Time for a Christmas Quiz on the It Figures blog. All questions apply to Test cricket only. The first three correct entries sent to rfinlay7@bigpond.com will receive a free Tastats cricket compute database.

Following are the ten questions:

1. Which player has taken part in the most partnerships in Test cricket?

2. Who has the highest innings top score in a losing team?

3. Who shares the record for the lowest innings top score in a winning team?

4. Who is the only player to be dismissed for a duck having come in immediately at the conclusion of a partnership of at least 400 runs?

5. What is the highest team score at which three wickets have consecutively fallen for the addition of no runs?

6. What partnership record does Desmond Haynes uniquely hold?

7. Which player fielded in the most consecutive innings without taking a catch?

8. Which player scored most runs in a Test in which his birthday fell?

9. Which player took most wickets after his 40th birthday?

10 What is the highest partnership to end in a run out?

Recently Unnikrishnan had suggested a way of measuring individual Test innings in a different manner. His suggestion was that the innings should be evaluated against the average score of the other batsmen who batted in that particular innings. He also wanted the individual innings values summed across all innings for each batsmen and averaged across their career, similar to the way the Batting Averages are calculated. For instance, to compute Don Bradman's career Innings Index value, the Innings Index values for all his 80 innings would be added and divided by 80. These are excellent suggestions in view of the following plus factors.

- This is an out-and-out peer comparison, that too within the same team.
- The comparison is within the same innings: Hence the conditions would be almost identical.
- The bowling quality faced would be almost identical, barring innings-level variations.
- This effectively takes take care of the oft-repeated complaints by readers regarding batsmen playing in weak or strong teams.

In some ways this is similar to the simpler % of Team score measure. However the one major difference is that in the % TS measure the number of batsmen who batted is not taken into account. "For no loss" and "for 7 wkts" will produce the same % TS, as explained in the examples. However the Innings Index takes care of this very well and is a true peer comparison. Team score, as given below, is sans extras.

Team-Score Batsman-Score  % TS   Inns Index

100 for 0      50          50        1.0
100 for 5      50          50        6.0
200 for 3     100          50        4.0
200 for 9     100          50       10.0
300 for 2     150          50        3.0
300 for 10    150          50       10.0

100 for 10     60          60       15.0
100 for 1      25          25       0.33
200 for 7     120          60       12.0
200 for 1      40          20        0.5
300 for 10    200          66.7     20.0

The formula for determining the Inns Index is quite simple and outlined below.

                    Runs scored by batsman
Innings Index  = -------------------------------
                 Average score of other batsmen
				
where
                                 Total runs made by other batsmen
Average score of other batsmen = --------------------------------
                                  No of other batsman who batted

I had to do limiting of the Innings Index values for innings in which fewer than 5 wickets fell as otherwise the following silly situation emerges. Aamir Sohail's 46 out of 61/2 will get 15.33 ??? Such cases have been limited to a reasonable number below 5 since these do not really reflect batsman contributions in demanding situations.

I have shown two tables. The first is a table of the top innings based on the Innings Index value. The second is a table of batsmen ordered by the average Innings Index value over the career.

Now for the first table. Readers will note a clear correlation between this and the % Team Score. However this is a far more robust and well-thought out measure which stands any test. Let me repeat, for the sake of readers itching to put in their tuppenny-worth on the innings they think should be placed high. This is not a list of the best innings. It is a table of innings whose Innings Index values, as described in this article are high. That is all. Do not draw unnecessary inferences from either of the tables.

Now for the first table. I have listed here the top-25 innings ordered by the Inns Index.

Table of Innings ordered by Innings Index 
(Batsman score > 199 or Inns Index > 5.0)

MtId Year Batsman            Bat Team (Ext) Batsman Oth  Inns
                             Pos Score      Score   Avge Index
			      
1156 1990 Gurusinha A.P       3  82/10 ( 8)   52*   2.2  23.64
0001 1877 Bannerman C         1 245/10 ( 8)  165*   7.2  22.92
1439 1999 Slater M.J          1 184/10 ( 4)  123    5.7  21.58
1481 2000 Laxman V.V.S        1 261/10 (21)  167    8.1  20.59
0732 1974 Amiss D.L           1 432/ 9 (41)  262*  12.9  20.31
0779 1976 Greenidge C.G       1 211/10 (11)  134    6.6  20.30
0542 1963 Reid J.R            4 159/10 ( 9)  100    5.0  20.00
1171 1991 Gooch G.A           1 252/10 (21)  154*   7.7  20.00
1306 1995 Moin Khan           7 212/10 (34)  117*   6.1  19.18
0401 1955 Sutcliffe B         3 125/10 (12)   74    3.9  18.97
0303 1948 Hutton L            1  52/10 ( 6)   30    1.6  18.75
1283 1995 Inzamam-ul-Haq      5 165/10 (19)   95    5.1  18.63
0164 1926 Macartney C.G       3 194/ 5 (17)  133*   7.3  18.14
0652 1969 Nurse S.M           3 417/10 (14)  258   14.5  17.79
1913 2009 Duminy J.P          6 138/10 (23)   73*   4.2  17.38
1884 2008 Sehwag V            1 329/10 (12)  201*  11.6  17.33
0665 1969 Burgess M.G         6 200/10 (12)  119*   6.9  17.25
1716 2004 Jayasuriya S.T      1 438/10 (37)  253   14.8  17.09
0130 1913 Taylor H.W          1 182/10 ( 9)  109    6.4  17.03
0079 1904 Tyldesley J.T       3 103/10 ( 8)   62    3.7  16.91
0846 1979 Yallop G.N          4 198/10 ( 5)  121    7.2  16.81
1206 1992 Kapil Dev N         7 215/10 ( 8)  129    7.8  16.54
0330 1951 Hutton L            1 272/10 (21)  156*   9.5  16.42
1820 2006 Sangakkara K.C      3 170/10 ( 9)  100*   6.1  16.39
0059 1899 Sinclair J.H        4 177/10 ( 6)  106    6.5  16.31
1747 2005 Sarwan R.R          3 194/10 (21)  107*   6.6  16.21
1444 1999 Saeed Anwar         1 316/10 (12)  188*  11.6  16.21
1749 2005 Lara B.C            4 296/10 (10)  176   11.0  16.00
0841 1979 Gomes H.A           3 151/10 ( 3)   91    5.7  15.96
0587 1965 Saeed Ahmed         3 307/ 8 (38)  172   10.8  15.96

A real surprise at the top. Asanka Gurusinha, a competent performer for Sri Lanka (with an average of 38.9), with his innings of 52 out of 84 all out (8 extras). This leads to an Inns Index value of 23.64. Then come three classics spread across 123 years. Charles Bannerman's 165 has a value of 22.9, Slater's 123 has a value of 21.5 and Laxman's career-defining 167 leads to an Inns Index value of 20.5. Then comes one of the greatest match-saving innings of all time by Amiss of 262, with an Inns Index value of 20.3.

There is a case for keeping a minimum team score as 100 to ensure that the index may have more validity. However I feel that in cases like Gurusinha's or Hutton's innings, the important factor is that the team was all out, in other words, 11 batsmen batted. Hence I have decided to retain these values.

Note the presence of some modern classics such as Sehwag's 201, Inzamam's 95, Jayasuriya's 253 and Sangakkara's 100. These are wonderful innings and fully deserve to be in this special list.

To view/down-load the complete Innings Index table of innings of 200 runs or more or an Inns Index value greater than 5.0, please click/right-click here.

Now for the batsmen table. To do this table I have added the Inns Index values for all the innings played by the batsman and divided the sum by the number of innings played. This leads to an average Inns Index value. An innings is what it says. When a batsman takes strike and whether he finishes at 400* or 0*, it is an innings. I am sure readers would come out with their own suggestions on excluding certain types of not outs, such as single digit ones. Let me wait for such suggestions and I am prepared to do the tweak and show the alternate table. As of now it is one straight forward calculation. As usual the batsmen who have scored over 2000 runs are shown. There is only one batsman of significance in the below-2000 group, Eddie Paynter who had scored 1540 runs at 59.23.

Batsman              Cty Inns   Runs   Bat   Avge  Inns Index  
                               Total   Avge  IIdx   <1.0 >5.0 

Bradman D.G          Aus   80   6996  99.94  3.348   22   19
Headley G.A          Win   40   2190  60.83  3.226   17   11
Lara B.C             Win  232  11953  52.89  2.701   99   42
Taylor H.W           Saf   76   2936  40.78  2.560   38   10
Nourse A.D           Saf   62   2960  53.82  2.551   28    9
Hutton L             Eng  138   6971  56.67  2.504   55   16
Hobbs J.B            Eng  102   5410  56.95  2.463   43   14
Turner G.M           Nzl   73   2991  44.64  2.438   36    9
Flower A             Zim  112   4794  51.55  2.387   58   17
EdeC Weekes          Win   81   4455  58.62  2.360   34   12
Hazare V.S           Ind   52   2192  47.65  2.283   24    5
Sutcliffe B          Nzl   76   2727  40.10  2.255   29    8
Hanif Mohammad       Pak   97   3915  43.99  2.254   49   16
Pollock R.G          Saf   41   2256  60.97  2.246   22    5
Taylor R.L           Nzl   51   2077  41.54  2.240   30    7
Habibul Bashar       Bng   99   3026  30.88  2.216   47   11
Sangakkara K.C       Slk  156   8244  57.25  2.190   74   21
Gavaskar S.M         Ind  214  10122  51.12  2.185  106   27
Mitchell B           Saf   80   3471  48.89  2.178   31    9
Walcott C.L          Win   74   3798  56.69  2.160   42   11
Hammond W.R          Eng  140   7249  58.46  2.158   73   15
Gooch G.A            Eng  215   8900  42.58  2.156  103   25
Sutcliffe H          Eng   84   4555  60.73  2.147   34    9
Saeed Anwar          Pak   91   4052  45.53  2.135   37   10
Mohammad Yousuf      Pak  156   7530  52.29  2.130   63   17
Sehwag V             Ind  146   7613  54.38  2.117   63   17
Chanderpaul S        Win  219   9063  48.99  2.116  106   24
Cowper R.M           Aus   46   2061  46.84  2.104   23    3
Saeed Ahmed          Pak   78   2991  40.42  2.093   34    6
May P.B.H            Eng  106   4537  46.77  2.080   41   11
Tendulkar S.R        Ind  286  14513  56.91  2.075  131   29

Bradman leads the table with an average Inns Index value of 3.348. What does this mean. Across his career he has scored 3.3 times the average of his compatriots, taken innings by innings. And in Bradman's case, because of the strength of Australia, the proportion of late order batting performances which are compared with Bradman would be fewer. That says something. Imagine, each time he performed at the level of his fellow players, he has to make up by notching up an innings with an Inns Index value of nearly 6 !!! He has performed below his compatriots only just over 25%, while the other batsmen have done between 40 and 50%. Similarly he has batted at a level above 5 times the average of his fellow batsmen just below 25%, while the rest of the batsmen do this between 10 and 15%. These are unbelievable numbers to read, digest and marvel.

The "Black Bradman" is second with the only other 3+ value. The fact that he is quite close to Bradman speaks volumes. Lara is third with a score of 2.701. There is no doubt that he would have benefited from playing in a weaker teams. However it is still necessary to outscore them consistently. A surprise next. Herb Taylor of South Africa is next with 2.560 and the classical batsman, Nourse next with 2.551.

Look at the next six batsmen. Hutton, Hobbs, Glenn Turner, Andy Flower, Everton Weekes and Vijay Hazare. This is an eclectic mix of batsmen playing for stronger and weaker batting line-ups. So playing for a stronger batting line-up does not necessarily prevent a player from getting a reasonable high average value. Hutton, Hobbs and Weekes played in strong batting line-ups. I get the feeling that this might be true where there were 3 top batsmen in the side, not 5 was the case with the Australian team of the 2000s and recent Indian teams. Andy Flower virtually carried his team for most of his career as did Glenn turner. Hazare played in a reasonably strong batting line-up. Not a surprise that Gavaskar and Hanif Mohammad are the leading batsmen of their respective countries.

I would conclude that the top batsmen in this analysis would have an average Inns Index value of over 2.00.

To view/down-load the complete Player table of all batsmen who have scored 2000 runs and above, please click/right-click here.

Many thanks to Unnikrishnan for the suggestion. This will become part of my ratings work replacing the % of Team Score measure.

This is a follow-up to the article on the best aggregate of runs scored by batsmen in 1 to 10 Tests. The article was very well received with well over 100 comments. Couple of readers wanted the idea extended to bowlers. This seemed like a good idea especially since the gap between the top bowlers is less pronounced than the difference for the batsmen.

For the bowlers I have aggregated wickets which are the most important acquisitions which any bowler can have. The averages really do not matter too much since wickets are the means to win in Test cricket. I have also made sure that the few-Test wonders like Sivaramakrishnan and Massie find their deserved place in these tables.

This also turned out to be a tough task since I had to create a player-performance database. This is essential since I needed to get the best 1-10 Test performances for each bowler and then get the all-time best performances. I also wanted to provide the information on the top bowlers' 1-10 Tests best performances so that the readers could do their own comparisons. And I was sure that there would be queries on the best performances by specific bowlers after the article was published. I have also provided the table of key bowlers for downloading.

First let me emphasize that this is only a wicket aggregate and will clarify that this aggregating of wickets in specific sequences of 1-10 Tests is irrespective of opposing team, home or away, match conditions, period lapsed between matches, quality of batsmen dismissed et al. That is not the purpose of this article. Readers should appreciate this and not come in with a comment such as "opposition batting quality is not considered". But that is wishful thinking! Also readers who worry about bowling average should understand that when someone captures over 50 wickets in 5-6 Tests, it does not matter about averages. It is going to be quite low. This is consistent with my stand on the comparable Batsmen analysis.

Let us now look at the tables.

Maximum wickets captured in a single Test

Bowler           Cty Wkts  StTest/Year

Laker J.C        Eng  19   (0428-1956) (9+10)
Barnes S.F       Eng  17   (0131-1913) (8+9)
Muralitharan M   Slk  16   (1423-1998) (7+9)
Hirwani N.D      Ind  16   (1089-1988) (8+8)
Massie R.A.L     Aus  16   (0699-1972) (8+8)

Laker's 19 wickets in a Test, a performance, which I am certain, will not be bettered in 100 more years of Test cricket, leads the pack of one Test wicket aggregates. Nine wickets in the second innings, followed, a day later with 10 wickets, is a la Harry Potter. Barnes's 17 wickets, a unique single-time performance, follows next. Now comes, arguably the best spin bowling performance, away from home; Muralitharan's Oval compilation of 16 wickets.

The significance is the absence of 18-wicket hauls, indicating how difficult it is to do these. Then come two debut performances, by Hirwani and Massie. Unfortunately both faded away afterwards. Hirwani at least played 16 more matches, capturing 50 wickets. Massie played a mere 5 Tests more, capturing 15 wickets, one less than what he captured in his first test. Why? An intriguing question for which there seems to be no answer other than the debut of Jeff Thomson and Max Walker a few months after Massie's debut.

It is of interest to note that 3 out of these 5 have occurred in England.

Maximum wickets captured in 2 consecutive Tests

Bowler           Cty Wkts  StTest/Year

Laker J.C        Eng  30   (0427-1956) (5+6, 9+10)
Harbhajan Singh  Ind  28   (1535-2001) (7+6, 7+8)
Barnes S.F       Eng  27   (0130-1913) (5+5, 8+9)
Lohmann G.A      Eng  27   (0047-1896) (7+8, 9+3)

Laker had preceded his 19-wicket monster Test with 11 wickets in the previous Tests. Harbhajan's first Test in this sequence was the famous Calcutta Test against Australia. Then at Chennai he single-handedly won the Test for India. Two platinum oldies come in next, with 27 wickets in two Tests.

Maximum wickets captured in 3 consecutive Tests

Bowler        Cty Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F    Eng  39  (0131-1913) (8+9, 3+5, 7+7) 
Laker J.C     Eng  37  (0427-1956) (5+6, 9+10, 4+3)
Lohmann G.A   Eng  35  (0047-1896) (7+8, 9+3, 7+1)

These were the last three Tests of Barnes's career. He finished with 39 in 3 and preceded by similar successes. Laker followed with a 7-wicket haul to accumulate 37 wickets. Lohmann clocks in next with 35 wickets.

Maximum wickets captured in 4 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      49  (0130-1913) (5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  43  (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7)
Lohmann G.A     41  (0036-1892) (8+2, 3+1, 7+8, 9+3)

This was a single series in which Barnes captured 49 wickets and still remains a record for all series, including 5/6 Test series. For the first time Muralitharan comes in, with 43 wickets and then Lohmann, with 41 wickets.

Maximum wickets captured in 5 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      54 (0129-1912) (5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  50 (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3)
Lohmann G.A     49 (0036-1892) (8+2, 3+1, 7+8, 9+3, 7+1)

The same three players, in the same sequence, with a few more wickets added.

Maximum wickets captured in 6 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      67 (0128-1912) (5+8, 5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  60 (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3, 4+6)
Laker J.C       53 (0412-1955) (2+5, 4+2, 3+0, 5+6, 9+10, 4+3) 

Barnes and Muralitharan are in top positions. Now there is a change with Laker chipping in with 53 wickets in 6 Tests.

Maximum wickets captured in 7 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Muralitharan M  69 (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3, 4+6, 5+4)
Barnes S.F      67 (0126-1912) (dnb, 5+8, 5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Grimmett C.V    59 (0236-1934) (4+3, 3+5, 2+3, 3+3, 5+5, 3+7, 7+6)

Muralitharan moves to top place with 69 wickets. Barnes is second with 67 wickets. Then Grimmett comes in with 59 wickets, these 7 Tests being the last seven of his illustrious career. From this point no bowler averages more than 10 wickets/Test.

Maximum wickets captured in 8 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      77 (0124-1912) (6+4,dnb, 5+8, 5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  76 (1804-2006) (3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3, 4+6, 5+4, 4+1, 6+6)
Richardson T    66 (0041-1893) (5+5, 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, 2, 3+6, 6+5, 7+6)
Hadlee R.J      66 (1029-1985) (9+6, 5+2, 5+6, 3, 7+2, 3+1, 6+1, 6+4)

Barnes now moves to the top and pushes Muralitharan into second place. Then we have Tom Richardson and Richard Hadlee tied for third place. This was Hadlee's golden period, starting with the 15 wickets against Australia.

Maximum wickets captured in 9 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Muralitharan M  86 (1803-2006) (6+4,3+8,4+6,5+7,4+3,4+6,5+4,4+1,6+6)
Barnes S.F      77 (0123-1912) (0,6+4,dnb,5+8,5+0,5+5,8+9,3+5,7+7)
Hadlee R.J      70 (1016-1985) (4+0,9+6,5+2,5+6,3,7+2,3+1,6+1,6+4)

Same three players, in the same sequence. with a Test added at the start. The amazing fact behind Barnes's figures is that these are actually off 7 Tests, he not having bowled in one Test and not captured a single wicket in another.

fact Maximum wickets captured in 10 consecutive Tests

Bowler      Wkts StTest/Year

Muralitharan 89 (1802-2006) (3,6+4,3+8,4+6,5+7,4+3,4+6,5+4,4+1,6+6)
Barnes S.F   88 (0122-1912) (5+6,0,6+4,dnb,5+8,5+0,5+5,8+9,3+5,7+7)
Waqar Younis 75 (1222-1993) (5+4,7+6,5+4,5,4+2,3+2,6+1,1+2,6+5,3+4)
Warne S.K    75 (1593-2002) (2+6,4+2,7+4,4+4,5+3,1+3,4+3,1+2,5+5,5+5)

Muralitharan and Barnes are in the top two positions with 89 and 88 wickets respectively. The amazing fact behind Barnes's figures is that these are actually off 8 Tests, for reasons already mentioned. Now we have two modern greats tied for the third place. Waqar Younis and Shane Warne have compiled 75 wickets in 10 Tests at the peak of their wonderful bowling careers.

I anticipated that the readers would ask for information on long successful streaks. I started with the wonderful aggregate of 189 wickets captured over 27 Tests (his entire career), at an average of 16.43, by the incomparable SF Barnes. For a long time during the 1970s-80s, I thought this sort of aggregate and wickets-per-Test measure of 7.00 would never ever be beaten. Consider that Lillee retired with a tally of 5.07 w/t and Hadlee retired with 5.01. Then a gentleman with an infectious smile, going by the name of Muralitharan made his debut. He had a fairly ordinary start to his career and captured his 100th wicket only in his 27th Test, a journeyman-like performance. Then he moved into a zone way above what he or anyone else had done henceforth.

So I decided to keep 27 Tests as the base and started work, looking at long successful streaks. First I found that there were only two bowlers who had crossed a w/t average of 7, Barnes and Muralitharan. Not surprising. However I found that Murali had captured 16 wickets more than Barnes. I started looking at Murali's successful streaks, expecting it to fall below 7.00 at 40 Tests. No, at 50 tests, still no, at 60 tests, still no. What was happening. I went past 70, 80 and finally at 90, it was still over 7.00. Finally at 91 Tests, the average dropped to below 7.00. Amazing and unbelievable. Imagine a bowler capturing 631 wickets in 90 Tests over 10 years.

And those sceptics who talk about his capturing quite a few wickets against minnows should not forget that he himself was playing, for a few years, in a minnow team and transformed that team into a world-class one working with Jayasuriya, Ranatunga, Vaas and De Silva and later Sangakkara and Jayawardene.

Given below is information related to a few longest-streaks.

Streaks exceeding 7.00 wickets per Test

Muralitharan: 1394(2008) 90 Tests 631 wickets 7.00
Barnes S.F. :   65(2001) 27 Tests 189 wickets 7.00
Lohmann G.A  :  24(1886) 15 Tests 108 wickets 7.20
W Younis    : 1192(1992) 15 Tests 107 wickets 7.13

Streaks exceeding 8.00 wickets per Test

Muralitharan: 1776(2008) 16 Tests 130 wickets 8.13
Barnes SF :  122(1912) 15 Tests 122 wickets 8.17

It is possible that Barnes might have been helped by the conditions, although he played 25 years after the advent of Test cricket. However his strike rate of 7 wickets per Test at an average of 16+ average set the lofty standard which, I think with certainty, that Muralitharan has crossed.

Muralitharan's 90-Test run exceeding 7 wickets per Test and at a sub-20 average is comparable to Bradman's career. Even at a conservative estimate, the 7 wickets can be equated to upwards of 140 runs and this compares favourably with Bradman's 135 runs per Test. No other player, batsmen included, has achieved such figures in anything more than 25-30 Tests. Granted that Muralitharan played in a weak team, but then he had to bowl to batsmen of stronger team, these are still figures which make one stand up and take notice.

Muralitharan's career had three distinct parts, as outlined below.

34 Tests 135 wickets 3.97 @ 31.16
90 Tests 631 wickets 7.00 @ 19.94
10 Tests  34 wickets 3.40 @ 40.88

He started in an ordinary manner, went into a 10-year zone and then struggled at the end, a la Kapil Dev.

To view/down-load the complete 1-10 Tests table, please click/right-click here.

To view/down-load the complete player table, please click/right-click here. The bowlers who have captured 100 wkts or more are included. I have also ordered the table by career wickets captured.

To view/down-load the table of average quality of bowling faced by batsmen, as requested by some readers, please click/right-click here. The batsmen who have scored 4000 runs or more are included. An interesting column, which is the difference between the Batting average of the batsman and the Average Bowling quality value, is shown. This is a loose indication of the batsman's over-achievement.

This completes the quartet of anecdotal articles on the "second" innings batting and bowling performances. The "first" innings does not offer this level of variations and I will refrain from looking at the first/second innings performances.

The third innings bowling performances broadly fall into three categories.

1. In this case the third bowling team is bowling with a substantial deficit and only a truly great performance can help them win. About 4 such performances find their place in this list.

2. The second category is one in which the teams have finished within about 10% of each other's score and a powerful bowling performance helps the team to win. About 7 bowling performances belong to this category. There are obviously many more such performances but only the outstanding ones are selected.

3. Matches in which the third bowling team enjoys a huge first innings lead and the bowlers bowl with this cushion. It is immaterial whether this is a follow-on innings or not. The bowlers would have to come in with once-in-a-lifetime performances to get selected in this tough list. Only two bowler efforts in this category have been selected.

It is a fact that there could be truly great batting performances which help teams save tests (Hanif, Amiss et al). However normally great bowling performances help their teams win tests. Indeed it is almost impossible to win a test without capturing 20 wickets. However I have managed to locate two wonderful bowling efforts which ended in a draw and loss respectively.

I have the usual second XV. And this time I have earmarked the empty table containing Readers' selections and would fill as comments come in.

These match summaries are presented in the order of the type of matches already outlined. Within the type, the matches are presented in a random order. Do not draw any conclusions from the order of presentation.

First the matches in which the teams came back from a huge deficit in the first innings.

MtId: 1876 Year: 2008 Test# 2 of 3 (0-0) England won by 6 wickets

    Nzl 381 all out.
    Eng 202 all out.
    Nzl 114 all out     (Panesar M.S: 17.0-5-37-6).
    Eng 294 for 4 wkts.

England just about avoided the follow-on but were 179 runs in arrears. Anderson dismissed Redmond early but New Zealand recovered to 50 for 1. Then Panesar produced, inarguably, his finest spell for England. He captured the next six wickets and reduced New Zealand to 106 for 7. Sidebottom cleaned up the tail and New Zealand were dismissed for 114, leaving England to get a formidable 294 to win, which they did in style, winning by 6 wickets. One of the best come-back wins ever. Panesar, who has not done much otherwise, engineered this remarkable win.

MtId: 1677 Year: 2003 Test# 2 of 2 (0-0) Pakistan won by 7 wickets

    Nzl 366 all out.
    Pak 196 all out.
    Nzl 103 all out     (Shoaib Akhtar: 18.0-3-30-6).
    Pak 277 for 3 wkts.

This match is almost a replica of the first one. Pakistan just about avoided the follow-on but were 170 runs in arrears. Then Shoaib Akhtar produced, almost certainly, his finest spell for Pakistan. He captured six wickets for 30 runs and dismissed New Zealand for 103, leaving Pakistan to get a huge score of 274 to win, which they did in style, winning by 7 wickets. Shoaib Akhtar has done this on other occasions but this was amongst the best ever by this devastating bowler.

MtId: 1503 Year: 2000 Test# 2 of 5 (0-1) England won by 2 wickets

    Win 267 all out.
    Eng 134 all out.
    Win  54 all out     (Caddick A.R: 13.0-8-16-5).
    Eng 191 for 8 wkts.

The English bowlers seem to have specialized in these third innings bowling efforts. This time England trailed by 133 runs against an excellent West Indian bowling attack.then Caddick produced a dream spell, capturing 5 for 16, the only 5-wicket spell in this elite collection. West Indies, with Lara, Chanderpaul and Adams were a fair batting side. England struggled to make the 188 needed to win and lost eight wickets. Only Cork's brave 33 carried them to an unlikely win.

MtId: 0692 Year: 1971 Test# 3 of 3 (0-0) India won by 4 wickets

    Eng 355 all out.
    Ind 284 all out.
    Eng 101 all out     (Chandrasekhar B.S: 18.1-3-38-6).
    Ind 174 for 6 wkts.

Next the matches in which the teams were more or less equal in the first innings.

England were 71 runs ahead in the first innings and were expected to stream-roller India in this deciding Test match. However, Chandrasekhar produced what is, arguably, the best bowling performance by an Indian spinner abroad. He broke the back of English batting with three top order wickets and then cleaned up the late order, to finish with 6 for 38. England were dismissed for 101, leaving India to score 173 to win. This was not easy, but was achieved by contributions from all batsmen. India had won their first test series in England.

MtId: 1687 Year: 2004 Test# 1 of 4 (0-0) England won by 10 wickets

    Win 311 all out.
    Eng 339 all out.
    Win  47 all out     (Harmison S.J: 12.3-8-12-7).
    Eng  20 for 0 wkts.

After two matching first innings, England had a lead of only 28 runs. It was expected that West Indies would wipe out this lead quickly and go for a win. Instead Harmison produced a vintage fast bowling performance, capturing 7 for 12 in 12 overs of devastation. West Indies lost half their side wiping the deficit and were finally dismissed for 47, their lowest total in Test cricket. One of the great modern day bowling efforts.

MtId: 1673 Year: 2003 Test# 2 of 4 (0-0) India won by 4 wickets

    Aus 556 all out.
    Ind 523 all out.
    Aus 196 all out     (Agarkar A.B: 16.2-2-41-6).
    Ind 233 for 6 wkts.

This was probably the only moment of greatness in Agarkar's otherwise journeyman Test career for India, forgetting the throwing-the-bat 100. Two huge first innings of 500+ left Australia with a lead of 33 runs. Then Agarkar had his few hours in the sun, capturing 6 for 41, including three top order wickets. India managed the chase of 233 reasonably well and India had won a historic test after conceding 556 in the first innings. Agarkar more than made up for his sequence of zeroes.

MtId: 1266 Year: 1994 Test# 3 of 3 (0-1) England won by 8 wickets

    Saf 332 all out.
    Eng 304 all out.
    Saf 175 all out     (Malcolm D.E: 16.3-2-57-9).
    Eng 205 for 2 wkts.

Another English bowler !!! After two middling first innings England finished 28 short. Then Malcolm produced one of the greatest ever bowling performances by an English fast bowler, capturing 9 wickets for 57 runs. He captured the first three wickets for no run in 2 overs. Gough captured the other wicket. Malcolm's bowling performance has been bettered by two fast bowlers only, Hadlee and Lohmann.

MtId: 1159 Year: 1990 Test# 2 of 5 (1-0) Australia won by 8 wickets

    Eng 352 all out.
    Aus 306 all out.
    Eng 150 all out     (Reid B.A: 22.0-12-51-7).
    Aus 197 for 2 wkts.

After two 300+ scores Australia were 52 runs adrift. England were sitting pretty at 103 for 1. Then Bruce Reid destroyed England capturing 7 for 51 and got them all out for 150, that too on a good MCG batting track. Australia chased the target comfortably by 8 wickets. Bruce Reid was an under-rated left arm pace bowler. His is the only Australian performance featured here, ahead of greats like Warne, Lillee, Spofforth, McGrath et al.

MtId: 1477 Year: 1999 Test# 1 of 2 (0-0) New Zealand won by 9 wickets 1477 1999 Cairns C.L New Zealand Win 28 22.5 10 27 7

    Win 365 all out.
    Nzl 393 all out.
    Win  97 all out     (Cairns C.L   : 22.5-10-27-7).
    Nzl   70 for 1 wkt.

New Zealand led by 28 runs. West Indies were nowhere the dominating side they were during the 80s or early 90s. However they were also not the pathetic side of the 2000s. Cairns produce a devastating spell of 7 for 27 which included 4 top wickets. West Indies were blown off for 97 and New Zealand won comfortably. Let us not forget that Cairns also captured 3 wickets in the first innings and scored 72. One of the truly great all-round performances ever.

Finally the matches in which the teams had a huge lead in the first innings.

MtId: 1423 Year: 1998 Test# 1 of 1 (0-0) Sri Lanka won by 10 wickets

    Eng 445 all out.
    Slk 591 all out.
    Eng 181 all out     (Muralitharan M: 54.2-27-65-9).
    Slk  37 for 0 wkts.

This time Sri Lanka had a huge first innings lead over England of 146 runs. Then Muralitharan wove his magic and captured 9 wickets for 65 runs in 54 overs. If Stewart had not been run out, Murali might very well have captured all ten wickets. All this, at Oval, London. And on a pitch on which over 1000 runs had been scored in the first two innings. The fact that Murali conjured 9 wickets on a batsman-friendly pitch has made this performance a stand-out contender.

MtId: 0128 Year: 1912 Test# 8 of 9 (0-0) England won by 10 wickets

    Saf  95 all out.
    Eng 176 all out.
    Saf  93 all out     (Barnes S.F: 16.4-4-29-8).
    Eng  14 for 0 wkts.

Two low scores meant England were ahead by 81 runs. Then S.F.Barnes, certainly in the top group of all-time best fast medium bowlers, bowled unchanged. He bowled 16 overs and captured 8 for 29. South Africa were dismissed for 93 and England won in a canter. Barnes had another equally great third innings spell of 9 for 103 a few months later in a match where England had a big lead.

MtId: 0428 Year: 1956 Test# 4 of 5 (1-1) England won by an innings and 170 runs

    Eng 459 all out.
    Aus  84 all out.
    Aus 205 all out     (Laker J.C: 51.2-23-53-10).

And the matches which were drawn or lost.

This is the only performance in this collection by a team leading by million runs in the first innings. There is a reason. The first 10-wicket haul by a bowler. Laker bowled 51 overs and captured 10 wickets for 53. What is amazing is that the other bowlers, Statham and Lock, no mean bowlers themselves, bowled 71 overs and did not pick up a wicket. This was the bowling performance of multiple life-times. Not to forget the small matter of 9 wickets in the first innings.

MtId: 0436 Year: 1957 Test# 3 of 5 (0-2) Match drawn

    Eng 218 all out.
    Saf 283 all out.
    Eng 254 all out     (Tayfield H.J: 37.7-14-69-8).
    Saf 142 for 6 wkts.

This is the only drawn Test match performance in this collection. South Africa led by 65 runs. Then Tayfield produced an excellent spell of classical off-spin bowling, capturing 8 for 69 runs. South Africa had about 4 hours to score 190 runs and, readers note, England bowled the equivalent of 77 overs. Today, the Dhoni-led India, with two spinners, bowls 26 overs in two hours. South Africa struggled and finished 48 short to earn a good draw. In the course of Tayfield's spell, he bowled 119 consecutive score-less balls, and 19 in the second innings, a world record.

MtId: 0967 Year: 1983 Test# 3 of 6 (0-1) West Indies won by 138 runs

    Win 281 all out.
    Ind 241 all out.
    Win 201 all out     (Kapil Dev N: 30.3-6-83-9).
    Ind 103 all out.

The only losing performance in the third innings is featured here. Again it is the turn of Kapil Dev. This was a forgettable match for India, barring a fighting 90 by Gavaskar and this bowling performance by Kapil Dev. India were only 40 runs behind in the first innings. Then Kapil Dev captured 9 for 83 in what is, undoubtedly, the greatest display of pace bowling by an Indian and the most memorable on Indian grounds. Haynes was dismissed by Sandhu. West Indies were dismissed for 241 leaving India to get a reasonable target of 242. However West Indies, still smarting under the World Cup loss a few months before, blasted India out of the park for 103. But Kapil Dev cannot be blamed for the batting failures.

In this selection, bowlers like Panesar, Cairns, Agarkar, Reid, Harmison and Caddick would not rank amongst the great bowlers. The bowlers in this group other than Cairns would not figure amongst the top-10 of their teams. However when there was a need they produced once-in-lifetime performances and find their well-deserved place in this list.

The second XV of third innings bowling performances

MtId Year Bowler          For          Vs   Deficit   Analysis

1812 2006 Muralitharan M  Sri Lanka    Saf    -40  46.5 12  97  7
1796 2006 Mohammad Asif   Pakistan     Slk   -109  12.0  6  27  5
1747 2005 Ntini M         South Africa Win     51  19.5  7  37  7
1539 2001 Harbhajan Singh India        Aus    110  41.5 20  84  8
1248 1994 Wasim Akram     Pakistan     Nzl    -27  16.1  4  43  6 
1206 1992 Donald A.A      South Africa Ind     63  28.0  4  84  7
1040 1986 Bracewell J.G   New Zealand  Aus    -56  22.0  8  32  6
0874 1980 Botham I.T      England      Ind     54  26.0  7  48  7
0699 1972 Massie R.A.L    Australia    Eng     36  27.2  9  53  8
0527 1962 Gibbs L.R       West Indies  Ind    217  53.3 37  38  8
0372 1953 Bedser A.V      England      Aus   -105  17.2  7  44  7 (Match drawn)
0320 1950 Johnson I.W     Australia    Saf   -236  17.0  2  34  5 
0234 1934 Verity H        England      Aus    156  22.3  8  43  8
0138 1921 Mailey A.A      Australia    Eng    105  47.0  8 121  9
0128 1912 Barnes S.F      England      Saf     81  16.4  4  29  8

This is my selection, 75% objective and 25% subjective. Readers will have their own favourite third innings bowling performance 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 Imran's 8-wkt spell", 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, without resorting to abusive language, unfortunately used in a few mails recently.

The Readers' selection third innings bowling performances, in order of comment acceptance.

1906 2009 J.E.Taylor  Win (Eng) 9-4-11-5 (Balaraman)  
0991 1984 M.D.Marshall  Win (Eng) 26-9-53-7 (Alex)
0765 1975 AME Roberts  Win (Aus) 14-3-54-7 (Alex) 
1110 1988 Hughes M.G  Aus (Win) 37-9-87-8 (Shane) loss
1554 2001 Warne S.K.  Aus (Eng) 18-5-33-6 (Karthik)
0032 1889 Briggs J  Eng (Saf) 14-5-11-8 (Alex)
1444 1999 Srinath J  Ind (Pak) 27-6-86-8 (Adil) loss
1377 1997 Kasprowicz  Aus (Eng) 16-5-36-7 (Karthik) loss
1654 2003 Pollock S  Saf (Eng) 18-4-39-6 (Venkat) loss
1615 2002 Shoaib Akhtar  Pak (Aus) 8-2-21-5 (Yasir) loss
0172 1928 G.F.Bisset  Saf (Eng) 19-5-29-7 (Ad)
0677 1969 Bedi 23-11-37-5 & Prasanna 24-10-42-5 Ind (Aus) (Arjun)
1719 2004 Kaneria  Pak (Slk) 60-20-118-7 (Arjun)
1356 1997 Warne Aus (Saf) 28-15-43-4  
0443 1957 Lock GAR Eng (Win) 16-7-20-6 (Abhishek)
1630 2002 Lawson JJC WIn (Bng) 6.5-4-3-6 (Arjun)
0876 1980 Iqbal Qasim Pak (Aus) 42-22-49-7 (Ad)
0427 1957 DS Atkinson 40-21-53-7 WI (Nzl) (Ad)
1747 2005 M Ntini  Saf (Win) 20-7-37-7 (Mayank)

I have really enjoyed doing these series of four anecdotal articles. My editor probably more. As many a reader has pointed out this has opened the door on wonderful efforts of the past. I myself have learnt a lot. The readers' response has been terrific.