets. The other is the ratio of the bowler wickets in won matches against the team wickets in won matches. This rewards success and as expected, Warne and McGrath lead the pack. Not so surprisingly Kapil Dev is last, indicating that the Indian wins were probably crafted by the spinners during Kapil's era. The presence of Hadlee, Akram, Imran and Kapil in the last five also indicates that their contributions to their team wins was also with the bat. These four are the best batsmen in this elite group of bowlers.

Now for the summary table.

                Total  Wkts BowSR  RpO  WkQty AwAvg TORto  TmLd Peer1 Peer2 WinId

Muralitharan M  87.54 10.00  7.52  9.10  7.87  7.74  6.99 10.00  9.53  9.25  9.54
McGrath G.D     85.38  7.04  8.18  8.98  7.46  9.70 10.00  6.85  9.84  7.49  9.84
Hadlee R.J      84.89  5.39  8.42  8.29  9.18  9.31  8.75  8.26  9.33 10.00  7.96
Marshall M.D    83.36  4.70  9.30  7.99  8.92  9.35  8.87  6.89 10.00  7.63  9.73
Ambrose C.E.L   82.72  5.06  7.62 10.00  7.77  9.98  9.46  6.76  9.76  8.04  8.27

Imran Khan      81.00  4.53  7.79  8.74 10.00  7.99  9.21  7.40  9.09  8.98  7.27
Lillee D.K      80.76  4.44  8.17  7.61  9.54  8.70  9.33  7.62  8.59  7.74  9.01
Donald A.A      79.75  4.12  9.24  7.19  7.79  8.93  9.92  7.01  9.24  7.80  8.51
Garner J        79.34  3.24  8.41  9.12  8.61 10.00  8.09  6.74  9.73  7.54  7.86
Warne S.K       78.63  8.85  6.99  8.18  7.17  8.33  6.35  7.77  8.35  6.63 10.00

Trueman F.S     76.86  3.84  8.72  8.35  6.91  8.04  9.04  6.71  9.25  7.62  8.38
Wasim Akram     76.37  5.18  7.60  8.49  7.59  8.77  7.86  6.92  8.77  7.51  7.68
Waqar Younis    75.84  4.66 10.00  5.02  7.89  7.99  8.72  6.63  8.79  7.32  8.81
Kumble A        71.40  7.74  5.16  7.95  7.96  4.26  7.64  8.21  7.14  7.33  8.01
Kapil Dev N     68.24  5.43  5.61  7.49  9.25  5.83  9.84  6.14  7.00  7.70  3.96

It does not matter which route is taken, be it the high road or low road, be it the country road or the highway, be it the scenic route or the road through the concrete jungle, there is only one destination. The one which proclaims Muralitharan as the best amongst the equals. Let no one forget the X-factor here, the impact Muralitharan has had on Sri Lankan cricket. Glenn McGrath comes in next, a well-deserved place for this outstanding metronome. Richard Hadlee, the legendary fast bowler from down under clocks in the third position. Malcolm Marshall, that fearsome Bajan fast bowling "giant" is in fourth position, closely followed by the other Caribbean giant, this time physically also, Curtley Ambrose.

Imran Khan follows next, a well-deserved position for this wonderful bowler, batsman and born leader of men, despite playing in quite a few tests as a batsman. Dennis Lillee, one of the all-time greats, follows next. He is the highest placed bowler who does not lead in any category. Alan Donald is in seventh position, closely followed by the other West Indian giant, Joel Garner. Now comes Shane Warne, a well-deserved top-10 position for this magician.

The third section of the table is led by the fiery Englishman, Trueman. Now we have arguably the best fast bowling pair ever, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, paired together here also. The two Indian bowlers come in next. First, Anil Kumble, whose contributions to Indian cricket can be matched by only one player, the little master. One could say the same of Kapil Dev. The fact that these two Indian stalwarts come in at the end indicates that India has traditionally relied on its batting. However these two are definitely India's best bowlers ever.

Postscript:

In response to the readers' requests I have added Holding, Botham, Underwood and Shaun Pollock (my choice) and presented the revised table below. Surprisingly, it is Shaun pollock who comes into the table in the 11th position, followed by Holding in 12th position. Underwood comes in the 16th position and is followed by Botham.

I have since added Gibbs and Walsh in response to a few readers' requests. They have not exactly moved the world. Walsh splits the Pakistani pair while Gibbs has taken over the last place from Kapil dev. I have steadfastly not included SF Barnes since he changes the whole dynamics since he leads in couple of meaasures. This rounds off such requests.

                Total  Wkts BowSR  RpO  WkQty AwAvg TORto  TmLd Peer1 Peer2 WinId

Muralitharan M  87.54 10.00  7.52  9.10  7.87  7.74  6.99 10.00  9.53  9.25  9.54
McGrath G.D     85.38  7.04  8.18  8.98  7.46  9.70 10.00  6.85  9.84  7.49  9.84
Hadlee R.J      84.89  5.39  8.42  8.29  9.18  9.31  8.75  8.26  9.33 10.00  7.96
Marshall M.D    83.36  4.70  9.30  7.99  8.92  9.35  8.87  6.89 10.00  7.63  9.73
Ambrose C.E.L   82.72  5.06  7.62 10.00  7.77  9.98  9.46  6.76  9.76  8.04  8.27
Imran Khan      81.00  4.53  7.79  8.74 10.00  7.99  9.21  7.40  9.09  8.98  7.27
Lillee D.K      80.76  4.44  8.17  7.61  9.54  8.70  9.33  7.62  8.59  7.74  9.01
Donald A.A      79.75  4.12  9.24  7.19  7.79  8.93  9.92  7.01  9.24  7.80  8.51
Garner J        79.34  3.24  8.41  9.12  8.61 10.00  8.09  6.74  9.73  7.54  7.86
Warne S.K       78.63  8.85  6.99  8.18  7.17  8.33  6.35  7.77  8.35  6.63 10.00
Pollock S.M     78.05  5.26  6.91  9.52  7.86  8.21  8.82  6.42  9.28  8.18  7.58
Holding M.A     77.60  3.11  8.40  7.45  9.81  9.19  9.14  6.37  8.59  6.95  8.58
Trueman F.S     76.86  3.84  8.72  8.35  6.91  8.04  9.04  6.71  9.25  7.62  8.38
Wasim Akram     76.37  5.18  7.60  8.49  7.59  8.77  7.86  6.92  8.77  7.51  7.68
Walsh C.A       76.07  6.49  6.91  8.80  8.02  8.20  8.77  6.59  8.42  6.94  6.92
Waqar Younis    75.84  4.66 10.00  5.02  7.89  7.99  8.72  6.63  8.79  7.32  8.81
Underwood D.L   71.74  3.71  3.52 11.06  8.97  7.62  8.34  6.59  7.78  7.71  6.43
Kumble A        71.40  7.74  5.16  7.95  7.96  4.26  7.64  8.21  7.14  7.33  8.01
Botham I.T      70.06  4.79  7.10  6.38  8.76  7.08  8.08  6.67  7.24  6.84  7.11
Kapil Dev N     68.24  5.43  5.61  7.49  9.25  5.83  9.84  6.14  7.00  7.70  3.96
Gibbs L.R       65.08  3.86  0.48 11.68  7.79  6.30  6.33  7.00  7.12  6.94  7.57

One final request. Please restrict yourself to comments relevant to the article.