After four or five fairly heavy analytical articles, I feel it is time I did an anecdotal post, this time from the heart. My Resident editor would also be quite happy since he has been pushing me for such articles once in a while. Sitting in cold Minneapolis, this would make Sriram's day.

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 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. In my earlier article I had looked at epochal fourth innings.

The third innings is the most fascinating one of all. 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 strategizing starts. The seeds of the result aimed for are sown here.

One constant factor which is present in most of these winning third innings knocks is that these do not lead to wins by themselves. It still requires great bowling efforts, such as that of Willis, Harbhajan, Trott and Hauritz et al to complete the winning process.

In this article I have looked at a baker's dozen of epochal performances in third innings. Before the reader sharpens his 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.

Let me mention that most of the the top 10 from the third innings performances from the Wisden-100 table find their place here. The Wisden-100 itself is heavy with great third innings performances, with 4 of the top-6 coming in the third innings. There are 10 winning performances, 2 from drawn matches and 1 from lost matches. There is a fair distribution across ages and teams. If I have missed out a team, it is only because I am trying to push in a litre of liquid in a pint bottle.

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. Do not get upset that one specific performance is not in this list or in the nearly-made-it list. Put up your cases in a nice and emphatic manner.

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

1. MtId: 1171 (1991) 1 of 5 (Eng: 0-0) England won by 115 runs

    Eng 198 all out.
    Win 173 all out.
    Eng 252 all out (Gooch G.A: 154*).
    Win 162 all out.

After two sub-200 innings, England started 25 runs ahead. Then Gooch, an under-rated batsmen if ever there was one, played one of the greatest innings ever against a bowling attack of Ambrose, Patterson, Marshall and Walsh. He scored 154 out of 252. There were two other innings of 27 and nothing else. Look at the % of score, 61.1%. To boot, he remained unbeaten. He added 98 for the seventh wicket with Pringle. England won by 115 runs. I think this innings stands comparison with any of the modern classics.

2. MtId: 1535 (2001) 2 of 3 (Ind: 0-1) India won by 171 runs

    Aus 445 all out.
    Ind 171 all out.
    Ind 657 for 7 wkts (Laxman V.V.S: 281).
    Aus 212 all out.

What does one write about this innings. Half the cricket followers would anoint this classic as the best Test innings ever and they would not be far away from truth. The support of Dravid was as important as Harbhajan's bowling on the last day to effect this amazing win. In many ways this innings and win was the watershed in the Indian cricket teams' attitude and start of a new phase of self-belief.

3. MtId: 0257 (1937) 3 of 5 (Aus: 0-2) Australia won by 365 runs

    Aus 200 for 9 wkts.
    Eng  76 for 9 wkts.
    Aus 564 all out (Bradman D.G: 270).
    Eng 323 all out.

The first two days were played on gluepot pitches. England declared 124 behind in a bid to cash in on the treacherous nature of the pitch. Bradman countered by sending in his late order batsmen and Australia were 97 for 5. Then Bradman and Fingleton got together and added 346 runs. After that everything was downhill. Australia won by a massive margin of 365 runs. As much a tribute to Bradman's strategic skills as to his batting. It should not be forgotten that Australia were trailing 0-2 with 3 to play. Starting with this test, they won the next three tests and won the series 3-2. The only time this has happened in history of Test cricket, as mentioned in my last article.

4. MtId: 1716 (2004) 1 of 2 (Pak: 0-0) Sri Lanka won by 201 runs

    Slk 243 all out.
    Pak 264 all out.
    Slk 438 all out (Jayasuriya S.T: 253).
    Pak 216 all out.

A recent masterpiece. After two middling innings, Sri Lanka were behind by 21 runs. Jayasuriya anchored the innings with an outstanding effort of 253 in 348 balls. He was ably supported by two fifties from Sangakkara and Jayawardene. Jayasuriya's high innings was still nearly 60% of Sri Lankan score. Sri Lanka then won comfortably despite being without Muralitharan. It must be mentioned that this was at the feather-bed in Faisalabad.

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

    Aus 401 for 9 wkts.
    Eng 174 all out.
    Eng 356 all out (Botham I.T: 149*).
    Aus 111 all out.

A similar test to the 2001 Calcutta classic. England followed on 227 behind. Then the scripts diverge. Unlike Calcutta, England were soon hanging by a slender thread at 135 for 7. Botham counter-attacked and was ably supported by Dilley with 56 and Old with 29. Even then Australia were left with a meagre target of 129. Then Willis took over and England won by 18 runs. "Botham's Ashes" was born.

6. MtId: 1458 (1999) 4 of 4 (Eng: 1-1) New Zealand won by 83 runs

    Nzl 236 all out.
    Eng 153 all out.
    Nzl 162 all out (Cairns C.L: 80).
    Eng 162 all out.

This was an away match for New Zealand. Even though they took a first innings lead of 83, they slumped to 39 for 6 when Chris Cairns walked in. He counter-attacked, scoring 80 in 93 balls and added 40 with McMillan and 70 with Nash, departing at 149. He scored 80 out of 110 runs while at crease. New Zealand set England a task of 245 to win but won by 83 runs for a memorable away series win.

7. MtId: 1945 (2010) 2 of 3 (Aus: 1-0) Australia won by 36 runs

    Aus 127 all out.
    Pak 333 all out.
    Aus 381 all out (Hussey M.E.K: 134*).
    Pak 139 all out.

I would appreciate no snide comments on this test. Insinuations should not mar the wonderful innings played by Michael Hussey. Pakistan took a lead of over 200 runs and Australia were barely in front with 8 wickets down. Siddle played the unlikely support role to help Hussey add 123 for the ninth wicket. Hussey remained not out on 134 and gave his bowlers some chance against an unpredictable Pakistani batting lineup. They obliged by collapsing for 139.

8. MtId: 1444 (1999) 1 of 4 (Ind: 0-0) Pakistan won by 46 runs

    Pak 185 all out.
    Ind 223 all out.
    Pak 316 all out (Saeed Anwar: 188*).
    Ind 232 all out.

Pakistan recovered from 36 for 6 to 185, thanks to Moin Khan. India took a small lead. Then Saeed Anwar played a Gooch-type innings although the bowling was probably not comparable. He carried his bat for 188 and there was only one other fifty, by Yousuf. Saeed Anwar scored nearly 60% of his team's total. As often happens, the bowlers completed the job and Pakistan won by 46 runs. Spare a quiet thought for Srinath who is one of four bowlers who captured 13 wickets in a Test and still finished on the losing side.

9. MtId: 1169 (1991) 4 of 5 (Win: 1-0) West Indies won by 343 runs

    Win 149 all out.
    Aus 134 all out.
    Win 536 for 9 wkts (Greenidge C.G: 226).
    Aus 208 all out.

Two very small first innings led West Indies ahead by a mere 15 runs. Then the innings changed completely, thanks to Greenidge's patient 226, lasting over 11 hours. He was well-supported throughout, with five of the first six batsmen crossing 25. Not an innings as attacking as Jayasuriya's but no less valuable. The West Indian pacemen ensured that Greenidge's innings did not go in vain and they won quite comfortably.

10. MtId: 0058 (1899) 1 of 2 (Saf: 0-0) England won by 32 runs

    Eng 145 all out.
    Saf 251 all out.
    Eng 237 all out (Warner P.F: 132*).
    Saf  99 all out.

England were behind by 106 runs. Then Warner batted his way through the England second innings and scored 132, carrying England to a total of 237. Even then South Africa needed to score only 132 runs to win but collapsed for 99. Shades of this innings in Gooch's and Saeed Anwar's innings.

11. MtId: 0446 (1958) 1 of 5 (Win: 0-0) Match drawn

    Win 579 for 9 wkts.
    Pak 106 all out.
    Pak 657 for 8 wkts (Hanif Mohammad: 337).
    Win  28 for 0 wkts.

This is the first of two innings which helped their teams draw the test from way-behind situations. Pakistan followed on, 473 runs behind, that too at Kensington Oval and few would have given them any chance of avoiding a massive innings defeat. Hanif, the other little master, had other ideas. In an amazing display of stamina, concentration and temperament, he batted for just over 16 hours and scored 337 runs before being 8th out at 649. Pakistan saved the test and this is the innings against which other rear-guard efforts should be measured.

12. MtId: 0732 (1974) 2 of 5 (Win: 1-0) Match drawn

    Eng 353 all out.
    Win 583 for 9 wkts.
    Eng 432 for 9 wkts (Amiss D.L: 262*).
    Win DNB.

This was similar to the previous test I have referred to. Only difference being that England trailed by 230 runs. Amiss remained not out with 262 after a near 10-hour vigil and England saved the test quite comfortably. The two interesting points on Amiss' innings were the high % of team score (60.6%) and the lack of support, the next highest innings being Jameson's 38. This innings certainly matches Hanif's effort. The series was kept alive and England manage to save the series by winning the last test.

13. MtId: 1206 (1992) 3 of 4 (Saf: 0-0) South Africa won by 9 wickets

    Ind 212 all out.
    Saf 275 all out.
    Ind 215 all out (Kapil Dev N: 129).
    Saf 155 for 1 wkts.

This is the lone third innings effort in this selection which could not save the test. I debated a lot between this innings of Kapil Dev and Asif Iqbal's 146 against England. Finally what tilted Kapil Dev's innings for selection was the fact that his brave effort was performed in South Africa and he helped India set a target of 155. Granted that South Africa achieved this comfortably but at least there was a total to defend. Asif Iqbal's effort is equally praise-worthy and another time I might select that. Kapil came in at 31 for 6 and Asif came in at 53 for 7. The South African bowling was, however slightly better.

Now for the innings which almost made it. All these are wonderful innings and would have graced the top selection list. There are given in no particular sequence. Before readers come in with their own selection, they are advised to check this list also.

155 Tendulkar     1405 (1998) IND vs Aus
180 Trescothick   1734 (2005) ENG vs Saf
144 Taylor        1170 (1991) AUS vs Win
102 Vengsarkar    1047 (1986) IND vs Eng
73  Flintoff      1758 (2005) ENG vs Aus
237 Saleem Malik  1269 (1994) PAK vs Aus
150 Randall        840 (1979) ENG vs Aus
76  Rhodes        1243 (1995) SAF vs Aus
118 Saeed Anwar   1403 (1998) PAK vs Saf
159 Armstrong       76 (1902) AUS vs Saf
152 Chamara Silva 1822 (2006) SLK vs Nzl
146 Asif Iqbal     623 (1967) PAK vs Eng
26  Gillespie     1714 (2004) AUS vs Ind

The last selection might cause a few eye-brows to be raised. I feel that this was an all-time classic late-order innings which saved the day for Australians who went on to win the series. If Gillespie had departed early on the fourth day, India would have won comfortably well before rains opened up. 165 balls on a turning wicket against Kumble and Harbhajan was no mean task. The dead-bat defensive technique of Gillespie is today emulated by another tall, gangly, long-haired fast bowler, Ishant Sharma.

As I have mentioned in my comment, I have started a "Readers' Bakers' dozen". The first cut is presented below. Will be fine-tuned as we go along. Not in any particlualr order.

Thorpe 200 vs Nzl
Sobers 198 vs Ind
Slater 123 vs Eng
Kirsten 275 vs Eng
Trumper 159 vs Saf
Hammond 177 vs Aus
Pietersen 158 vs Aus
Laxman 167 vs Aus
May 285 vs Win
Afridi 141 vs Ind
Nourse 231 vs Aus
Richards 110 vs Eng
Imran 136 vs Aus
Compton 184 vs Aus
M Crowe 299 vs Slk

and a tribute to the minnows (outside the Xiii).
Andy Flower's 199 or Whittall's 188
Ashraful's 114 vs Slk or Khaled Mashud's 103 vs Win

The quality of a batsman is usually measured against the bowling and conditions in which he performed. Very few matches in the 2000s have provided the opportunity to witness high quality knocks. The bowling standard has drastically fallen away in the second half of the decade and the pitches have been lifeless. In contrast, the 1990s still had fantastic fast bowlers in each team and run scoring was not the easiest. Zimbabwe’s problems and Bangladesh’s entry have meant there are ample opportunities for most batsmen to boost their averages.

The average has always been an excellent measure of consistency and quality, but has a flip side because it does not quite consider the difference between a half century made on a minefield (read Sunil Gavaskar’s 96) and a century made on a featherbed (most matches at the SSC). A batting average of 50 which was earlier considered elite has now become commonplace this decade due to poor bowling attacks and placid tracks. The 2000s remains the decade with the highest batting average after the 1940s, which was a decade with very few matches. In this piece, I try to come up with a method to measure the true average of batsmen by considering the bowling strength of the opposition and the conditions encountered in the match.

The parameters used for the analysis are quite basic.
1. The bowling average for each opponent (in matches involving the player) is taken into consideration for home and away games.
2. The match average for all the matches is used to measure the difficulty level encountered. In matches involving Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, I do not consider the batting average of the minnows as the figure can skew the numbers badly. In these cases, the measure is purely the batting average of the other team.

The base value to measure the quality of an innings is calculated as the geometric mean (square root of the product) of the batting average (30.61) and bowling average (32.31) since Jan 1 1940. The quality index value obtained is 31.44. For each batsman, the similar values are calculated and measured with respect to the base value to obtain the accurate or effective average. For example if the batting and bowling average are 30 and 32 respectively , then the geometric mean is 30.98 and the quality factor is obtained by dividing the base value by the mean which yields 1.0147.

The table below lists the top run-getters in the 2000s (minimum qualification of 6000 runs). The table provides the details of runs aggregated home and away against each opponent (neutral venues also considered for Pakistan). Read the values as runs (innings played).

Ricky Ponting has had a wonderful decade as can be seen from his position at the top of the tree. After his horror run in India in 2000-01, he was unstoppable for the next six years, but has shown signs of decline over the last two years. Jacques Kallis and Rahul Dravid have been the rocks of the middle order for their respective teams. Dravid though has been slightly on the wane over the last three years which has seen his average drop from almost 59 to around 54. Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara have contributed immensely to Sri Lanka’s rise as a competitive Test team, especially at home. Sachin Tendulkar’s recent resurgence has stunned everybody and the early years of the 2000s when his injuries led to some poor performances have now been forgotten completely.

VVS Laxman and Virender Sehwag have eased much of the burden on Tendulkar in this decade with some exceptional performances. Shivanrine Chanderpaul and Brian Lara were the best batsmen for the West Indies in an otherwise forgettable decade. Lara retired on a high scoring 21 centuries in the 2000s. Mohammad Yousuf had a brilliant first half of the decade including a record breaking 2006 when he went past Viv Richards’ aggregate runs in a calendar year.

** The tables are in two parts for sake of clarity
***Ricky Ponting and Matthew Hayden played one Test against ICC W XI scoring 54 and 188 runs in two innings respectively. The calculations for these are done separately and included.

Top run-getters in the 2000s (minimum qualification 6000 runs)

Batsman	Aus(h)	Aus(a/n)	Eng(h)	Eng(a/n)	Ind(h)	Ind(a/n)	NZ(h)	NZ(a/n)	Pak(h)	Pak(a/n)
Ricky Ponting	-	-	993(16)	1082(25)	1115(16)	530(18)	496(11)	362(8)	781(12)	440(8)
Jacques Kallis*	700(17)	708(17)	1118(19)	292(13)	327(8)	760(15)	826(13)	354(6)	408(5)	521(8)
Rahul Dravid*	737(24)	972(24)	574(14)	915(15)	-	-	313(4)	766(14)	524(11)	550(9)
Mahela Jayawardene	185(6)	274(4)	1070(14)	502(12)	863(14)	628(10)	434(7)	194(7)	430(15)	630(15)
Sachin Tendulkar	1173(22)	925(17)	546(13)	629(12)	-	-	71(4)	444(9)	394(8)	268(7)
Matthew Hayden	-	-	909(17)	552(18)	861(13)	1027(22)	461(11)	197(7)	128(6)	246(4)
Kumar Sangakkara	112(6)	391(6)	671(14)	336(12)	892(14)	365(10)	317(7)	334(7)	619(10)	695(9)
Graeme Smith*	260(11)	493(14)	696(17)	1083(17)	227(6)	431(12)	220(8)	290(6)	347(9)	358(8)
Virender Sehwag*	763(20)	833(14)	290(12)	237(6)	-	-	177(4)	180(9)	544(6)	732(8)
VVS Laxman	1082(22)	1034(17)	180(9)	404(11)	-	-	279(4)	322(9)	375(10)	262(9)
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	699(12)	260(12)	400(12)	1061(20)	863(15)	260(5)	103(3)	276(8)	464(9)	306(9)
Mohammad Yousuf	-	367(12)	684(9)	815(15)	741(10)	366(11)	29(1)	718(14)	-	-
Brian Lara*	533(4)	707(18)	500(7)	503(17)	413(15)	-	149(3)	90(5)	331(4)	448(5)
Chris Gayle	186(6)	449(10)	474(13)	721(21)	481(16)	160(5)	280(3)	540(8)	115(5)	324(9)

Top run-getters in the 2000s (minimum qualification 6000 runs)

Batsman	SA(h)	SA(a/n)	SL(h)	SL(a/n)	WI(h)	WI(a/n)	Bang(h)	Bang(a/n)	Zim(h)	Zim(a/n)
Ricky Ponting	915(17)	867(17)	207(5)	198(6)	707(19)	846(11)	69(2)	191(3)	259(3)	-
Jacques Kallis	-	-	257(7)	318(10	929(11)	942(22)	254(4)	63(3)	112(2)	388(3)
Rahul Dravid	453(12)	504(16)	542(7)	662(21)	148(5)	1260(22)	-	560(10)	504(6)	475(7)
Mahela Jayawardene	1158(12)	314(10)	-	-	335(8)	294(7)	556(7)	304(7)	167(4)	137(2)
Sachin Tendulkar	414(11)	392(10)	386(9)	485(11)	306(5)	331(8)	-	820(9)	616(6)	199(4)
Matthew Hayden	862(18)	540(11)	381(7)	283(6)	681(14)	379(8)	61(2)	107(3)	501(3)	-
Kumar Sangakkara	790(12)	392(10)	-	-	452(8)	238(7)	592(7)	284(7)	255(4)	281(2)
Graeme Smith	-	-	88(3)	179(4)	717(12)	876(13)	408(4)	335(5)	162(2)	-
Virender Sehwag	924(11)	238(9)	547(7)	692(11)	286(5)	357(7)	-	176(6)	74(1)	102(3)
VVS Laxman	333(9)	330(9)	370(9)	494(11)	271(4)	731(15)	-	117(4)	31(2)	249(6)
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	820(15)	533(11)	130(4)	154(4)	-	-	108(2)	39(3)	73(3)	186(6)
Mohamamad Yousuf	96(3)	255(8)	285(12)	338(11)	665(5)	549(9)	227(4)	276(2)	-	222(3)
Brian Lara	793(15)	531(8)	299(3)	688(6)	-	-	173(2)	-	-	222(4)
Chris Gayle	814(20)	545(10)	164(7)	54(6)	-	-	221(3)	126(3)	46(3)	307(7)

The fact that Ponting played in a top class team meant that victories were assured more often than not and also meant he faced weaker attacks for much of the 2000s. He struggled in the subcontinent, but was very successful at home and in South Africa. The Pakistani attacks were far less potent away in the 2000s after the retirement of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis. All this pointed to Ponting facing comparatively weaker attacks in fairly easy conditions which is quite clearly a blot on an otherwise superb decade. Kallis has faced fairly consistent attacks throughout. His run glut against the minnows does pull his average down. Rahul Dravid’s best performances usually came when the chips were down and he has been very prolific in almost all away conditions. A considerable proportion of his runs though, have been made against the weakened West Indies and the minnows. Jayawardene and Sangakkara have scored tons of tuns against Bangladesh home and away boosting their averages. They have hardly played and succeeded in Australia and South Africa though Sangakkara’s 192 at Hobart was one of the best innings of the decade. Sri Lanka’s awesome home record and ordinary away record is very evident from the less impressive showing of these two batsmen in away matches. Matthew Hayden resurrected his career on the 2000-01 tour of India and proceeded to amass 30 centuries at a rate only next to Bradman. He, like Ponting, played in a top team and faced ordinary attacks throughout. His away performance was definitely under par when compared to his home batting.

Tendulkar’s prolific recent run has seen him score at a Bradmanesque average and he recently registered his sixth double century. His records in the 2000s against Australia has been excellent but the lack of quality in the attack in recent years does pull down his performance a little. He has also aggregated plenty against the minnows home and away in the past decade. Sehwag and Laxman also average more than 50 in the 2000s. Sehwag has two triple hundreds and four double tons. The Chennai and Lahore efforts though came on very flat tracks and the innings against Sri Lanka in Mumbai was against a highly weakened attack. Laxman usually has reserved his best against the top teams and hardly ever makes massive scores against the lesser opponents which have ensured that his contributions are always valued highly.

Brian Lara played in a team accustomed to losing in the 2000s. Right from the remarkable 2001 tour of Sri Lanka where he scored 688 runs in 3 Tests only to lose 3-0, he has made runs home and away against all opponents. His average against Australia is 47 in matches involving McGrath. His otherwise ordinary showing against England is boosted by the unbeaten 400 in Antigua. His consistency was exceptional in the last 3-4 years as he scored hundreds against Pakistan and South Africa home and away. Chanderpaul’s case is similar as he has been part of a very weak outfit for much of this decade and has done brilliantly in losing causes.

Quality measure (bowling average of opposition and runs/wicket in match)- base value: 31.44

Batsman	Aus(h)	Aus(a/n)	Eng(h)	Eng(a/n)	Ind(h)	Ind(a/n)	NZ(h)	NZ(a/n)	Pak(h)	Pak(a/n)
Ricky Ponting	-	-	0.7602	0.8975	0.7362	0.9803	0.7495	0.6821	0.8298	1.2303
Jacques Kallis	1.0493	0.9353	0.9367	0.9295	0.9824	0.8805	0.9599	0.7748	0.9757	0.8589
Rahul Dravid*	0.9357	0.8458	0.9295	0.8048	-	-	0.5993	0.9980	0.7167	0.6545
Mahela Jayawardene	1.0799	1.0310	0.9034	0.9935	0.7756	0.8823	0.7634	1.1236	1.0553	0.8867
Sachin Tendulkar	0.9183	0.8893	0.8808	0.8072	-	-	0.7478	0.8450	0.8148	0.6840
Matthew Hayden	-	-	0.7555	0.9176	0.7055	0.9833	0.7476	0.7841	0.7949	1.1382
Kumar Sangakkara	1.0799	1.0465	0.9034	0.99135	0.7756	0.8823	0.7645	1.1236	1.0657	0.7290
Graeme Smith*	1.0679	0.9171	0.9308	0.8195	1.1856	0.8141	0.9921	0.7748	0.9756	0.8589
Virender Sehwag*	0.9356	0.8076	0.9390	0.7216	-	-	0.5994	0.9980	0.7741	0.6545
VVS Laxman	0.9584	0.8530	0.8513	0.7994	-	-	0.5994	0.9980	0.7899	0.6545
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	0.9517	1.1543	0.9722	1.0476	0.9237	1.0987	0.9347	1.0011	1.0465	1.0459
Mohammad Yousuf	-	1.1473	0.8558	0.9556	0.6944	0.7859	0.7107	0.9887	-	-
Brian Lara*	1.0891	1.2303	1.0850	1.2345	0.9250		1.0804	1.1582	1.0622	0.9080
Chris Gayle	0.8670	0.9263	0.8804	1.0749	0.9250	1.1637	1.0804	1.0527	1.1037	0.9351

Quality measure (bowling average of opposition and runs/wicket in match)- base value: 31.44

Batsman	SA(h)	SA(a/n)	SL(h)	SL(a/n)	WI(h)	WI(a/n)	Bang(h)	Bang(a/n)	Zim(h)	Zim(a/n)
Ricky Ponting	0.8006	0.9059	0.5873	0.9594	0.8462	0.7027	0.3539	0.5627	0.4184	-
Jacques Kallis	-	-	0.9848	1.1188	0.6881	0.8749	0.4910	0.5941	0.3962	0.3210
Rahul Dravid	1.0164	1.1325	0.6701	0.9353	0.8365	0.9240	-	0.6127	0.4725	0.8009
Mahela Jayawardene	0.8508	1.4016	-	-	0.8985	0.9608	0.4264	0.7099	0.5016	0.3336
Sachin Tendulkar	0.9096	1.1583	0.7320	0.7995	0.9168	0.9678	-	0.6139	0.4663	1.1030
Matthew Hayden	0.8052	0.8969	0.7573	0.9623	0.8646	0.6560	0.3533	0.5627	0.4184	-
Kumar Sangakkara	0.8508	1.4016	-	-	0.8985	0.9608	0.4273	0.7099	0.5016	0.3336
Graeme Smith	-	-	1.0559	1.0277	0.6880	0.6903	0.4772	0.6267	0.3970
Virender Sehwag	0.8245	1.1322	0.6957	0.8791	0.8366	0.8608	-	0.6407	0.9945	0.6754
VVS Laxman	0.9350	1.0955	0.7290	0.8358	0.8366	0.9271	-	0.6930	0.3630	0.8692
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	0.9740	1.0715	0.9560	1.6700	-	-	0.4079	0.7548	1.3315	0.8383
Mohammad Yousuf	0.8219	1.2829	1.0985	1.0370	0.7561	1.0519	0.5406	0.5872	-	0.8901
Brian Lara	1.0368	0.8171	0.8839	1.0385	-	-	0.4079	-	-	1.1129
Chris Gayle	1.0411	0.9132	0.9259	1.0385	-	-	0.4079	0.7548	1.3315	0.8383

** The quality value for Ponting and Hayden in the ICC World XI match is 1.2964.

The table below lists the effective averages of the top batsmen in the 2000s. Brian Lara is on top in terms of quality of innings played and Ricky Ponting and Matthew Hayden are at the bottom. This is not a method that questions the quality of a player, but merely an alternative to measure the average effectively.

Effective averages of top batsmen in 2000s

Batsman	Actual runs	Actual average	Effective runs	Effective average	Quality deviation
Brian Lara	6380	54.06	6572.1	55.69	1.0301
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	6735	53.03	6805.0	53.58	1.0103
Rahul Dravid	8904	53.63	8733.0	52.6	0.9807
Mohammad Yousuf	6633	56.21	5950.5	51.29	0.9124
Jacques Kallis	9277	59.08	8022.3	51.09	0.8647
Kumar Sangakkara	8016	56.85	6800.9	48.23	0.9112
Mahela Jayawardene	8475	55.39	7324.3	47.87	0.8642
Sachin Tendulkar	8399	57.13	6933.4	47.16	0.8295
Ricky Ponting	10158	57.38	8207.3	46.36	0.8079
VVS Laxman	6864	52.00	5920.4	44.85	0.8625
Virender Sehwag	7152	53.37	5838.1	43.56	0.8161
Matthew Hayden	8364	52.93	6803.6	43.06	0.7537
Graeme Smith	7170	50.49	5818.2	40.97	0.8114
Chris Gayle	6007	40.31	5758.6	38.64	0.9585

A similar approach yields an average of 85.23 for Bradman (three weak teams played considered minnows) and 51.45 for Gavaskar. The approach can be further modified to calculate period wise averages to understand the batting quality better. Gavaskar for example averages almost 83 with 10 centuries against the West Indies prior to 1980 when the bowling attack was not at its best, but only 41 after 1980 with just three hundreds in dull draws, in between falling seven times to Malcolm Marshall before crossing 20.

A more detailed approach analysing period wise performance and in matches involving particular bowlers will be taken up later.

Last week I did an analysis of the Test match results by series. In view of the length of the article and the need to get and incorporate user responses, I decided to do this as a 2-part article. I am glad that I did this way. I have had excellent responses from the users and this has added a lot of value to the follow-up article. I feel that this is one follow-up article which was turned 180 degrees through the user responses. I have made significant improvements and have also changed the very basis for measuring the teams.

First, the summary of changes.

1. The basic method of determining the performance index has been changed based on excellent suggestions by and the extensive dialog I had with Raghav Behani. He himself added value to suggestions put up by Topa Singh. More details later.

2. Coming-from-behind series wins are recognized. Thanks to Dhaval/Anand for suggesting this. More details later.

3. There will be an adjustment in points secured in the series with 1/2 matches.

4. A 3-1 win will carry lesser points than 3-0, a 2-1 win will carry lesser points than 2-0 and so on.

Shankar had made a useful suggestion that all the away series which did not have neutral umpires should get higher weights. The suggestion is eminently valid as all teams, without exceptions, had some dubious members of the umpiring fraternity. However the whole thing is muddled with one neutral umpire scheme starting at various times in different countries. I am not able to work out a clear time-line.

Performance Index

For the Test match analysis, I had done a 0-1-2 points for wins. It came out quite well. For the Series analysis I did not like this over-simplified point allocation because of the widely varying number of Test matches. Then Raghav came back with a suggestion that I do this based on the maximum points available for each series. This would reduce the imbalance problem and provide proper weight. This idea of keeping the denominator at the maximum points did not strike me until Raghav pointed that out. This was a fantastic suggestion and my thanks to Raghav and Topa Singh for this. As Raghav mentions, this will let us do some important analytical studies of some of the famous rivalries like Ashes, India-Pakistan, India-Australia et al.

Of course it required some fine tuning. It is quite easy to win the one Test in a 1-0 series and get full 100% credit. To do that in a 6-Test series is very difficult. Why, it has never been done in history of Test match cricket. Hence some downward and upward adjustment of points is called for, as summarized below.

1-Test series: Multiply secured points by 0.75.
2-Test series: Multiply secured points by 0.875.
3-Test series: No change.
4-Test series: No change.
5-Test series: Multiply secured points by 1.125.
6-Test series: Multiply secured points by 1.25.

           Sum for all series of {Series points x Above weight}
Index % =  ----------------------------------------------------
                  Sum for all series of {Maximum points}

Series win points

The following table is self-explanatory.

 Max   <----------------------Series result---------------------->
Tests
       1-0 2-1  3-2 : 2-0 3-1  4-2 : 3-0 4-1 : 4-0 5-1 : 5-0 : 6-0

  1    2.0  -    -     -   -    -     -   -     -   -     -     -
  2    3.0  -    -    4.0  -    -     -   -     -   -     -     -
  3    4.0 4.5   -    5.0  -    -    6.0  -     -   -     -     -
  4    5.0 5.5   -    6.0 6.5   -    7.0  -    8.0  -     -     -
  5    6.0 6.25 6.5   7.0 7.5   -    8.0 8.5   9.0  -   10.0    -
  6    6.0 6.25 6.5   7.0 7.25 7.5   8.0 8.5   9.0 9.5  10.0  12.0(yet to occur)

Coming from behind

My definition of coming from behind is different to Cricinfo/Statsguru. They treat any series in which a team has gone behind as a coming-from-behind series. Even a series in which a team loses the first Test and then wins the next four. Mine is a stricter definition which is that I will only reward teams which come from behind by a margin of 2 Tests, to either win or draw series. The summary below will explain this. No team has ever gone 0-3 behind in a 6-Test series and gone on to draw the series.

         SeriesId               From   Final

0-2 to win the series 3-2 (+20%)
Home win:   67  1936 Aus vs Eng  0-2 to 3-2

0-1 to win the series 2-1 (+10%)
Home win:   12  1888 Eng vs Aus  0-1 to 2-1
Home win:  302  1990 Win vs Eng  0-1 to 2-1
Home win:  350  1994 Saf vs Nzl  0-1 to 2-1
Home win:  398  1997 Slk vs Nzl  0-1 to 2-1
Home win:  399  1998 Eng vs Saf  0-1 to 2-1
Home win:  440  2001 Ind vs Aus  0-1 to 2-1
Home win:  550  2006 Saf vs Ind  0-1 to 2-1
Home win:  562  2007 Saf vs Win  0-1 to 2-1

0-1 to win the series 2-1 (+15%)
Away win:  323  1992 Aus vs Win  1-0 to 1-2
Away win:  352  1995 Zim vs Pak  1-0 to 1-2
Away win:  358  1995 Pak vs Slk  1-0 to 1-2
Away win:  439  2001 Slk vs Eng  1-0 to 1-2
Away win:  565  2008 Nzl vs Eng  1-0 to 1-2

0-2 to draw the series 2-2 (+10%)
Home draw:  45  1928 Saf vs Eng  0-2 to 2-2
Home draw: 111  1956 Saf vs Eng  0-2 to 2-2

The team strength adjustment continues to be done as explained in the last article. The points secured by the stronger team will be reduced and points secured by the weaker team increased proportionately. I will show the detailed graphs for "All Tests" and the eight periods based on the revised method of determining the Performance Index. The analysis is current upto and including the recently concluded India-Australia Test series.

I have also made significant changes to the graphs. To the extent possible the team colours are used. Tough task because of 3 shades of blue, 3 shades of green and 2 shades of red. The descriptive table at the right now contains both series played/won/drawn/lost information as also the number of 1/2/3/4/5/6-Test series played by the teams. A treasure-trove of information.

Australia leads the all-Tests table by a comfortable with an index value of 55.2%. When one sees that nearly half the series Australia have played are the longer 4/5/6-match series, their index figure assumes even greater value. West Indies have moved into the second position at the expense of England. Then come South Africa and Pakistan. Now there is a switch. Sri Lanka moves into sixth place, displacing India. One possible reason could be that Sri Lanka has never played even one 4/5/6-Test series. However it must be noted that they lose out on the 1/2-Test series. And India has been quite average, until 1990. They are carrying a lot of baggage.

The 2000s decade has Australia on top, way above South Africa. South Africa, England and India follow next. There can be very few questions on this positioning. Here also Sri Lanka edges out Pakistan. If their away form had been better they could have challenged India.

During the 1990s, Australia were on top, followed by South Africa and Pakistan. West Indies had not started their slide. Sri Lanka edges India out of the fifth place.

The 1980s was the time when Calypso was king, and how. They have the best ever decade of any team, winning 14 series and drawing 5, often away. Not one of the other teams even crossed 50%. Even series wins were rare for teams like India.

England, less troubled by Packer and WSC, led the 1970s decade, comfortably ahead of Australia and West Indies. India were also quite passable during this decade, no doubt due to Gavaskar and the spin quartet.

The swinging 60s were the time of the swinging giants from the equatorial islands. Led by Sobers, West Indies were on top. Australia and England were in the next two places. Pakistan were quite poor as they were in the decade in between Fazal and Imran Khan.

As expected, Australia, first led by Bradman and then by Hassett, were way out on top with 73.4%. England and West Indies also did well.

Bodyline notwithstanding, this was the era of Bradman and the Australians. Another 70+% index performance. England were the only other team which competed. the others just made the numbers. However I can assure the readers that wins against these weaklings have been seriously under-values.

This was an even period, with England taking the edge. They travelled well. South Africa were quite a good team towards the end of this period.

The following are the three top-ranked series in terms of points secured.

256 (1984)    West Indies defeated England 5-0 away. This was a clean sweep.
213 (1978-79) England defeated Australia 5-1 away. Australia were depleted 
but this being a 6-Test series and a huge away win gained lots of points.
296 (1989)    Australia defeated England 4-0 away.

Users can view/download the following tables. Some interested users could even think of importing these tables and deriving some statistical insights.

All-Tests and Period summary: Please click/right-click here.

Summary of all series - Chronological : Please click/right-click here.

Summary of all series - by Team : Please click/right-click here.

Caveat Lector: Since I use the published scorecards of Cricinfo, I have done the Series analysis by comparing the Series descriptions provided. There are some discrepancies over the years. So it is possible that a series might be split into two series. It is impossible to be 100% accurate. An example is the one Richard Mackey pointed out. For the first two Tests the description was "India in Australia, 2003-04" and for the last two Tests, it was "Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2003-04". This has since been corrected.

Couple of weeks back I did an analysis of the Test match results by periods. I am confident that the readers derived a lot of new insights into the performance of teams. I had also done a graphical analysis of the teams over the years. Amit Patel had suggested that the analysis be done by series. A simple but very sound suggestion since the series wins are the ultimate objective of any teams. Individual tests are only the means to this end. Hence I decided to do a comprehensive Series-based analysis.

Ha! Easier said than done. This turned out to be one of the most intriguing tasks I have ever undertaken, comparable to the Night-watchmen analysis. This is primarily because the Test Series has a myriad of variations and as I opened one door I came across intriguing possibilities in front of me. Unlike the Test match analysis this also offered a lot of insights beyond the base performance graphs. Let us now move on.

What is a series? There have been 150+ one-Test series, and moving upwards to 34 six-Test series. I have defined a Test series as any bilateral contest between two teams. Even the one-Test series has been considered as a Test series. The minimal nature of the contest has been taken care of in the point allocation. Until now there have been 605 series played during the past 133 years.

Out of these 605, three have been triangular tournaments. The first was held during 1912 between England, South Africa and Australia. There were 9 matches and no Final. I have treated this as 3 bi-lateral series. A 3-match England-Australia series with England as home team. A 3-match England-South Africa series with England as home team. Finally a 3-match South Africa-Australia series on neutral grounds. Then the individual Series dynamics take over.

The second was the Asian championships during 1998 involving Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka. There were three round-robin matches followed by a Final. The match between India and Pakistan in India has been treated as a one-Test series with India as home team. Two matches were then played in Sri Lanka. The matches between Sri Lanka and Pakistan/India have been treated as one-Test series with Sri Lanka as home team. Finally the Final between Pakistan and Sri Lanka in Pakistan has been treated as a one-Test series with Pakistan as home team.

The third was the Asian championships during 2001 involving Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. There were two round-robin matches followed by a Final. The match between Bangladesh and Pakistan in Bangladesh has been treated as a one-Test series with Bangladesh as home team. The match between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh has been treated as one-Test series with Sri Lanka as home team. Finally the Final between Pakistan and Sri Lanka in Pakistan, played after a gap of 6 months, has been treated as a one-Test series with Pakistan as home team.

Other than the 1912 triangular tournament referred to above, 4 Test series have been played on neutral locations. These are Pakistan vs West Indies at Sharjah during 2002, Pakistan vs Australia at Sri Lanka during 2002, Pakistan vs Australia at Sharjah during 2002 and recently, Pakistan vs Australia at England during 2010. These four series carry "neutral" tags for both teams concerned. Sharjah could be termed "home" for Pakistan from many points of view. However it is fair to designate that as neutral. Thankfully, even though Pakistan cricket has gone through troubling times periodically, the neutral venues have ensured that we do not lose out on watching one of the most exciting teams in world cricket.

Now for the allocation of points for series results. I have given below the basis for points allocation.

1. Scoring method: I will not adopt the 2-1-0 method which I adopted for the Test matches. That was acceptable there since those were only single Test matches. They might be part of a longer series. However the impact was confined to the specific 3+ days. On the other hand, a series is a much greater contest and could be conducted over 3 months. The Test matches were played over different grounds and weather conditions. It would be unfair to use a simple 2-1-0 method. After all a series can range from a 0-0 draw in a 1-Test series to 5-1 in a six-test series. Hence I have adopted a more complex method of allocating series points, described below.

2. Series wins: In general, a 5-x series win will get more points than a 4-x series win, a 4-x win more points than a 3-x win, a 3-x win more points than a 2-x win and a 2-x win more points than a 1-0 win. This certainly makes sense since this rewards the extent and quantum of win. the minimum points for a series win is 3.0 for a 1-0 win in a 1-Test series at home. The maximum points, theoretically since this has not yet happened, is 15.0 points for a 6-0 away win. It is also necessary to mention that there has never been a 6-0 series win. The table is shown below.

4. Series draws: I will allocate more points, for both teams, for a 2-2 draw than a 1-1 draw. Similarly a 1-1 draw will carry more points than a 0-0 draw. Obviously a 2-2 draw is possible only in a 4+ match Test series. This makes more sense since the score draws deserve higher consideration than score-less draws. And so for other draws. There has never been a 3-3 draw in Test history. The table is shown below.

3. Series losses: A series might be lost 0-6, 1-5, 2-4, 2-3, 1-2 et al. Not all these losses are the same. The teams which have fought hard to win at least one or two Tests deserve some consideration. Hence I have allocated some token points for Test match wins in losing series. In other words, a 3-0 win will give x points to the winning team and 0 point for the losing team. A 3-2 win will give the same x points to the winning team and y points to the losing team. So the differential points will be reduced for closer wins. The table is shown below.

5. Win points in series wins: The series wins for 1-Test rubbers will get the lowest points, for 2-test rubbers more, for 3-Test rubbers still higher and maximum for 4/5/6-test rubbers. Again understandable since it is more difficult to achieve the wins in longer rubbers.

6. Dead rubbers: There is a misconception regarding dead rubbers. People complain about dead rubbers only when the leading team takes it easy and loses. If a team is leading 3-0 and wins, now everyone appreciates the ruthlessness of the winning team and exhorts them to go for a clean sweep. Finally no team wants to lose a Test, whether they are leading 3-0 or trailing 0-3. Having said that, I have given lower weight for the dead rubber results. Some fine tuning still needs to be done for this.

7. Away bonus: Away results, wins and draws, will carry an additional weight of 25%. Less than a third of the series (31.1%) are won away. It is far more difficult to win a series away than a Test away. Hence this significant weight. Since the weight is applied on the points secured, short series away wins carry correspondingly lower points.

8. Neutral bonus: Neutral results, wins and draws, will carry an additional weight of 12.5% for both teams.

9. Team Strength adjustment: The relative strengths of the teams are finally applied to the series points secured. The factor varies from 125% (for Bangladesh performance against Australia in 2003 et al) to 75% (for Australia performance against Bangladesh in 2003 et al). About 10 series qualify for these extreme adjustments. Then the weaker teams start improving and the adjustment becomes 122%/78% and so on. The relative Team Strength indices are used to arrive at this factor.

10. Series Index: The total points secured for the concerned period is divided by the number of series to get an Index value which indicates the position of the team in the concerned period. An index value of 5.0 is indicative of a very good period for the team. An average value of nearing 6.0 indicates significant domination and nearer 7.0, possibly complete and total domination.

A. Points allocation for winning team for series wins

Max    1-win  2-wins  3-wins  4-wins  5-wins  6-wins (Not yet there)
Tests
1        3      -       -       -       -        -
2        4      5       -       -       -        -
3        5      6       7       -       -        -
4        6      7       8       9       -        -
5        6      7       8       9      10        -
6        6      7       8       9      10       12

B. Points allocation for both teams for series draws

Max     0-0     1-1    2-2
Tests  Draw    Draw   Draw 

1       1.0      -      -
2       1.5     2.0     -
3       1.5     2.0     -
4       2.0     2.5    3.0
5       2.0     2.5    3.0
6       2.0     2.5    3.0

C. Points allocation for losing teams in series losses

Max     Matches won by losing team
Tests  0-win   1-win   2-wins    (3 wins is not possible)
1       0        -       -    
2       0        -       -     
3       0      0.50      -
4       0      0.50      -
5       0      0.50     1.00
6       0      0.50     1.00

Before we go on to the tables and graphs, let me identify some outstanding team performances in the form of great streaks. This is a great by-product of this series analysis. And series streaks have a far greater value than Test streaks.

First two wonderful streaks have been identified and presented here. I find it difficult to distinguish between the two. Both are outstanding examples of team performances.

The first is the longest unbeaten streak of test series without losing. Let us trace the path.

West Indies lost the 3-test series to New Zealand by 1-0 (that too a 1-wkt loss).

Then, during the next 14 years, West Indies went on to play 29 series, 17 away, and remained unbeaten, yes, you read it correctly, unbeaten. They won 20 series and drew 9 series. And let us remember, no weak teams. This is the definition of domination, matched by only one team afterwards. Just for information, West Indies gathered 174.5 points during this streak and averaged 6.02 points per series.

The streak came to an end during 1994 when West Indies lost 1-2 to Australia at home.

Now for the other, equally mind-blowing streak.

Australia lost to Sri Lanka 0-1 during 1999 away.

Then, during the next 9 years, Australia went on to play 33 series, 12 away, and had 29 wins, 2 draws (New Zealand and India) and 2 losses. This is the alternate definition of domination, matched by only one team before. Just for information, Australia gathered 196.3 points during this streak and averaged 5.94 points per series. The two losses were the famous 2001 Indian win and the equally famous 2005 Ashes win, both by narrow 1-2 margins.

The streak came to an end during 2008 when Australia lost 0-2 to India away.

The most number of continuous series wins was by Australia during the period 2005-2008 when they had 9 consecutive wins. This streak was book-ended by the 2005 Ashes loss and the 0-2 away loss to India during 2008. The index for this streak was 6.29.

Australia had a 8-series streak of wins just before this one. England also had a 8-series streak way back in 1882. The best sequence for West Indies was a 7-series sequence of wins starting 1983.

Just for information, India has a sequence of 5 wins and 2 draws at the current point. With a win/draw against Australia, this will be extended to 8 series and possibly 9 when the New Zealanders come. But remember that these are not wins.

Since the article has already become quite a long one, I am going to keep the other tables and graphs to the follow-up article. Here I am only going to show the table for all tests combined.

Team       Total  Win Draw Lost Aw-W Aw-D Points Index
           Series

Australia    197  113   29   55   45  12   870.1  4.42
England      239  118   39   82   45  24   888.8  3.72
West Indies  123   54   21   48   24  12   443.0  3.60
South Africa 106   49   17   40   20  11   338.4  3.19
Pakistan     124   48   34   42   18  20   338.0  2.73
India        133   47   30   56   15  13   339.1  2.55
Sri Lanka     87   31   20   36    8  10   188.6  2.17
New Zealand  136   29   35   72   11  11   225.5  1.66
Zimbabwe      43    5    7   31    2   2    32.6  0.76
Bangladesh    35    2    0   33    1   0     9.6  0.27

No surprises here. Australia leads with 4.42 points, followed by England with 3.73 points. West Indies are in close third position with 3.60 points. South Africa and Pakistan complete the top-5. To cross off the final 't', the 1-test series between Australia and ICC has been considered as a home series for Australia. There is no contra-away series since ICC as a country does not exist.

I will show the period-wise tables, team tables and supporting graphs in the next part which will follow in a few days. All the tables will also be made available then.

For those of you who have started sharpening their key-board skills to say that these points are arbitrary and not objectively determined, I have a one-sentence answer. The same points, arbitrary and subjective they may be, are applied across all teams and all periods, over 1971 test matches.

This article is a completely different graphical look at the Test all-rounders and is a continuation of the similar articles related to ODI.

Just to recap, Bruce Henderson of BCG (Boston Consulting Group) had created these charts during 1968 to study the Growth-Share aspects of products/business units. This is an excellent way to study two related variables together. These are plotted on a graph which is split into four equal (or unequal) size quadrants. The placement of a particular player, gives excellent insight into the player's position in the galaxy of all-rounders. However please do not forget that this is clearly a two-dimensional graph between two related variables. Also these are all career figures.

I elected to do an analysis of all-rounders, to start with, for Tests since that offers the clearest two-dimensional look. The all-rounder, based on a traditional definition, is clearly a two-dimensional player, Batting and Bowling. We can derive a lot of insight into the position of all-rounders and their relative strengths by doing the BCG charts.

As usual the real test starts in the selection criteria. Unlike the ODI bowlers and batsmen where a straightforward runs/wkts cut-off was used. Here the situation is too complex for a simple cut-off. We have multiple tasks in front of us. We have to have a reasonable number of players, not too many nor too few. The all-rounder standard should not be diluted. After a lot of trial and error efforts, I have decided on the following criteria.

1. All players who have scored 2000 runs or more and captured 100 wkts or more will be automatically included. This gets 23 players in.

2. Out of the remaining, players who have scored 1500 runs or more and captured 75 wkts or more will be included if their Batting average is better than their Bowling average. The later condition ensures that very average all-rounders like Emburey, Prabhakar, Streak et al are excluded. This gets 9 players in. Some of the players who get in are Faulkner, Armstrong, Mushtaq Mohd et al.

3. Now to take away the bowlers who can bat, players who have scored below 25 runs per test will be removed. This means two players, Warne (21.9 rpt) and Kumble (19.0 rpt) go out. Very fair since these two are not really all-rounders.

4. Also to take away the occasional bowlers who are primarily batsmen, all players who captured below one wicket per test will go out. This is fair since this is an analysis of all-rounders. So Hammond (0.98 wpt), Jayasuriya (0.87 wpt) and Steve Waugh (0.55 wpt) go out. I have been quite hard-nosed about this definition and have not been influenced by the very loose definition of all-rounders. Even though Steve Waugh has been called an all-rounder, there is no way he can be classified as one in view of the fact that he has captured one wicket in two tests.

That leaves 27 all-rounders for analysis.

Now we go to the analysis. This time I will do two different BCG analyses. The first will be based on two qualitative measures, the Bowling average and Batting average. The second will be based on two quantitative measures, Wickets per test and Runs per test. The advantage with this method is that it is not longevity based and gives equal chances to players whether they scored 11126 runs or 1968 runs or captured 431 wickets or 75 wickets.

I have not made any adjustment for the period or home country. My very loose conclusion is that such adjustments are not needed in an all-rounder analysis. If a player played during a batting-centric period, he would have the opportunity to have better batting figures which should compensate for the expected lower bowling figures. If a player played during a bowling-centric period, he would have the opportunity to have poorer batting figures which should be compensated by the expected better bowling figures. Similarly if he played on batting-friendly pitches, his better batting figures should compensate for the lesser bowling figures and vice versa on bowler-friendly pitches.

The above represents a typical BCG chart. The players in the top-right quadrant, the red one, are the "Top all-rounders". They are to the right of the Batting average line and above the Bowling average line. The ones in the bottom right quadrant, the green one, are the "Batting centric all-rounders". They bat very well but can at best function as fourth/fifth bowler for the team. Similarly, the top left quadrant, the blue one, contains the "Bowling centric all-rounders". They are normally the leading bowlers for their teams but bat at 7/8. The bottom left quadrant, the black one, represents the "Average all-rounders". They play the supporting roles in both batting and bowling.

Now let us view the graphs. I experimented a lot with the sloping dividing lines, as suggested by Sriraman, but could not work out a clear formula. The basis for a proper slope could not be worked out. Hence I have stuck to the dividing lines parallel to the axes. However I have made two significant changes, as suggested by Murali. The lines are drawn now at the centre but the scaling on either side of the lines is different. This makes for very good viewing despite the lopsided data. Sobers and Kallis cause this lopsidedness on the batting front with their extraordinarily high batting averages. On the other side, Shastri and Hooper cause this lopsidedness with their 40+ bowling averages. The numbers are shown along with the player names. I have also shaded the quadrants with the appropriate colour.

First the qualitative one, based on averages. I have also made my comments on the positioning of players without drawing any conclusions.

Imran Khan and Miller are the leading all-rounders in this analysis. Aubrey Faulkner's presence would please the followers of Test cricket across the ages. The under-rated Trevor Goddard of South Africa is a surprise, but well-deserved, presence in this top quadrant. Botham is comfortably in this top group.

The batting centric group of all-rounders is led by the incomparable Sobers and Kallis, both with 55+ batting averages. There is another clutch of four all-rounders led by Greig, Brian McMillan (a surprise entrant - he just about makes it) and two greats of the 1910-20s, Armstrong and Woolley. Cairns just about misses the top quadrant. Two very average all-rounders, with awful bowling averages, Hooper and Shastri just about make it to this quadrant.

The bowling centric is a well-populated quadrant. This group is led by Pollock and has two greats of yonder, Noble and Rhodes. then we have Hadlee, Benaud and Wasim Akram.

The last group has Flintoff, Mankad and Vettori as clear residents. Vaas also belongs here. Bailey and Kapil Dev are on the borderline.

No Player            Runs   Avge  Wkts   Avge  ARIdx1

 1.Kallis J.H       11126  55.08   266  31.59   1.744
 2.Sobers G.St.A     8032  57.78   235  34.04   1.698
 3.Imran Khan        3807  37.69   362  22.81   1.652
 4.Miller K.R        2958  36.97   170  22.98   1.609
 5.Faulkner G.A      1754  40.79    82  26.59   1.534
 6.Pollock S.M       3781  32.32   421  23.12   1.398
 7.Mushtaq Mohammad  3643  39.17    79  29.23   1.340
 8.Goddard T.L       2516  34.47   123  26.23   1.314
 9.Greig A.W         3599  40.44   141  32.21   1.256
10.Hadlee R.J        3124  27.17   431  22.30   1.218
11.Noble M.A         1997  30.26   121  25.00   1.210
12.Botham I.T        5200  33.55   383  28.40   1.181
13.McMillan B.M      1968  39.36    75  33.83   1.164
14.Armstrong W.W     2863  38.69    87  33.60   1.152
15.Cairns C.L        3320  33.54   218  29.40   1.141
16.Rhodes W          2325  30.19   127  26.97   1.120
17.Woolley F.E       3283  36.08    83  33.92   1.064
18.Kapil Dev N       5248  31.05   434  29.65   1.047
19.Bailey T.E        2290  29.74   132  29.21   1.018
20.Mankad M.H        2109  31.48   162  32.32   0.974
21.Flintoff A        3845  31.78   226  32.79   0.969
22.Wasim Akram       2898  22.64   414  23.62   0.959
23.Vettori D.L       3962  30.71   325  33.87   0.907
24.Benaud R          2201  24.46   248  27.03   0.905
25.Shastri R.J       3830  35.79   151  40.96   0.874
26.Vaas WPUJC        3087  24.31   355  29.58   0.822
27.Hooper C.L        5762  36.47   114  49.43   0.738

I have presented the table above. The only additional field is the ARIdx1 value which is the Batting average / Bowling average. This is a far better measure than Batting average - Bowling average. An example will explain this. 50 and 30 would give an index value of 1.67 and a difference of 20. 40 and 20 would give an index value of 2.00 and the same difference of 20. It is clear that 40 and 20 is much better than 50 and 30. The difference of 10 in bowling is far more important.

Now let us view the second graph, which is quantitative one, based on per test values. I have again made my comments on the positioning of players without drawing any conclusions.

Faulkner is comfortably placed in the top group. Botham and Miller are in this top group. Cairns is a surprise resident of this quadrant and this is a reminder to the New Zealanders that there were two top quality all-rounders there.

The batting centric group of all-rounders is led by Sobers and Kallis. Their wickets per test value is quite low, either side of 2.0, to let them move to the top quadrant.

The bowling centric is again a well-populated quadrant. This group is led by Hadlee and Imran Khan. Mankad moves up into this quadrant.

The last group is led by Bailey and Rhodes.

No Player            Runs   RpT  Wkts   WpT  ARIdx2

 1.Sobers G.St.A     8032  86.4   235  2.53   136.9
 2.Hadlee R.J        3124  36.3   431  5.01   136.6
 3.Faulkner G.A      1754  70.2    82  3.28   135.8
 4.Botham I.T        5200  51.0   383  3.75   126.1
 5.Imran Khan        3807  43.3   362  4.11   125.5
 6.Cairns C.L        3320  53.5   218  3.52   123.9
 7.Mankad M.H        2109  47.9   162  3.68   121.6
 8.Goddard T.L       2516  61.4   123  3.00   121.4
 9.Kallis J.H       11126  79.5   266  1.90   117.5
10.Miller K.R        2958  53.8   170  3.09   115.6
11.Benaud R          2201  34.9   248  3.94   113.7
12.Pollock S.M       3781  35.0   421  3.90   113.0
13.Greig A.W         3599  62.1   141  2.43   110.7
14.Wasim Akram       2898  27.9   414  3.98   107.5
15.Kapil Dev N       5248  40.1   434  3.31   106.3
16.Flintoff A        3845  48.7   226  2.86   105.9
17.Noble M.A         1997  47.5   121  2.88   105.2
18.Vettori D.L       3962  39.6   325  3.25   104.6
19.Armstrong W.W     2863  57.3    87  1.74    92.1
20.Vaas WPUJC        3087  27.8   355  3.20    91.8
21.Mushtaq Mohammad  3643  63.9    79  1.39    91.6
22.McMillan B.M      1968  51.8    75  1.97    91.3
23.Shastri R.J       3830  47.9   151  1.89    85.6
24.Rhodes W          2325  40.1   127  2.19    83.9
25.Bailey T.E        2290  37.5   132  2.16    80.8
26.Hooper C.L        5762  56.5   114  1.12    78.8
27.Woolley F.E       3283  51.3    83  1.30    77.2

The second table is presented here. The ARIdx2 value is simply RpT + WpT x 20. The 20 has been derived based on these all-rounder figures rather than the all-tests figures.

We can take a batting average of over-40 and a bowling average of below-20 to be a Bradmanesque all-rounder. No one exists like this. Even if we change to 40-plus and below-22 we have no one. Looking at the two charts, we can conclude that Miller, Faulkner and Imran Khan are right there in the leading group. It is of interest that Faulkner played for a weak team and Miller for a strong team. Pollock and Botham also belong there. The summary figures for the four top all-rounders are presented below. It will be difficult to question the credentials of any of the five. Only Botham is slightly out of place in this group. Even then his bowling average is better than the best Indian bowler ever, Bedi at 28.71.

Player            Runs@Avge   Wkts@Avge  Idx1    RpT  WpT   Idx2

Faulkner G.A      1754@40.79   82@26.59  1.534  70.2 3.28  135.8
Miller K.R        2958@36.97  170@22.98  1.609  53.8 3.09  115.6
Imran Khan        3807@37.69  362@22.81  1.652  43.3 4.11  125.5
Pollock S.M       3781@32.32  421@23.12  1.398  35.0 3.90  113.0
Botham I.T        5200@33.55  383@28.40  1.181  51.0 3.75  126.1

Kapil Dev (31.05 and 29.65) does not belong to this group. Also if his bowling figures are adjusted because of bowling in the sub-continent, then his batting figures will get adjusted the other way. Similarly Hadlee (27.17 and 22.30) has too low a batting average. The bowling averages of Sobers and Kallis are quite high (31.59 and 34.04).

Finally let me conclude with a request to send in constructive comments which add value to the article. Bouquets or brickbats, it does not matter. If this article makes a young cricket follower look up GA Faulkner and Keith Miller in the records and marvel at their achievements, I would have achieved something.

My next article is a fascinating one analyzing Test Series. The Test Series, with their myiad variations as compared to the single tests provides scope for some interesting insights.

An important announcement to the readers. I have created an open mailid to which the comments and suggestions, not meant for publication, can be submitted. The mail id is ananth.itfigures@gmail.com. Since the readers would have to use a mail route I give the readers my assurance that the mail id is safe and will never be used by me for anything other than communicating with the reader specifically. This will not be part of any group mail nor will mails be cc'd.