Brian Lara: an outstanding 153 in a successful fourth-innings chase © Getty Images

I had mentioned in response to one of the comments on the macro-analysis article on Test hundreds that in my follow-up article I would look at special hundreds, selected based on specific selection criteria. I had also made it clear that this would not be my own personal selections, as I normally do but one based on selection criteria in my computer program, with external additions in very very special cases only. Anyone finding fault with the three special additions is probably not a true follower of the game.

To answer the sceptics, I have also shown the actual program statement doing the filtering. Though it is a 'C' program statement, it will be crystal clear to anyone reading this article. So kindly do not come out with statements that this article has been written to specifically include or exclude one specific hundred.

If a nice new selection criterion is suggested I will have no problem doing that and adding the tables at the end. I have also toughened the selection criteria to make sure that there are approximately between 10 and 25 entries in the tables. This has been done to ensure that all the table entries are shown in this article itself. Hence everything is in the open in this article.

My own selections from out of the table entries are spread right through the article. Readers can come with their own selections.

Preliminary program work 

score =   matchdata[mat]->score[inns];
bqi =     matchdata[mat]->weighted_ctd_bow_avge[inns];
mat_rpw = matchdata[mat]->rpw;
runs =    matchdata[mat]->pldata[inns][pos].batruns;
balls =   matchdata[mat]->pldata[inns][pos].batballs;
score1 =  matchdata[mat]->score[0];
score2 =  matchdata[mat]->score[1];
score3 =  matchdata[mat]->score[2];
score4 =  matchdata[mat]->score[3];
if (follow-on) deficit = score1-score2;
else           deficit = score2-score1;
if (follow-on) target = score2+score3-score1+1;
else           target = score1+score3-score2+1;

Normally I write special programs for each article when the number of tables is quite high and there are sorting and formatting requirements. My program reads the Match database record serially and sets the variables for use, as done above. Then a series of functions follow, doing the selections and form the tables. Afterwards the tables are sorted and printed. These are then incorporated, with appropriate narratives, into the Html file.

Now for the tables. I am not going to come out with the most obvious of tables, based on the score. It is shown anywhere and everywhere. My first table is one where the mark was set on the first day of Test cricket and that mark has yet to be breached. It has stood the test of about 10000+ days of Test cricket. This table relates to the % of batsman innings share in the completed innings. I have softened the criteria to losing 9 wickets or more since the last batsman is already in.

1. Hundreds which form a high proportion of completed innings

if (runs>=100 && (runs/score)>=0.6 && wkts>=9)

Ordered by innings %

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman              Score BP Runs  %TS

0001 1877 Aus Eng Bannerman C         245/10  1 165* 67.3%
1439 1999 Aus Eng Slater M.J          184/10  1 123  66.8%
1481 2000 Ind Aus Laxman V.V.S        261/10  1 167  64.0%
0779 1976 Win Eng Greenidge C.G       211/10  1 134  63.5%
0542 1963 Nzl Eng Reid J.R            159/10  4 100  62.9%
0652 1969 Win Nzl Nurse S.M           417/10  3 258  61.9%
0846 1979 Aus Eng Yallop G.N          198/10  4 121  61.1%
1884 2008 Ind Slk Sehwag V            329/10  1 201* 61.1%
1171 1991 Eng Win Gooch G.A           252/10  1 154* 61.1%
0732 1974 Eng Win Amiss D.L           432/ 9  1 262* 60.6%

Bannerman stands supreme at 67.3% of the completed innings. To boot, he opened the innings and remained unbeaten, as did quite a few others in the table. If Slater had scored a single more, he would have overtaken Bannerman. Laxman's brave away innings launched a remarkable career. Amiss has come in because of my decision to include 9-wkt situations. This innings was played away, in West Indies, against not a great West Indian attack, but 230 in arrears.

2. Hundreds which have been scored a better than run-a-ball

if (runs>=150 && runs<=balls)

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs Balls SR

1870 2008 Ind Saf Sehwag V             1 319  304 104.9
1937 2009 Ind Slk Sehwag V             1 293  254 115.4
1781 2006 Ind Pak Sehwag V             1 254  247 102.8
1594 2002 Nzl Eng Astle N.J            5 222  168 132.1
0765 1975 Win Aus Fredericks R.C       1 169  145 116.6
1742 2005 Aus Nzl Gilchrist A.C        7 162  146 111.0
1698 2004 Slk Zim Jayasuriya S.T       1 157  147 106.8
1782 2006 Pak Ind Shahid Afridi        6 156  128 121.9
1550 2001 Aus Eng Gilchrist A.C        7 152  143 106.3
1753 2005 Eng Bng Trescothick M.E      1 151  148 102.0
1561 2001 Slk Bng Jayawardene D.P.M.D  4 150  115 130.4
And a special entry
1045 1986 Win Eng Richards I.V.A       3 110   58 189.7

Now for quick hundreds. I could not just select all hundreds scored at better than run-a-ball. There were too many such innings, 49 to be precise. So I selected only innings of 150 or more runs. What does one say of Sehwag? Three of his 250+ innings have been scored at better than run-a-ball and are the first three entries. He certainly defies description. He has been the single most devastating match-winner during the past decade. Astle's break-neck 222 was essayed, with almost nothing at stake, but it worried the England team for a while. Then comes Fredericks' famous innings. Gilchrist is the only other batsman to have multiple entries. I have added Richards' hundred since it was scored at today's 20-20 scoring rate at a time when 200-ball centuries were considered quick.

3. Hundreds in matches with low match RpW

if (mat_rpw<20.0 && runs>7.5*mat_rpw)

Ordered by ratio of Runs and RpW

MtId Year For     Batsman             BP Runs MRpW Ratio  

0001 1877 Aus Eng Bannerman C          1 165* 15.2 10.9
0201 1931 Aus Win Ponsford W.H         1 183  17.7 10.4
0032 1889 Eng Saf Abel R               1 120  12.3  9.7
0290 1947 Aus Ind Bradman D.G          3 185  19.2  9.6
1617 2002 Aus Pak Hayden M.L           1 119  13.6  8.7
0443 1957 Eng Win Graveney T.W         3 164  18.9  8.7
0023 1886 Eng Aus Shrewsbury A         3 164  19.4  8.5
0205 1931 Aus Win Bradman D.G          3 152  18.4  8.3
0076 1902 Aus Saf Armstrong W.W        1 159* 19.3  8.3
0007 1882 Aus Eng McDonnell P.S        5 147  18.0  8.2
0045 1895 Aus Eng Graham H             5 105  12.8  8.2
0049 1896 Eng Saf Hill A.J.L           1 124  15.5  8.0
0736 1974 Aus Nzl Redpath I.R          1 159* 19.9  8.0
1171 1991 Eng Win Gooch G.A            1 154* 19.1  8.0
0415 1955 Pak Nzl Hanif Mohammad       1 103  12.8  8.0
2016 2011 Aus Saf Clarke M.J           5 151  18.9  8.0
0058 1899 Eng Saf Warner P.F           1 132* 17.4  7.6
0037 1892 Eng Saf Wood H               8 134* 17.7  7.6

The above is a table of invaluable hundreds, made in matches where runs were at a premium. This is determined by using the match RpW figure. A match RpW value of of below 20 indicates a tough match for batsmen. The ordering is by the ratio of the runs scored and RpW figure. Hence this indicates a measure of out-performance compared to the other batsmen. I have used the overall match figure. Bannerman's century is on top with a whopping ratio of 10.9. Ponsford is next with 10.4. Most of these performances have been way back.

The two exceptions are Hayden's 119 in a match at Sharjah where Pakistan, in two innings, totaled 112 runs. The result could well have been "Hayden defeated Pakistan by an innings and 7 runs". The other is the recent Michael Clarke classic, a futile innings, but an outstanding one, without doubt. I am quite happy that an innings from what could have been one of the greatest of Test series, and could be called "The unfinished symphony", has found place in this elite list.

Out of 18 entries, Australia have accounted 10 for and England, 7, with the lone odd entry from Pakistan. My take is that this is possibly the result of the number of Ashes series, the quality of bowling attacks and the uncovered pitches. As many as nine of these efforts have been effected before WW1.

4. Hundreds by batsmen carrying their bat through completed innings

if (runs>=150 && batpos<3 && allout && batsman_notout)

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             Score BP Runs

0693 1972 Nzl Win Turner G.M          386/10  1 223*
1470 1999 Slk Zim Atapattu M.S        428/10  1 216*
0264 1938 Aus Eng Brown W.A           422/10  1 206*
0326 1950 Eng Win Hutton L            344/10  1 202*
1884 2008 Ind Slk Sehwag V            329/10  1 201*
0164 1926 Aus Eng Bardsley W          383/10  1 193*
0441 1957 Win Eng Worrell F.M.M       372/10  1 191*
1444 1999 Pak Ind Saeed Anwar         316/10  1 188*
1397 1998 Aus Saf Taylor M.A          350/10  1 169*
1032 1985 Ind Aus Gavaskar S.M        520/10  1 166*
0001 1877 Aus Eng Bannerman C         245/10  1 165*
1939 2009 Win Aus Gayle C.H           317/10  1 165*
2006 2011 Zim Pak Mawoyo T.M.K        412/10  1 163*
0076 1902 Aus Saf Armstrong W.W       309/10  1 159*
0736 1974 Aus Nzl Redpath I.R         346/10  1 159*
1408 1998 Zim Pak Flower G.W          321/10  1 156*
0330 1951 Eng Aus Hutton L            272/10  1 156*
0956 1983 Win Ind Greenidge C.G       550/10  1 154*
1171 1991 Eng Win Gooch G.A           252/10  1 154*
0947 1983 Pak Ind Mudassar Nazar      323/10  1 152*

5. Hundreds scored against top bowling attacks

if (runs>=100 && bqi<23.00)

Ordered by quality of bowling (increasing value of BQI)

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs  BQI

0045 1895 Aus Eng Graham H             5 105  21.25
0852 1979 Ind Eng Viswanath G.R        4 113  21.39
0852 1979 Ind Eng Vengsarkar D.B       3 103  21.39
0345 1952 Win Aus Worrell F.M.M        3 108  21.80
0347 1952 Win Aus Stollmeyer J.B       1 104  22.30
0042 1894 Aus Eng Gregory S.E          6 201  22.40
0042 1894 Aus Eng Giffen G             3 161  22.40
1523 2000 Win Aus Lara B.C             4 182  22.52
0901 1981 Eng Win Willey P             7 102* 22.55
0466 1959 Aus Eng McDonald C.C         1 170  22.56
0036 1892 Aus Eng Lyons J.J            3 134  22.76
0908 1981 Aus Eng Border A.R           5 106* 22.83
0330 1951 Eng Aus Hutton L             1 156* 22.89
0044 1895 Aus Eng Iredale F.A          4 140  22.91
0444 1957 Aus Saf Benaud R             7 122  22.94

Hutton's 156*, which featured in the previous table also, leads my selection(against a big total and a formidable attack), followed by Lara's 182 (in only 235 balls, away, no other West Indian even reaching 50) and Willey's 102* (on the first day, away and against Roberts/Holding/Croft/Garner and batting at no.7).

Now for a selection of hundreds scored in different innings. I have not bothered with the first and second innings. The first innings is quite difficult to categorize. Also. facing a huge total in the second innings is not necessarily a mountain to climb since the pitch has been shown to be a reasonably batting-friendly one, scoreboard pressure notwithstanding. To select second innings hundreds, it would require a combination selection criteria, such as "Facing total > 400 && tough pitch/top bowling attack et al". I am not doing multiple criteria in this article.

6. Hundreds scored in third innings with team in huge arrears

if (runs>=160 && thirdinns && deficit>=250)

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman              Scores  3rdInns BP Runs  Res

0446 1958 Pak Win Hanif Mohammad      (579-106) 657/10  1 337  Draw
1162 1991 Nzl Slk Crowe M.D           (174-497) 671/10  4 299  Draw
0439 1957 Eng Win May P.B.H           (186-474) 583/10  4 285* Draw
1535 2001 Ind Aus Laxman V.V.S        (445-171) 657/10  3 281  Win
1269 1994 Pak Aus Saleem Malik        (521-260) 537/10  4 237  Draw
2009 2011 Slk Pak Sangakkara K.C      (197-511) 483/ 6  3 211  Draw
1562 2001 Zim Saf Flower A            (600-286) 391/10  5 199* Lost
1511 2000 Zim Nzl Whittall G.J        (465-166) 370/10  6 188* Lost
1162 1991 Nzl Slk Jones A.H           (174-497) 671/10  3 186  Draw
0078 1903 Aus Eng Trumper V.T         (285-577) 485/10  5 185* Lost
0352 1952 Ind Eng Mankad M.H          (235-537) 378/10  1 184  Lost
0299 1948 Eng Aus Compton D.C.S       (165-509) 441/10  4 184  Lost
0695 1972 Win Nzl Davis C.A           (133-422) 564/10  5 183  Draw
1535 2001 Ind Aus Dravid R            (445-171) 657/10  6 180  Win
0507 1961 Eng Aus Dexter E.R          (195-516) 401/ 9  3 180  Draw
0723 1973 Eng Nzl Fletcher K.W.R      (253-551) 463/ 9  4 178  Draw
0496 1960 Eng Saf Pullar G            (155-419) 479/10  1 175  Draw
0731 1974 Eng Win Amiss D.L           (131-392) 392/10  1 174  Lost
1481 2000 Ind Aus Laxman V.V.S        (150-552) 261/ 5  1 167  Lost
0801 1977 Pak Win Majid Khan          (194-448) 540/10  1 167  Draw
1420 1998 Eng Saf Stewart A.J         (552-183) 369/10  4 164  Draw
0285 1947 Eng Saf Compton D.C.S       (533-208) 551/10  4 163  Draw
And a special personal entry, one of the all-time great innings
0905 1981 Eng Aus Botham I.T          (401-174) 359/10 149 Win.

Spare a thought for the diminutive Hanif Mohammed, who, after Pakistan followed on over 400 runs behind, batted for over 16 hours to save the Test. The pleasing fact is that most of these back-to-the-wall efforts have been fruitful in that the matches have been saved and in two cases, needless to say which Test, the Laxman-Dravid epic, won. And the special personal entry, Botham's unbelievable 149 also set up the match win.

Laxman's 281 (Like Lars's, one sentence will suffice: in my opinion amongst the three best Test innings ever played) stands head and shoulders above all, followed by Botham's 149 (only loses sheen when compared to Laxman) and Hanif's 337 (arguably the best match-saving innings ever.

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

7. Winning hundreds scored in fourth innings with team chasing huge targets

if (runs>=100 && fourthinns && matchwon && (wkts>=6 || target>=350))

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman               Scores    4thInns BP Runs Res

0302 1948 Aus Eng Morris A.R          (496-458-365) 404/3  1 182  Win
0302 1948 Aus Eng Bradman D.G         (496-458-365) 404/3  3 173* Win
1453 1999 Win Aus Lara B.C            (490-329-146) 311/9  5 153* Win
1469 1999 Aus Pak Gilchrist A.C       (222-246-392) 369/6  7 149* Win
1658 2003 Pak Bng Inzamam-ul-Haq      (281-175-154) 262/9  4 138* Win
0178 1929 Eng Aus Sutcliffe H         (397-417-351) 332/7  1 135  Win
1469 1999 Aus Pak Langer J.L          (222-246-392) 369/6  3 127  Win
0822 1978 Aus Win Wood G.M            (205-286-439) 362/7  1 126  Win
0822 1978 Aus Win Serjeant C.S        (205-286-439) 362/7  5 124  Win
1812 2006 Slk Saf Jayawardene D.P.M.D (361-321-311) 352/9  4 123  Win
1797 2006 Aus Bng Ponting R.T         (427-269-148) 310/7  3 118* Win
1355 1997 Eng Nzl Atherton M.A        (346-228-186) 307/6  1 118  Win
1360 1997 Aus Saf Waugh M.E           (209-108-168) 271/8  4 116  Win
0775 1976 Ind Win Viswanath G.R       (359-228-271) 406/4  4 112  Win
1012 1985 Nzl Pak Coney J.V           (274-220-223) 278/8  6 111* Win
1899 2008 Saf Aus Smith G.C           (375-281-319) 414/4  1 108  Win
1899 2008 Saf Aus de Villiers A.B     (375-281-319) 414/4  5 106* Win
1645 2003 Win Aus Sarwan R.R          (240-240-417) 418/7  5 105  Win
0811 1977 Aus Ind Mann A.L            (402-394-330) 342/8  3 105  Win
1704 2004 Eng Nzl Thorpe G.P          (384-319-218) 284/6  5 104* Win
0074 1902 Eng Aus Jessop G.L          (324-183-121) 263/9  7 104  Win
1645 2003 Win Aus Chanderpaul S       (240-240-417) 418/7  6 104  Win
1898 2008 Ind Eng Tendulkar S.R       (316-241-311) 387/4  4 103* Win
0345 1952 Aus Win Hassett A.L         (272-216-203) 260/9  3 102  Win
0775 1976 Ind Win Gavaskar S.M        (359-228-271) 406/4  1 102  Win
1795 2006 Aus Saf Martyn D.R          (303-270-258) 294/8  4 101  Win
1593 2002 Aus Saf Ponting R.T         (239-382-473) 334/6  3 100* Win
And a special entry, for the ease with which the win was achieved
0990 1984 Win Eng Greenidge C.G       (286-245-300) 344/1  1 214* Win

My own selection amongst these would be Lara's 153* (A legend-one sentence will suffice: in my opinion amongst the three best Test innings ever played), Mark Waugh's 116 (series-winning innings, away and against a top attack) and Gilchrist's 149 (in only his second Test, a forerunner of things to come in many a Test). Bradman and Morris scored two huge centuries. Butcher's was in a dead rubber. Only the ease of the West Indian win keeps the special entry, Greenidge's 214, out.

8. Fighting losing hundreds scored in fourth innings with team chasing substantial targets

if (fourthinns && matchlost && (runs>=125 || (runs>=100 && 2*runs>=score))

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman               Scores     4thInns BP Runs Res

1594 2002 Nzl Eng Astle N.J           (228-147-468) 451/10  5 222  Lost
1847 2007 Slk Aus Sangakkara K.C      (542-246-210) 410/10  3 192  Lost
0722 1973 Nzl Eng Congdon B.E         (250- 97-325) 440/10  3 176  Lost
0800 1977 Eng Aus Randall D.W         (138- 95-419) 417/10  3 174  Lost
1932 2009 Nzl Slk Vettori D.L         (416-234-311) 397/10  8 140  Lost
0646 1969 Win Aus Nurse S.M           (619-279-394) 352/10  7 137  Lost
1442 1999 Ind Pak Tendulkar S.R       (238-254-286) 258/10  4 136  Lost
1925 2009 Aus Eng Clarke M.J          (425-215-311) 406/10  5 136  Lost
0803 1977 Pak Win Asif Iqbal          (280-198-359) 301/10  6 135  Lost
1223 1993 Eng Aus Gooch G.A           (289-210-432) 332/10  1 133  Lost
0194 1930 Aus Eng Bradman D.G         (270-144-302) 335/10  3 131  Lost
1688 2004 Slk Aus Jayasuriya S.T      (120-211-442) 324/10  1 131  Lost
0159 1925 Eng Aus Sutcliffe H         (600-479-250) 290/10  1 127  Lost
1843 2007 Pak Saf Younis Khan         (450-291-264) 263/10  3 126  Lost
1306 1995 Pak Slk Moin Khan           (232-214-338) 212/10  7 117* Lost
0900 1981 Eng Win Gooch G.A           (265-122-379) 224/10  1 116  Lost
1205 1992 Win Aus Simmons P.V         (395-233-196) 219/10  1 110  Lost

The selection criteria in lost matches has to be different. I have selected innings where the score is greater than 125 or comprises of more than half the team score. Note the last three innings, all very commendable efforts.

I would plump for Tendulkar's fighting and valiant 136, on a day when he was ill. The failure of the Indian late-order to score 12 runs should not take anything away from his master class. Randall's 174 which almost won the Centenary Test for England and Astle's 222 follow next.

9. Match-saving hundreds scored in fourth innings with team chasing huge targets

if (fourthinns && matchdrawn && (runs>149 || (runs>=100 && wkts>=5))

Ordered by runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman               Scores     4thInns BP Runs Res

0193 1930 Win Eng Headley G.A         (849-286-272) 408/5  3 223  Draw
0854 1979 Ind Eng Gavaskar S.M        (305-202-334) 429/8  1 221  Draw
0271 1939 Eng Saf Edrich W.J          (530-316-481) 654/5  3 219  Draw
0289 1947 Saf Eng Mitchell B          (427-302-325) 423/7  1 189* Draw
0248 1935 Aus Saf McCabe S.J          (157-250-491) 274/2  3 189* Draw
1315 1995 Eng Saf Atherton M.A        (332-200-346) 351/5  1 185* Draw
1760 2005 Aus Eng Ponting R.T         (444-302-280) 371/9  3 156  Draw
1367 1997 Pak Slk Saleem Malik        (331-292-386) 285/5  4 155  Draw
0824 1978 Win Aus Kallicharran A.I    (343-280-305) 258/9  5 126  Draw
1025 1985 Slk Ind Mendis L.R.D        (249-198-325) 307/7  5 124  Draw
1350 1997 Saf Ind Cullinan D.J        (410-321-266) 228/8  4 122* Draw
0311 1949 Ind Win Hazare V.S          (286-193-267) 355/8  5 122  Draw
1261 1994 Eng Nzl Stewart A.J         (476-281-211) 254/8  1 119  Draw
1397 1998 Aus Saf Waugh M.E           (517-350-193) 227/7  4 115* Draw
1005 1984 Aus Win Hilditch A.M.J      (479-296-186) 198/8  1 113  Draw
1281 1995 Aus Eng Taylor M.A          (309-116-255) 344/7  1 113  Draw
0281 1947 Eng Aus Washbrook C         (365-351-536) 310/7  1 112  Draw
0373 1953 Eng Aus Watson W.           (346-372-368) 282/7  5 109  Draw
0796 1977 Nzl Aus Congdon B.E         (552-357-154) 293/8  3 107* Draw
1918 2009 Nzl Ind Taylor R.L          (379-197-434) 281/8  4 107  Draw
0654 1969 Eng Win Boycott G           (380-344-295) 295/7  1 106  Draw
1025 1985 Slk Ind Dias R.L            (249-198-325) 307/7  4 106  Draw
1908 2009 Win Eng Sarwan R.R          (566-285-221) 370/9  3 106  Draw
1672 2003 Eng Slk Vaughan M.P         (382-294-279) 285/7  1 105  Draw
1281 1995 Aus Eng Slater M.J          (309-116-255) 344/7  1 103  Draw
1096 1988 Pak Win Javed Miandad       (174-194-391) 341/9  4 102  Draw
1232 1993 Saf Slk Rhodes J.N          (331-267-300) 251/7  6 101* Draw
1392 1997 Saf Aus Kallis J.H          (309-186-257) 273/7  3 101  Draw

Drawn matches present their own characteristics. Scoring 100 out of 200 for 2 is no great effort. Since the match has been saved, the number of wickets lost is significant. I have selected innings in which 7 or more wickets are lost. These are the difficult matches. In addition, to recognize individual efforts, I have also selected hundreds which are 150 and above.

For me, Gavaskar's 221 stands tall, having taken India agonizingly close to a wonderful away victory. Atherton's 10-hour 492-ball epic of 185* and McCabe's 189* (if for nothing else, to do justice to one who was forgotten amongst the Bradman avalanche of runs) complete my trio of hundreds.

10. Hundreds scored which are the only ones in the match by either teams

if (runs>=200 && match100s==1)

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs

0226 1933 Eng Nzl Hammond W.R          3 336*
1977 2010 Win Slk Gayle C.H            1 333
0215 1932 Aus Saf Bradman D.G          3 299*
1697 2004 Ind Pak Dravid R             3 270
1725 2004 Ind Bng Tendulkar S.R        4 248*
0631 1968 Nzl Ind Dowling G.T          1 239
0972 1983 Ind Win Gavaskar S.M         4 236*
0832 1978 Pak Ind Zaheer Abbas         4 235*
1710 2004 Slk Saf Sangakkara K.C       3 232
0256 1936 Eng Aus Hammond W.R          3 231*
1592 2002 Slk Pak Sangakkara K.C       3 230
0212 1931 Aus Saf Bradman D.G          3 226
1169 1991 Win Aus Greenidge C.G        1 226
1748 2005 Nzl Slk Vincent L            4 224
0417 1955 Ind Nzl Mankad M.H           1 223
1394 1998 Slk Zim Atapattu M.S         1 223
0473 1959 Win Pak Kanhai R.B           3 217
1470 1999 Slk Zim Atapattu M.S         1 216*
1723 2004 Aus Nzl Langer J.L           1 215
1478 1999 Nzl Win Sinclair M.S         3 214
1805 2006 Ind Win Jaffer W             1 212
1104 1988 Pak Aus Javed Miandad        4 211
0276 1946 Eng Ind Hardstaff jnr J      5 205*
1191 1992 Pak Eng Aamer Sohail         1 205
0365 1953 Aus Saf Harvey R.N           3 205
0893 1981 Aus Ind Chappell G.S         3 204
1379 1997 Zim Nzl Whittall G.J         4 203*
1151 1990 Pak Nzl Shoaib Mohammad      1 203*
1717 2004 Nzl Bng Fleming S.P          3 202
1884 2008 Ind Slk Sehwag V             1 201*
0910 1981 Aus Pak Chappell G.S         3 201
0932 1982 Pak Eng Mohsin Khan          1 200

The above table represents the list of century makers in matches in which they were the ones to do so. Except that the bar has been set quite high, only those who have scored 200 or more are considered. Remember that the next best score is below 100. The stand-out innings are Dravid's 270 (a match-winning innings, away against a good attack, Greenidge's 226 (after two low innings, this was responsible for a huge win, also against a very good attack) and Sehwag's 201 (a modern classic: an unforgettable Sehwag 231-ball epic and won the away match).

I will now go to a table which is available in any statistical section. However I have included the same in this to round off this article. This is the list of batsmen who scored hundreds in wach innings.

11. Two hundreds scored in a match

if (runs>=100 && otherruns>=100)

Ordered by match Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs1 Runs2 RunsMat

1148 1990 Eng Ind Gooch G.A            1  333   123   456
0733 1974 Aus Nzl Chappell G.S         4  247*  133   380
1572 2001 Win Slk Lara B.C             4  221   130   351
0646 1969 Aus Win Walters K.D          5  242   103   345
0686 1971 Ind Win Gavaskar S.M         1  124   220   344
1562 2001 Zim Saf Flower A             5  142   199*  341
0693 1972 Win Nzl Rowe L.G             3  214   100*  314
0289 1947 Saf Eng Mitchell B           1  120   189*  309
1905 2009 Slk Bng Dilshan T.M          6  162   143   305
0159 1925 Eng Aus Sutcliffe H          1  176   127   303
0879 1980 Aus Pak Border A.R           6  150*  153   303
1623 2002 Aus Eng Hayden M.L           1  197   103   300
And the only batsman who has replicated his scores in each innings
0934 1982 Slk Ind Mendis L.R.D         4  105   105   210

12. Tests by nos 9, 10, and 11 (not yet there)

if (runs>=100 && batpos>=9)

Ordered by Batting position and runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs

0016 1884 Eng Aus Read W.W            10 117
1400 1998 Saf Pak Symcox P.L          10 108
0066 1902 Aus Eng Duff R.A            10 104
1139 1990 Nzl Ind Smith I.D.S          9 173
1971 2010 Eng Pak Broad S.C.J          9 169
0098 1908 Aus Eng Hill C               9 160
0623 1967 Pak Eng Asif Iqbal           9 146
1676 2003 Nzl Pak Vettori D.L          9 137*
1800 2006 Nzl Saf Franklin J.E.C       9 122*
0209 1931 Eng Nzl Allen G.O.B          9 122
0609 1966 Eng Win Murray J.T           9 112
1529 2001 Saf Slk Pollock S.M          9 111
1701 2004 Bng Win Mohammad Rafique     9 111
1573 2001 Nzl Aus Parore A.C           9 110
1541 2001 Saf Win Pollock S.M          9 106*
1349 1997 Saf Ind Klusener L           9 102*
0136 1921 Aus Eng Gregory J.M          9 100
0281 1947 Aus Eng Lindwall R.R         9 100

Finally the list of hundreds made in batting positions 9-11. No century has yet been made in position 11. Three centuries have been made in No.10. The most recent one, and the only hundred in the past 100 years, is Pat Symcox's 108 against Pakistan, in a rain-affected drawn match. Smith's 173 was against India helped New Zealand recover from 131 for 7 to 381. Broad's 169 is recent vintage helping England recover from 102 for 7 to 446 and led England to an innings win against Pakistan. For me, these two innings and Asif's 146, including a stand of 190 for the ninth wicket with Intikhab, stand out.

Readers' selections:

(Maximum of four per reader, to be given in the form
Tendulkar 155, Lara 277, Ponting 156, Hutton 202*
Also short names, not "cricket-follower-from-rajnandgaon" ???
Must be limited to a single line.)

Viv Richards: 829 runs in the series in England in 1976 © Getty Images

I have embarked on a major project. This has been triggered by a few comments on performance of all-rounders in series. I have extended the scope of the same and will cover, over three articles, the performance of batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders in series. I am aware that Cricinfo statistics section gives you an insight into the runs scored and wickets captured in Test series. However those are raw numbers and also do not show the results by series types. Even Statsguru might not provide that. What I intend to do is to weight the individual player performances in series with various relevant parameters. It is necessary to recognize where players performed (home or away), what type of bowling attack runs were scored off (great to poor), what level of support was received, what were the quality of wickets captured, was there a critical series situation et al. That would let us judge performances at their true worth.

First the series batting analysis. The runs scored are weighted by the following factors.

1. Where the series was played: Home, away or neutral locations. Instead of penalizing home performances I have left the home runs at no additional weight and weighted runs scored at neutral locations at 5% and away at 10%. One could raise endless queries on the subjectivity or not of these weights. However there is no better solution on offer. As far as sub-continental flat tracks are concerned, the visitors might get the extra weight, playing away, but will lose out on the Pitch type. And vice versa.

2. Series situation: I leave the other Tests as they are. An additional weight of 5% is given for the deciders only. As far as I am concerned there is no dead rubber Test. Over the past 10 years every Test is important, because of Test Rankings. If it rains cats and dogs at Edgbaston, the fourth Test, technically, is a dead rubber. However the no.1 rank is at stake as also the pride of players. India would very much prefer a 1-2 result and England would go all out for a 3-0 result. So the idea of dead rubber will remain only in the minds of some cricket followers, not in this analysis.

3. Bowling quality faced: This is the weighted c-t-d bowling quality measure determined for each innings. The range is from 19 to 60. The weight ranges from 85% (for 60) to 115% (for 15). I have got the weight for this measure go below 100 so that runs scored against sub-standard attacks are weighted less and against strong attacks are weighted more.

4. Pitch type: This is determined by the Runs per Wicket value for the match. This value ranges from 10 to 100 and the weight ranges from 120% (for 10) to 80 (100). Here also I have got the weight for this measure to go below 100 so that runs scored on flat batting tracks are weighted less and on bowling paradises weighted more.

5. Support provided / % of score: This is to recognize that a 100 scored out of 200 with scant support is valued more than a 100 made out of 500 with ample support. There is no negative weighting and the maximum weight is 10%.

The overall effort is that the runs scored in each innings are weighted by the five factors leading to an overall weighting ranging from a theoretical low of around 75% to a theoretical high of 175%. However these are theoretical values and in practice, the range is from 90% to 130%. Stray innings might be weighted down or more. The results are, to say the least, stunning. The true value of batsmen performances in series unfolds before us.

The other decision I have taken is that the performances in a series is not going to be influenced by the number of Tests played. Whether a player was dropped or injured is outside the purview of this analysis. A 6-Test series is what it says, whether 4 or 5 Tests were played by a player. The other point is that a series has to have a minimum of 3 Tests to be included in this analysis. Also, the three Triangular tournaments, the 1912 one and the two Asian Championships are not included.

The tables are shown for 6, 5, 4 and 3-Test series. These are ordered on the base information, which is the runs scored. The weighting factor and weighted runs are also show. Later in the article similar tables are shown, this time ordered on the weighted runs. I have stayed away from superfluous information, at least for this analysis, of batting averages, highest score, hundreds and fifties. When someone scores 500 runs in a 3-Test series, it really does not matter whether the average was 120 or 150. It only depends on how often the batsman remained unbeaten. At the end I have also shown the top 5 and bottom 5, in terms of weighting, of the runs scored table (over 500 runs).

First the 6-Test series table. Those who have exceeded 600 runs in the series have been shown.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

296 1989 ENG vs Aus Taylor M.A      (Aus) 6  839 1.09  910.4
357 1995 ENG vs Win Lara B.C        (Win) 6  765 1.14  875.6
244 1982 PAK vs Ind Mudassar Nazar  (Pak) 6  761 0.95  723.0
264 1985 ENG vs Aus Gower D.I       (Eng) 6  732 1.04  759.3
214 1978 IND vs Win Gavaskar S.M    (Ind) 6  732 0.97  711.8
194 1975 AUS vs Win Chappell G.S    (Aus) 6  702 1.04  731.5
331 1993 ENG vs Aus Gooch G.A       (Eng) 6  673 1.04  700.9
170 1970 AUS vs Eng Boycott G       (Eng) 6  657 1.07  703.0
244 1982 PAK vs Ind Zaheer Abbas    (Pak) 6  650 1.02  664.5
170 1970 AUS vs Eng Edrich J.H      (Eng) 6  648 1.05  683.0
170 1970 AUS vs Eng Stackpole K.R   (Aus) 6  627 1.05  660.5
190 1974 AUS vs Eng Chappell G.S    (Aus) 6  608 1.06  645.9

Both Taylor and Lara scored mountains of runs in away series against England. This is reflected in the good weighting of their performances. Mudassar Nazar's compilation was done at home. The next three players also compiled their 700+ runs at home. However, out of these three, Gower and Chappell did this against much better bowling sides. There seems to be a difficulty in achieving peak level achievements in the six match series as evidenced by the fact that only 12 batsman have averaged over 100 runs per Test.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

 51 1930 ENG vs Aus Bradman D.G     (Aus) 5  974 1.15 1122.9
 47 1928 AUS vs Eng Hammond W.R     (Eng) 5  905 1.07  964.4
 93 1952 AUS vs Saf Harvey R.N      (Aus) 5  834 0.93  778.3
197 1976 ENG vs Win Richards I.V.A  (Win) 5  829 1.16  958.5
103 1955 WIN vs Aus Walcott C.L     (Win) 5  827 1.09  900.7
114 1958 WIN vs Pak Sobers G.St.A   (Win) 5  824 1.03  850.8
 67 1936 AUS vs Eng Bradman D.G     (Aus) 5  810 1.13  916.7
 55 1931 AUS vs Saf Bradman D.G     (Aus) 5  806 1.03  830.1
340 1994 WIN vs Eng Lara B.C        (Win) 5  798 0.97  773.3
 80 1948 IND vs Win EdeC Weekes     (Win) 5  779 1.02  797.5
171 1971 WIN vs Ind Gavaskar S.M    (Ind) 5  774 1.07  827.3
609 2010 AUS vs Eng Cook A.N        (Eng) 5  766 1.11  849.0
 62 1934 ENG vs Aus Bradman D.G     (Aus) 5  758 1.18  892.6
 76 1947 ENG vs Saf Compton D.C.S   (Eng) 5  753 0.91  684.6

Next the 4-Test series table. Those who have exceeded 600 runs in the series have been shown.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

496 2003 SAF vs Win Kallis J.H      (Saf) 4  712 0.97  694.0
495 2003 AUS vs Ind Ponting R.T     (Aus) 4  706 0.99  702.4
 50 1930 WIN vs Eng Headley G.A     (Win) 4  703 1.00  700.9
 50 1930 WIN vs Eng Hendren E.H     (Eng) 4  693 1.04  717.4
545 2006 ENG vs Pak Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 4  631 1.16  730.2
295 1989 WIN vs Ind Richardson R.B  (Win) 4  619 1.08  665.9
495 2003 AUS vs Ind Dravid R        (Ind) 4  619 1.15  712.2
470 2002 ENG vs Ind Vaughan M.P     (Eng) 4  615 1.02  629.8
470 2002 ENG vs Ind Dravid R        (Ind) 4  602 1.12  676.6

Most of the 4-Test top performances are modern probably because not many 4-Test series were played during the earlier years. Kallis leads the field with his performances against West Indies. The one exception has been during 1930 when Headley and Hendren scored either side of 700 runs in the same series. Dravid has crossed 600 runs twice in his career.

Let us now see the 3-Test series table. Those who have exceeded 500 runs in the series have been shown.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

305 1990 ENG vs Ind Gooch G.A       (Eng) 3  752 0.96  721.1
455 2001 SLK vs Win Lara B.C        (Win) 3  688 1.17  808.4
547 2006 PAK vs Win Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 3  665 1.03  684.0
212 1978 PAK vs Ind Zaheer Abbas    (Pak) 3  583 1.01  589.6
163 1969 NZL vs Win Nurse S.M       (Win) 3  558 1.13  630.0
346 1994 PAK vs Aus Saleem Malik    (Pak) 3  557 1.05  583.8
535 2006 PAK vs Ind Younis Khan     (Pak) 3  553 0.98  544.1
440 2001 IND vs Aus Hayden M.L      (Aus) 3  549 1.14  625.5
519 2005 IND vs Pak Sehwag V        (Ind) 3  544 1.00  543.7
559 2007 IND vs Pak Ganguly S.C     (Ind) 3  534 0.95  505.8
348 1994 IND vs Win Adams J.C       (Win) 3  520 1.19  619.8
534 2005 AUS vs Saf Ponting R.T     (Aus) 3  515 1.08  554.2
310 1991 NZL vs Slk Jones A.H       (Nzl) 3  513 0.94  481.7
401 1998 PAK vs Aus Taylor M.A      (Aus) 3  513 1.04  533.1
519 2005 IND vs Pak Younis Khan     (Pak) 3  508 1.18  601.1
306 1990 PAK vs Nzl Shoaib Mohammad (Pak) 3  507 0.92  465.1
198 1976 PAK vs Nzl Javed Miandad   (Pak) 3  504 0.94  476.0
440 2001 IND vs Aus Laxman V.V.S    (Ind) 3  503 1.10  552.3

When one scores 456 runs in a single Test, it is not too difficult to sit on top of the 3-Test performances. That is what Gooch did against India during 1990. However the real striking performance is the single-handed master class by Lara, away in Sri Lanka during 2001. As the youngsters would say, no one else did jack.

I have given below the top-5 batsmen in each of the series types, this time based on the weighted runs scored.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

296 1989 ENG vs Aus Taylor M.A      (Aus) 6  839 1.09  910.4
357 1995 ENG vs Win Lara B.C        (Win) 6  765 1.14  875.6
264 1985 ENG vs Aus Gower D.I       (Eng) 6  732 1.04  759.3
194 1975 AUS vs Win Chappell G.S    (Aus) 6  702 1.04  731.5
244 1982 PAK vs Ind Mudassar Nazar  (Pak) 6  761 0.95  723.0
...
 51 1930 ENG vs Aus Bradman D.G     (Aus) 5  974 1.15 1122.9
 47 1928 AUS vs Eng Hammond W.R     (Eng) 5  905 1.07  964.4
197 1976 ENG vs Win Richards I.V.A  (Win) 5  829 1.16  958.5
 67 1936 AUS vs Eng Bradman D.G     (Aus) 5  810 1.13  916.7
103 1955 WIN vs Aus Walcott C.L     (Win) 5  827 1.09  900.7
...
545 2006 ENG vs Pak Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 4  631 1.16  730.2
 50 1930 WIN vs Eng Hendren E.H     (Eng) 4  693 1.04  717.4
495 2003 AUS vs Ind Dravid R        (Ind) 4  619 1.15  712.2
495 2003 AUS vs Ind Ponting R.T     (Aus) 4  706 0.99  702.4
 50 1930 WIN vs Eng Headley G.A     (Win) 4  703 1.00  700.9
...
455 2001 SLK vs Win Lara B.C        (Win) 3  688 1.17  808.4
305 1990 ENG vs Ind Gooch G.A       (Eng) 3  752 0.96  721.1
547 2006 PAK vs Win Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 3  665 1.03  684.0
163 1969 NZL vs Win Nurse S.M       (Win) 3  558 1.13  630.0
440 2001 IND vs Aus Hayden M.L      (Aus) 3  549 1.14  625.5

The top two performances in the 6-Test series have retained their places in the weighted runs order. Lara has narrowed the gap a little bit. Mudassar Nazar has moved down the order. There is very little movement in the 5-Test order also. Harvey has moved down. Mohammad Yousuf, playing away against England whose bowling was good, has gained significantly in the 4-Test table and has moved to the top. Kallis has moved way down. As expected, Lara has displaced Gooch because his performance was away, against a very good attack and he received scant support.

Finally the top-5, across all series types, whose weight value is the highest and lowest. This is a very interesting mini-table which brings out the value of this type of weighting.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

 33 1910 SAF vs Eng Hobbs J.B       (Eng) 5  539 1.28  688.4
 85 1950 AUS vs Eng Hutton L        (Eng) 5  533 1.28  683.9
232 1981 ENG vs Aus Border A.R      (Aus) 6  533 1.26  673.1
217 1979 ENG vs Ind Gavaskar S.M    (Ind) 4  542 1.25  676.7
475 2002 AUS vs Eng Vaughan M.P     (Eng) 5  633 1.22  770.1
...
...
 93 1952 AUS vs Saf Harvey R.N      (Aus) 5  834 0.93  778.3
244 1982 PAK vs Ind Javed Miandad   (Pak) 6  594 0.93  552.1
306 1990 PAK vs Nzl Shoaib Mohammad (Pak) 3  507 0.92  465.1
 76 1947 ENG vs Saf Edrich W.J      (Eng) 5  552 0.91  501.8
 76 1947 ENG vs Saf Compton D.C.S   (Eng) 5  753 0.91  684.6

At the other end, the parameters are tilted the other way. Average-to-poor bowling attacks, fairly high RpW values for the matches and matches played at home. Just to give an idea of what I am talking about, let me sum up the series # 76, the last one in the table. England scored 3050+ runs at a loss of 64 wickets, leading to a high RpW of 48. Also, Compton, despite his massive aggregate of 753 runs did not even score 25% of the total runs !!! Still the maximum down-weighting is less than 10%.

Finally let me give my own selection of the top performances in a series.

1. Bradman's 974 in 5 Tests against England. As already explained, a 21-year old batsmen achieves this during his first tour of England. If nothing else this should silence and convince any critics of the greatness of Bradman.

2. Lara's 688 in 3 Tests against Sri Lanka: Irrespective of what else Lara did, and there is plenty, this is the best single series performance by any batsmen during the past 30 years. The lone warrior, away against the magician and Lara came through. The 3 losses add to the poignancy of the performances.

3. Richards' 829 in 5 Tests against England: This was arguably the most dominating series by a single player over the past 50 years and is bettered only by Bradman's 974.

4. Hammond's 905 in 5 Tests against Australia: I have often put down Hammond's 336 against New Zealand. But this was Hammond at his majestic best. However the series record lasted a mere 18 months.

5. Hobbs' 539 in 4 Tests against South Africa: As I went through the scorecards I realized the impact and value of Hobbs' performance. This was not an ordinary South African side. They had excellent bowlers. Hutton's 1950 series ranks very close.

I have fixed 3 Tests as the minimum criteria for defining a proper Test series. However readers would be interested to know that there are five batsmen who have crossed 500 runs in 2 Test-series. They are Jayasuriya (571 vs Ind), Hammond (563 vs Nzl), Andy Flower (540 vs Ind), Jayawardene (510 vs Saf) and Hayden (501 vs Zim). Andy Flower's is probably the most note-worthy since it was achieved against India, away.

Just to complete the Series batting analysis, I have given below the table of batsmen who have crossed 500 runs in a series most number of times.

7 times: Bradman
7 times: Lara
6 times: Sobers
6 times: Gavaskar
4 times: Hobbs, Hammond, Barrington, Border, Ponting.

To download the complete list of players who have crossed 500 runs in a Test series, please right-click here and save the file.

Now for the other end of the performance spectrum. With some difficulty I have unearthed the following total non-performances. With due apologies to Amarnath, CB Fry, Ranatunga and Athey, very good batsmen, they had their great days, but these were their low points. I might very well have missed a few other gems. Readers should note that I have only looked at batsmen with averages higher than 25. Let me remind readers that Amarnath and Ranatunga are two of modern cricket's greatest fighters ever.

SNo Year Batsman       For    Vs   Inns Runs Score sequence

250 1983 Amarnath M   (Ind vs Win)  6    1   0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0 
   (8 months back Amarnath had scored 598 in 5 away Tests against a strong 
West Indian attack !!!)
 25 1902 Fry C.B      (Eng vs Aus)  4    5   0, 0, 1, 4
315 1991 Ranatunga A  (Slk vs Pak)  4    6   0, 0, 0, 6
230 1981 Athey C.W.J  (Eng)         4    7   2, 1, 3, 1
The following were 2-Test series. So not real failures.
366 1996 Twose R.G    (Nzl)         4    6   2, 0, 2, 2
380 1997 de Silva P.A (Slk)         4    9   3, 0, 1, 5
473 2002 Taufeeq Umar (Pak)         4    6   0, 0, 5, 1
476 2002 Arnold R.P   (Slk)         4    6   0, 0, 2, 4

Since the article has already become long, I will keep the bowling and all-round analyses to later posts. This will also enable the readers to exchange information in an informed manner.

Finally a comment on what happened at Nottingham.

On Sunday we saw two sets of faces of Indian Cricket. The first, two tough-as-nails and successful captains who, however, would play fair and keep the spirit of the game alive, in the persona of Dhoni and Ganguly. India might have lost but Cricket, in the form of Dhoni, won. Dhoni's gesture, probably egged on by the wiser and older heads in the team, would not be forgotten in a hurry and he is going to stay in the hearts of all cricket followers everywhere.

The other set, those faces of Shastri and Gavaskar.

I have realized that it would be great to have a Reader's selections section. So here we go.

1. Viswanath's 568 runs (593.6 adjruns) vs Win at home in 1974. (Salem Shanker).
2. Amarnath's 598 runs (718.6 adjruns) vs Win away in 1983, (Gerry/Arjun).
3. Manjrekar's 569 runs (640.3 adjruns) vs Pak away in 1989 (Arjun/Nitin).
4. Vaughan's 633 runs (770.1 adjruns) vs Aus away in 2002 (Arjun).
5. Sobers'722 runs (840.2 adjruns) vs Eng away in 1966. (Shrikanth).
6. Bradman 810 runs (916.7 adjruns) vs Eng home in 1936 (Shrikanth).
7. Adams' 520 runs (3T-619.8 adjruns) vs Ind away in 1994 (Ruchir).
8. Lara's 546 runs (632.6 adjruns) vs Aus home in 1999 (Ruchir).
9. Gavaskar's 774 runs (827.3 adj) vs Win away in 1971 (Abhishek/Raghu).
10.Taylor's 839 (910.4 adjruns) vs Eng away in 1989 (Tom/Pallab).
11.Faulkner's 732 runs (855.8 adjruns) vs Aus away in 1910. (Arjun/Alex).
12.Strauss'656 runs (upto 760.2) vs Saf away in 2004. (Arjun).
13.Sutcliffe's 734 runs (841.5 adjruns) vs Aus away in 1924 (Alex/Ruchir).
14.Trumper's 661 runs (upto 702.4) vs Saf home in 1910 (Manasvi).
15.Walters' 699 runs (upto 714.8) vs Win home in 1968 (Manasvi).
16.Boycott's 657 runs (703.0 adjruns) vs Aus away in 1970 (Arjun). 
17.Gilchrist's 473 runs in 3 Tests vs Saf away in 2002 (Alex).
18.Hobbs' 662 (adjruns 769.9) vs Aus, Away in 1912 (Shri).
19.Sobers' 824 (adjruns 850.8) vs Pak, Home in 1958 (Harsh).
20.Walcott's 827 (900.7 adjruns) vs Aus, home in 1955. (Harsh).
21.Hutton's 533 runs (683.9-28% adj) vs Aus, away 1950 (Waspsting).
22.Lindsay's 606 runs (605.2 adj) vs Aus 1966 (Gerry/Shane).
23. Dravid's 422 runs, and counting, vs Eng during 2011 (Ananth). 

Gordon Greenidge: 134 out of 211 against England in 1976 © Getty Images

After a series of heavy analytical articles it is time for an anecdotal article. However let me assure the readers that this article also, as my other anecdotal articles have been, would be based on solid analysis and not just some subjective selection. This article has been on the anvil for the past two months.

During the past 134 years there have been over 1950 first days in Test cricket. The first day is the most important one in a Test match. The team which wins the first day goes a long way towards winning the Test. Stated in other words, the team which goes behind on the first day would always play catch up. This is the first of two articles on the players who helped their teams come out on top or reasonably well by their performances on the first day. My initial idea was to include both batsmen and bowlers in one article but have since separated the two in view of the length of the article and the complexity inherent in the bowling analysis.

The basis for selection of outstanding first day batting performances was not simple. Cricinfo stores the first day information in a particular manner and care has to be exercised in analysing this information. Each of the following situations is represented differently and has to be analysed individually.

- Where an innings is incomplete and two batsmen are batting at the crease.
- Where an innings is incomplete and one batsmen is batting at the crease (last ball dismissal).
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play.
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play and the other innings has started (again first two conditions).
- Where two innings have been completed.
- Where two innings have been completed and a third innings started.

In some cases the batsman score(s) have to be picked up from the Day 1 information, in some cases from scorecards with some intuitive working out of which batsmen have been dismissed and so on.

Now for selection of the performances. Only one innings is selected automatically. The 309 by Bradman, made on the first day. This is a performance that only a person with extreme guts, fuelled by bias, can keep out of the table. The chances that this effort would be repeated would probably be in between a bowler taking 10 wickets and a batsman scoring 400+ runs. While others have come close to achieving this aggregate in a day's play (Sehwag scored 284 on the second day against Sri Lanka), it is extremely unlikely that anyone would do so on the first day.

Regarding the other performances, the relevant factors, viz., the bowling strength, the number of wickets which fell, the support received et al have been considered and the performances selected. The Wisden-100 table has also been used as a guideline. The final ordering is purely my own preference. The reader may not agree, but should refrain from overtly criticizing the selection or the order. Again, as normally happens, readers can send their suggestions, but with adequate supporting material. Just a single statement pointing out a certain innings is unlikely to merit serious consideration. You have to take the trouble of a perusal of the Cricinfo (or alternate) scorecard and support your candidate.

1. 309* Bradman (Eng) 38.73

0196 (1930) - Australia 458/3 (Bradman 309*, McCabe 12*)

The only time a batsman has scored over 300 in a day's play. This was done by Bradman early in his career. There is no way this momentous innings can be anywhere but top of this list. Since the information on number of overs bowled during the day is unavailable, through extrapolation, I could say that this innings of 309 on the first day must have taken Bradman around 350-375 balls. The bowling attack was just passable. The match ended as a high-scoring draw.

2. 182* Hill (Eng) 35.64

0056 (1898) - Australia 275/7 (Hill 182*, Kelly 22*)

England had a middling attack. Australia started disastrously and slumped to 58 for 6. Hill played one of the finest Test innings ever played, essaying three memorable partnerships for the 7th, 8th and 9th wickets. He was ninth out, at 303, having scored well over 60% of the runs. He would have faced just over 250 balls. Only two other fifties were scored in the match and Australia won comfortably.

Incidentally the all-time classic by Hill is one of two innings in this selection which were in the top-10 of the Wisden-100 table. A very well-deserved place for an unforgettable effort.

3. 244 Bradman (Eng) 28.13

0237 (1934) - Australia 475/2 (Ponsford 205*, McCabe 1*)

This was an extraordinary day of cricket. Australia scored 475 for 2 and this contained an unbeaten innings of 205 by debutant Ponsford, but more significantly, a completed innings of 244 by Bradman, during which he faced only 271 balls. But for the unique nature of the 309, I would think of this innings as the best first day effort ever. The bowling was excellent and comprised of Bowes, Allen, Clark and Verity.

4. 202* Lara (Aus) 27.62

1773 (2005) - West Indies 352/7 (Lara 202*, Powell 7*; 90 overs)

The bowling was one of Australia's best, viz., McGrath, Lee, Warne and MacGill. The setting was away in Australia. Lara walks in at 19 for 2 and sees wickets falling regularly. He plays one of his best innings, not many people remember this as much as the big ones, 153, 277 and 213. Lara guides West Indies to 352 for 7, scoring well over half the runs. He ends at 202, finishes at 226 and, with the next highest innings standing at a low 34. No surprise that Australia win the match comfortably.

5. 132 Azhar Mahmood (Saf) 24.51

1403 (1998) - Pakistan 259/10

What does one say about this innings? Pakistan, playing away in South Africa, against a devastating attack of Donald, de Villiers and Pollock. The ground, the fear-evoking Kingsmead. Azhar Mahmood walks in at 89 for 5. He plays a wonderful attacking innings of 132, adding 170 runs for the last 5 wickets. He scored 132 out of 170, an unbelievable 78%. He faced only 163 balls. What was more important was that this innings helped Pakistan take a small first- innings lead and in the end they had a narrow win.

In my opinion one of the best innings ever, as also proved by the placing of this innings in the seventh position in the Wisden-100 list of the all-time great innings. This classic and Hill's equally wonderful 188 occupy nearby positions in the top-10 of the Wisden-100 table.

6. 126* Bannerman (Eng) 58.67

0001 (1877) - Australia 166/6 (Bannerman 126*, Blackham 3*)

This was the first day of Test cricket in history. In about 90-100 overs, Australia scores 166 for 6. Out of this low total, Bannerman scores 126, just over 75%. The next highest innings is 15, on the first day. But for this innings, Australia could have been dismissed for well below 100. Who knows what might have happened. But Bannerman defied the English bowlers single-handedly. I would say the ownership of the first day of Test cricket was probably the strongest of all 134 years since then.

7. 228* Sehwag (Pak) 29.06

1693 (2004) - India 356/2 (Sehwag 228*, Tendulkar 60*)

Against a fairly good attack of Shoaib Akhtar, Mohd. Sami, Shabbir Ahmed, Saqlain and Razzak, Sehwag scored 228 runs, on the way to the first of his two triple-centuries. 90 overs were bowled during the day and Sehwag must have faced around 250-270 balls during the day. India scored a mammoth 675 and went on to win by an innings. This was the match of the Dravid declaration when Tendulkar was on 194 and much fuss was made on this. However the sheen should not be taken away from Sehwag's unforgettable effort.

8. 153 Gooch (Win) 25.56

0902 (1981) - England 278/6 (Botham 12*, Downton 0*)

Gooch, as he was wont to do often, faced an attack of Holding, Marshall, Croft and Garner, that too at Kingston, Jamaica. With little support from the other batsmen, Gooch steered the England innings to a satisfactory 278 for 6. Gooch himself was dismissed just before the close of play. This was an innings nearly as good as the more famous Headingley classic of 154. Gooch scored quite quickly, taking about 220 balls. The match was comfortably drawn.

9. 169* Smith IDG (Ind) 37.44

1139 (1990) - New Zealand 387/9 (Smith 169*, Morrison 0*)

This was an extraordinary innings on an extraordinary day of cricket. New Zealand, playing at home against a good Indian attack led by Kapil Dev, slumped to 131 for 7 when Ian Smith walked in. He added over 100 with Richard Hadlee and 140 with Snedden and the day finishes at 387 for 9. Out of the 266 added while he was at crease, Smith scored 173 runs. In the ninth wicket partnership of 136, Smith scored well over 100 runs. This was arguably the best innings ever played by a No.9 in Test cricket.

In the second innings the established batsmen came to the party and New Zealand drew the match comfortably. Incidentally, Smith scored his 169 in 130 balls.

10. 155* Compton (Saf) 34.16

0410 (1955) - England 264/7 (Compton 155*, Lock 6*)

This was Compton at his best. A good South African attack reduced England to 75 for 4. Compton, with some support from May and then Bailey, steered them to respectability at 264 for 7, out of which he scored 155 runs. England went on to lose the match narrowly.

11. 134 Greenidge (Eng) 35.02

0779 (1976) - West Indies 211/10.

West Indies opened with Fredericks. The top 4 wickets fell for 26. Greenidge played, arguably, his best Test innings ever getting West Indies out of disaster. He scored 134 out of 211, the next best being King's 32. No other batsman exceeded 10. This was around 65% of the team total and was comparable to the Bannerman classic. Greenidge also scored a hundred in the second innings and West Indies won by a million runs.

11. 187 Hobbs (Saf) 29.40

0110 (1910) - England 406/7 (Thompson 48*, Tufnell 12*)

This was a very good South African attack, playing at home. Hobbs, opening the innings, held the innings together, scoring a masterly 187 and was fifth out at 327. He must have faced around 250 balls. England scored at a fair clip and went on to score 417, finally winning the match comfortably by 9 wickets.

11. 181* Langer (Pak) 37.98

1726 (2004) - Australia 357/8 (Langer 181*, Kasprowicz 4*, 86 overs)

The Pakistan attack was a fair one, at best. However Australia slumped to 78 for 5 and Langer, with support from Gilchrist, steered them to a good first innings total of 381. Then Pakistan failed twice and Australia won by nearly 500 runs. This innings was almost a carbon copy of the Hobbs effort, nearly a 100 years before. Incidentally, Langer scored 97 in the second innings. Langer faced around 260 balls.

11. 155 Tendulkar (Saf) 25.54

1564 (2001) - India 372/7 (Dasgupta 29*; 90 overs)

This was the first match of the (in)famous series, marred by allegations and scrapping of the third Test match. It contained a gem of an innings by Tendulkar. The bowling attack was led by Shaun Pollock, Ntini, Hayward and Kallis. India slumped to 68 for 4. Sehwag, the nervous debutant, walked in. Tendulkar controlled the innings in a beautiful manner and took the score to 288 for 6 when he was dismissed for an outstanding 155. This was, unlike some of the later efforts of Tendulkar, a fairly quick one, requiring only 184 balls. India lost comfortably in the end.

11. 136* Lara (Aus) 23.45

1523 (2000) - West Indies 274/4 (Lara 136*, Dillon 3*, 90 overs)

This is the the other sub-150 innings. The selection has been done based on the quality of the bowling attack, which was one of the best, led by McGrath, Gillespie and MacGill. As normally happened, Lara had very little support from the other batsmen and remained unbeaten on 136, having steered West Indies to a reasonable 274 for 4. However West Indies lost the match. This innings won the nod over the 176, mentioned later, because of the high quality of the Australian bowling.

11. 177 Vaughan (Aus) 24.43

1628 (2002) - England 295/4 (Butcher 22*; 89.3 overs)

Australia's bowling attack was a devastating one, comprising of McGrath, Gillespie, Bichel and Warne. Michael Vaughan , with very little support from his fellow batsmen, the next highest being 47, steered England to a reasonably safe 295 for 4 and was out to the last ball of the day. His 177 required 306 balls. As Australia was wont to do in those days, they scored at a furious pace and took a lead of over 200 runs. England lost by an innings.

The following innings came under serious consideration. They all have their strong points and could easily have replaced any of the innings grouped together at no.11.

Ponsford     205*  0237
Walcott      147*  0383
Sobers       152*  0502
Richards     200*  0781
Tilakaratne  115   1305
Moin Khan     70   1444
Jacobs        96*  1520
Lara         176   1749
Kamran Akmal 113   1783
Sangakkara   156   1822
Dravid       177*  1933

Given below are the four first days during which two batsmen stayed throughout. The fifth occasion when Wasim Jaffer was injured and India finished at 300+ for 0 against Bangladesh is not considered.

0420 - India 234/0 (Mankad 109*, Roy 114*)
0589 - Australia 263/0 (Lawry 102*, Simpson 137*)
1125 - Australia 301/0 (Marsh 125*, Taylor 141*)
1865 - South Africa 405/0 (McKenzie 169*, Smith 223*)

Given below are the 200+ scores scored during the first day, ordered by runs scored. There have been 21 occasions. Bradman has achieved this 5 times and Hammond 3 times and Graeme Smith twice, both times against Bangladesh.

309* Bradman D.G    38.73 (Eng) 0196 Australia 458/3 (Bradman 309*, McCabe 12*)
244  Bradman D.G    28.13 (Eng) 0237 Australia 475/2 (Ponsford 205*, McCabe 1*)
228* Sehwag V       29.06 (Pak) 1693 India 356/2 (Sehwag 228*, Tendulkar 60*)
223* Smith G.C      42.43 (Bng) 1865 South Africa 405/0 (McKenzie 169*, 
Smith 223*)
223* Hammond W.R    49.87 (Nzl) 0225 England 418/5 (Hammond 223*, Brown 12*)
223* Bradman D.G    49.49 (Win) 0203 Australia 428/3 (Bradman 223*, McCabe 1*)
228  Gibbs          33.18 (Pak) South Africa 445/3 (Gibbs dismissed).
219* Gayle C        40.62 (Slk) 1977 West Indies 362/2 (Gayle 219*, 
Chanderpaul 20*)
217  Hammond W.R    53.26 (Ind) 0254 England 471/8 (Fishlock 19*, Voce 1*)
210* Hammond W.R    44.01 (Aus) 0264 England 409/5 (Hammond 210*, Ames 50*)
209  Roach C.A      38.98 (Eng) 0192 West Indies 336/2 (Headley 60*)
205* Ponsford W     28.13 (Eng) 0237 Australia 475/2 (Ponsford 205*, McCabe 1*)
205  Aamer Sohail   43.73 (Eng) 1191 Pakistan 388/3 (Javed Miandad 59*, 
Moin Khan 7*)
203* Kanhai R.B     38.94 (Ind) 0463 West Indies 359/3 (Kanhai 203*,
Butcher 87*)
203  Collins H.L    38.57 (Saf) 0146 Australia 450/10
202* Lara B.C       27.62 (Aus) 1773 West Indies 352/7 (Lara 202*, Powell 7*)
202* Kirsten G      38.44 (Zim) 1562 South Africa 414/1 (Kirsten 202*, 
Kallis 56*)
201  Bradman D.G    52.10 (Ind) 0294 Australia 370/3 (Hassett 39*, Miller 4*)
200* Richards I.V.A 33.15 (Eng) 0781 West Indies 373/3 (Richards 200*, 
Lloyd 15*)
200* Bradman D.G    44.82 (Saf) 0212 Australia 341/6 (Bradman 200*, Oldfield 3*)
200  Smith G.C      60.00 (Bng) 1619 South Africa 369/2 (Kirsten 113*, 
Kallis 1*).

Readers' selections

1. Slater 176 out of 329/4 vs England. Match 1275 (1994). (Gerry/Tom). 
2. McCabe 127* out of 290/6 vs England (Bodyline). Match 0220 (1932) 
(Shri/Sree-kanth).
3. Gibbs 228 out of 445/3 vs Pakistan. Match 1637 (2003). (Eagle eye of Venkat).
4. Kamran Akmal 113 out of 245/10 vs India. Match 1783. (2006) (Goel/Abbas).
5. Dravid 81 out of 200/10 vs West Indies. Match 1808 (2006). (Goel/Raghav).
6. Hughes 100* out of 198/10 vs West Indies. Match 0915 (1981) 
(Arijit/Criccrazy).
7. Trumper 104 out of 299/10 vs England. 3-run win. Match 0073 (1902) 
(Shrikanth/Alex).
8. Taylor 109 out of 182/10 vs England. Match 0130 (1913) (Alex).
9. Manjrekar 133 out of 272/6 vs England. Match 0351 (1952) (Pawan).
10.G.Kirsten 100* out of 239/10 vs Pakistan. Match 1382 (1997) (Arjun/Venkat).
11.Harvey 74 228/10 vs England. Match 0327 (1950) (Ravi).
12.BR Taylor 124 out of 323/10 vs West Indies. Match 0648 (1969) (Alex).
13.Jayasuriya 341/5 vs South Africa. Match 1504 (2000) (Alex).
14.Pollock RG 160* and Richards BA 140* out of 336/5 vs Australia . 
Match 0671 (1970) (Venkat).
15.Mark Waugh 117* out of 355/5 against WIN (Amb/Pat/Wal/Mar!!!). 
Match 1170 (1991) (Alex)
16. Walters 104 out of 221/10 off NZL. match 0736 (1974) (Arjun-the terrier)
17. Saeed Anwar 132* out of 253/8 vs Australia. Match 1424 (1998) (Vinish/Alex).
18. Kanhai 121 out of 224/10 vs Australia. Match 0590 (1965) (Alex).
19. Vishwanath 114 out of 237 ao vs Australia. Match 0895 (1981) (Gerry).
20. Richards 130 out of 241 ao vs India. Match 0775 (1976) (Gerry).
21. Kluesener 118 out of 260 ao vs Sri Lanka (away-win by 7 runs). Match 1505 (2000) (Arjun).
22. Nurse 93 out of 235 (out of 135 team) ao vs England. Match 0607 (1966) (Arjun).
23. Hooper 134 out of 294 vs Pak (IK/WY/WA/AQ). Test 1158 (1990) (Arjun/Alex).
24. Grace 170 out of 279/2 (out of team score 216) vs Aus. 0024 (1986) (Shri).
25. S.Waugh 108 out of 235 ao vs England. Match 1372 (1997) Ruchir.

The first day bowling spell analysis will follow later in another article. This is not as clear-cut as the batting analysis especially when incomplete innings are to be considered. Exact bowling analysis at end of day is quite elusive.

Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid: on the verge of becoming the most prolific pair in Tests © AFP

Since the late nineties, batting records have been especially dominated by India and Australia, who have had outstanding partnerships in the top order and middle order. England though, in recent times, boast the prolific opening pairing of Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook, who have aggregated the most runs by an English opening pair in Tests. In the 2000s, Ricky Ponting and Matthew Hayden forged a terrific partnership for the second wicket to help sustain Australia's dominance while Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid did the same for India. The pair is all set to become the most prolific in Test history, requiring just 131 runs to go past the legendary West Indian opening partnership of Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes. This piece aims to analyse in detail the performance of top batting pairs by partnership wicket and also point out a few interesting partnership-trends in various host countries.

Most successful teams in Test history were built on a solid foundation at the top of the innings. England's great pre-war pairing of Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe remains the finest in terms of batting average and consistency (min 3000 runs aggregate). They shared 15 century stands in just 37 Tests and averaged over 80 both home and away. In wins, they were exceptional, with nine century stands at an average over 95. Furthermore, their performance across the four match innings has also been remarkably consistent, with their lowest average of 55.66 coming in the fourth innings. The Australian pairing of Bill Lawry and Bob Simpson was a highly successful combination in the 1960s aggregating over 3500 runs at an average of nearly 61.

India struggled without a good opening pair after the retirement of Sunil Gavaskar and Chetan Chauhan in the 1980s. The pair was very consistent both home and away, and did much better in the team second innings as compared to the first innings. Despite sharing ten century partnerships with Gavaskar, Chauhan himself never made a single hundred in Tests. The recent pairing of Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir has been successful, but is yet to score substantially in away conditions. The pair has, however, been a huge factor in India's Test success in the last three years. Australia's dominance of world cricket from the mid 1990s until recently has largely been due to the presence of world-class opening pairs. After the end of the successful Michael Slater-Mark Taylor partnership in the 1990s, Hayden and Justin Langer continued to dominate bowling attacks. They shared 14 century stands including a record six 200-plus partnerships. However, they had very little to do in the third and fourth innings of matches given the strength of their bowling attack, and shared only two century stands in the team second innings.

The West Indian hegemony in the late 1970s and 1980s was largely due to an outstanding bowling attack, but their powerful batting line-up also had a lot to do with the unprecedented dominance. Greenidge and Haynes, who shared a record 16 century stands for the opening wicket were brilliant at home, but slightly less successful in away games. They averaged under 35 in Australia and England which can be attributed to a combination of the high quality opening bowling and sporting pitches in those years. Surprisingly, in sharp contrast to many other pairs, they did much better as the match progressed, and shared 15 of their 16 century partnerships in the second, third and fourth innings.

As the bowling quality declined in the early 2000s, the Australian batting feasted on the weak new-ball attacks around the world. Not even South Africa were able to pose much of a threat when they travelled to Australia. Langer and Ponting averaged nearly 80 for the second wicket, and an incredible 116.72 in away matches. Hayden and Ponting, the most prolific batting pair in wins, were far more dominant in home games (average 83.32) when compared to away matches (average 59.40). They were brilliant in the fourth innings, with four century stands at an average of 81.08. On comparing the stats of the two Australian pairs with those of Haynes-Richie Richardson and David Boon-Taylor, it becomes very clear that the fast bowling faced in the 1980s and 1990s was of a much higher standard than that in the early 2000s.

While the Dravid-Tendulkar partnership is the most prolific for the third wicket, it is the Pakistan pairing of Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan that takes the honours for the highest average. In 20 innings, they aggregated 2020 runs at an average over 106 with six century stands. However, only 248 of those runs were scored in wins, which is highly indicative of the inconsistency of the rest of Pakistan's batting line-up and the placid nature of the pitches in the subcontinent. Hashim Amla and Jacques Kallis have been instrumental in South Africa's recent rise in the Test rankings, and have an excellent conversion rate from fifties to hundreds.

Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara, who have formed the core of the Sri Lankan middle order in the last few years average over 85 in home Tests but only 50 in away matches. Their numbers are exaggerated by their performances against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, against whom they average over 81 in ten innings. In contrast, they have played Australia in just three innings and average close to 27. In a West Indian team that lost far more matches than it won, Brian Lara and Ramnaresh Sarwan were superb. They averaged over 60 and boasted an excellent conversion rate with ten century stands and four fifty partnerships. Tendulkar and Dravid share the most century stands for any batting pair, and have been a symbol of consistency for more than a decade. Their only blip, however, is an below-par performance in the fourth innings, where they average under 39.

Jayawardene and Thilan Samaraweera, who average over 74 for the fourth wicket, have featured in just nine partnerships outside the subcontinent. Eight of their nine century stands have come in the subcontinent. Inzamam-ul-Haq and Yousuf have featured in 50 partnerships, and have an average of nearly 91 in wins. Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh, who put on 231 in Jamaica in 1995 to help Australia win their first series in the West Indies in 22 years, average just over 50 overall, but slightly over 66 in victories.

Steve Waugh, who has forged successful stands with Allan Border and Ponting for the fifth wicket, dominates the middle-order partnership stats. VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid, who put on 376 runs against Australia in the unforgettable Kolkata Test in 2001, have an average of 67 with five century stands. Adam Gilchrist and Damien Martyn, who average over 75 for the sixth wicket, have been ordinary in home Tests. However, they average nearly 91 in away matches while scoring nearly 72% of their runs in wins. Ian Healy and Steve Waugh have aggregated the most runs for the sixth wicket, and have also featured in the most century stands (6).

The table below features the best batting pairs in wins. Australia's dominance in recent years means that the presence of four Australian pairs in the top seven is not entirely surprising. The Hayden-Ponting combination has scored 3948 runs in wins (82.9%) and is followed by Hayden-Langer (62.6% in wins). Greenidge and Haynes scored 3500 runs in wins which is nearly 15% of the team runs in those matches. In terms of percentage of team runs in wins, rhe Hayden-Langer pairing comes next, with 11.94%.

Visiting opening pairs have generally struggled in Australia and England when compared to the home batsmen. Home openers average nearly 41 in Australia and England whereas overseas pairs average close to 33. However, visiting opening pairs have done better than home batsmen in India, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. For the second wicket, overseas pairs have not been able to match the home pairs in all countries except South Africa and New Zealand. South Africa, however, have been a very competitive side at home after their readmission to international cricket in 1991. Their average for wickets 1-6 is comfortably higher than those of visiting teams in the period from 1991-2011.

Among visiting batting pairs who have played a minimum of ten innings and scored atleast 500 runs in a particular country, the Waugh brothers have been the best. They average nearly 88 in England between 1993 and 2001 with four century stands. Hobbs and Sutcliffe are by far the best visiting pair in Australia, with 1292 runs at an average of 81. Greenidge and Haynes have scored over 900 runs in Australia but at a modest average of 34. Mike Atheron and Alec Stewart were impressive in the West Indies, aggregating 873 runs at 43.65. Geoff Boycott and Graham Gooch were the best overseas pair in India, with 520 runs at an average of 65. During the 1980s, at the peak of West Indian dominance, their top four pairs averaged 61, 57, 50 and 47 in Tests in West Indies while overseas pairs averaged 37, 35, 30 and 29.

Graham Gooch: one of the most prolific batting streaks © Getty Images

The idea for this article came when I was discussing Lara's 400 with a friend, arguing that that was not even his fifth best innings. He countered by saying that since this was the maximum runs scored in a test it should be considered great. I had to correct him saying that there were two other batsmen who have scored more runs than Lara in a test. He was quite surprised since he could not think of someone scoring more than 400. He was only thinking of one innings. Then I explained to him about Gooch and Mark Taylor.

It made me think that there may be many cricket followers who might be in the dark about this and the maximum runs scored in one or more tests. I was also sure we would be in for some major surprises if we looked deeply into it. I myself did not have the answers ready. Would Lara's 688 be the maximum in three consecutive tests (no, it is not) or would Bradman's 974 runs during the 1930 5-test series be the maximum scored in a 5-test sequence (no, it is not) or would Tendulkar's recent streak of 1323 in 10 tests (before the Hyderabad Test) would be amongst the top 10-match sequences (no, it is not) and so on.

A very fascinating set of questions. I decided I would do a complete article on this. I am glad that I did it since it has thrown up quite a few great insights into Test batting. So much so I would do a similar article on Test bowling also.

Indeed this turned out to be a tough task since I also wanted to utilize this opportunity to build a Player-performance Database. This is essential since I needed to get the best 1-10 test performances for each player and then get the all-time best performances. I also wanted to provide the information on the top players' 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 players after the article was published. I wanted to be able to provide the information quickly. In fact I have also provided the huge table of all players' for downloading.

First let me emphasize that this is only a run aggregate. I myself will clarify that this aggregating of runs in specific sequences of 1-10 tests is irrespective of opposing team, home or away, match conditions, period lapsed between matches, not outs et al. That is not the purpose of this article. Readers should appreciate this and not come in with a comment such as "opposition bowling quality is not considered". But that is wishful thinking !!! Also readers who worry bout batting average should understand that when someone scores over 1500 runs in 10 tests, it does not matter about averages. It is going to be quite high.

Let us now look at the tables.

Maximum runs scored in a single test

Batsman         Runs  StartTest

Gooch G.A        456 (1148-1990)  
  333+123

Taylor M.A       426 (1426-1998)
  334+92

Lara B.C         400 (1696-2004)
  400

This table refers to the discussion which led into this analysis and a start of dominance by an extremely under-rated player, Graham Gooch. His triple and single centuries in the 1990 Lord's test add upto 456 runs and leads this table. This is followed by Mark Taylor's 426 against Pakistan. He followed a 334 (declared since he wanted to be at par with Bradman, not wanting to go past it !!!) with 92. Then follows Lara's single innings score of 400.

The cricketing story behind the Test is that Gooch declared late on the fourth day, leaving India with just over 8 hours to get runs. When asked why he did not declare earlier, he replied that he wanted to be able to attack right through the Indian innings. On slightly helpful tracks, Gooch's reason is the one which makes more sense rather than the often repeated "we must give the batting team a chance" maxim.

There is also a personal story behind the Gooch Test. I was in England at that time on my company work and was scheduled to leave London for Bombay, via Kuwait on 1 August. I wanted to see the last day of the Lord's Test on 31 July, hoping for a great fight back. Unfortunately India, starting at 57 for 2, collapsed in less than 3 hours. I decided to save 100 pounds in expenses, advanced my flight to 31 July and returned a day earlier.

Some readers might ask, so what. The horrifying truth was that the flight which left on August 1, landed at Kuwait, not knowing that Iraq had invaded and then could not take off again. In fact the plane was torched. The passengers had a harrowing time for 30 days and finally had to travel overland through Jordan to return to India. There, but for the grace of God and the ineptness of the Indian batting, I, a confirmed grass-eater, would have been in occupied-Kuwait. Lucky it was not the Harbhajan-led tail of today which might have batted on till evening.

Maximum runs scored in 2 consecutive tests

Gooch G.A        640 (1147-1990)
  154+30, 333+123
  184, 456

Bradman D.G      625 (0236-1934)
  304, 244+77
  304, 321

Smith G.C        621 (1651-2003)
  277+85, 259
  362, 259

Since Gooch preceded his Lord's test with another great one, he leads in the 2-test table with 640 runs. How can you keep Bradman out. He is next with 625 runs. Then there is a surprise with Graeme Smith with 621 runs, mainly with two huge double centuries.

Maximum runs scored in 3 consecutive tests

Hammond W.R      779 (0177-1928)
  251, 200+32, 119+177
  251, 232, 296

Gooch G.A        763 (1147-1990)
  154+30, 333+123, 116+7
  184, 456, 123

Sobers G.St.A    731 (0448-1958)
  52+80, 365, 125+109
  132, 365, 234

The 3-test sequence is headed by Hammond, with two double hundreds and two centuries in 3 tests, aggregating to 779 runs. Gooch is just behind, with 763 runs since he had an excellent test after the humongous Lord's one. For once Bradman is kept out. Sobers, book-ending his 365 with two good tests has aggregated 731 runs.

Maximum runs scored in 4 consecutive tests

Gooch G.A        936 (1147-1990)
  154+30, 333+123, 116+7, 85+88
  184, 456, 123, 173

Sangakkara K.C   915 (1838-2007)
  200, 222, 57+192, 92+152
  200, 222, 249, 244

Bradman D.G      888 (0180-1929)
  123+37, 8+131, 254+1, 334
  160, 139, 255, 334

Gooch continues to lead the tables. In 4 consecutive tests he scored 936 runs. Now there is a modern presence. Sangakkara's golden run during 2007 comes in second with 915 runs, supported by two double and two big centuries. He is ahead of Bradman whose quartet of tests aggregated 888 runs.

Maximum runs scored in 5 consecutive tests

Gooch G.A       1058 (1146-1990)
  85+37, 154+30, 333+123, 116+7, 85+88
  122, 184, 456, 123, 173

Bradman D.G     1028 (0236-1934)
  304, 244+77, 38+0, 0+82, 13+270
  304, 321, 38, 82, 283

Sobers G.St.A   1009 (0450-1958)
  365, 125+109, 14+27, 25+142, 4+198
  365, 234, 41, 167, 202

We are now back to the trusted trio of Gooch, Bradman and Sobers. Note that these three have exceeded 1000 runs in 5 tests. These are the only three to do so.

Maximum runs scored in 6 consecutive tests

Bradman D.G     1266 (0236-1934)
  304, 244+77, 38+0, 0+82, 13+270, 26+212
  304, 321, 38, 82, 283, 238

Gooch G.A       1147 (1148-1990)
  333+123, 116+7, 85+88, 20+58, 59+54, 87+117
  456, 123, 173, 78, 113, 204

Sobers G.St.A   1141 (0448-1958)
  52+80, 365, 125+109, 14+27, 25+142, 4+198
  132, 365, 234, 41, 167, 202

The same three batsmen lead the table for the 6-test aggregates. However the sequence is different, with Bradman displacing Gooch. Sobers stays in third place. 11 batsmen have crossed 1000 runs in 6 tests.

Maximum runs scored in 7 consecutive tests

Bradman D.G     1435 (0236-1934)
  304, 244+77, 38+0, 0+82, 13+270, 26+212, 169
  304, 321, 38, 82, 283, 238, 169

Gooch G.A       1331 (1147-1990)
  154+30, 333+123, 116+7, 85+88, 20+58, 59+54, 87+117
  184, 456, 123, 173, 78, 113, 204

Mohammad Yousuf 1296 (1809-2006)
  202+48, 38+15, 192+8, 128, 192, 56+191, 102+124
  250, 53, 200, 128, 192, 247, 226

Now for the 7-test aggregate table. Bradman has aggregated 1435 runs, over 200 runs per test. Gooch has aggregated 1331 runs. Now the current generation comes in, represented by the top class Pakistani batsman, Mohammad Yousuf who had a wonderful year during 2006. He aggregated 1296 runs in 7 tests. What Pakistan would do to have Yousuf playing half as well now. 20 batsmen have exceeded 1000 runs in 7 tests.

Maximum runs scored in 8 consecutive tests

Bradman D.G     1630 (0236-1934)
  304, 244+77, 38+0, 0+82, 13+270, 26+212, 169, 51+144
  304, 321, 38, 82, 283, 238, 169, 195

Gooch G.A       1453 (1146-1990)
  85+37, 154+30, 333+123, 116+7, 85+88, 20+58, 59+54, 87+117
  122, 184, 456, 123, 173, 78, 113, 204

Richards I.V.A  1385 (0773-1976)
  142, 130+20, 177+23, 64, 232+63, 4+135, 66+38, 291
  142, 150, 200, 64, 295, 139, 104, 291

These two giants, Bradman and Gooch have monopolized the top two positions in the 8-test tables. Bradman still maintains his 200+ runs per test and is way ahead of Gooch. Then comes the incomparable Richards who had one of the greatest of batsman-years during 1976. With a finale of the wonderful Oval innings of 291, he had aggregated 1385 runs. No fewer than 44 batsmen have exceeded 1000 runs in eight tests, Bradman being the only 1500+ run gatherer.

Maximum runs scored in 9 consecutive tests

Bradman D.G     1750 (0236-1934)
  304, 244+77, 38+0, 0+82, 13+270, 26+212, 169, 51+144, 18+102
  304, 321, 38, 82, 283, 238, 169, 195, 120

Gooch G.A       1550 (1147-1990)
  154+30, 333+123, 116+7, 85+88, 20+58, 59+54, 87+117, 13+18, 34+154
  184, 456, 123, 173, 78, 113, 204, 31, 188

Richards I.V.A  1533 (0770-1976)
  50+98, 142, 130+20, 177+23, 64, 232+63, 4+135, 66+38, 291
  148, 142, 150, 200, 64, 295, 139, 104, 291

Same three batsmen occupy the top three places in the 9-test table. Bradman's total of 1750 means that the average runs per test falls below 200. Gooch totals 1550 runs and Richards 1533. Gooch's sequence ends with the all-time classic of 154 against West Indies which must rank amongst the five best ever Test innings in anyone's reckoning. 75 batsmen have crossed 1000 runs in 9 Tests and 5 of these have crossed 1500 runs.

Maximum runs scored in 10 consecutive tests

Bradman D.G     1869 (0236-1934)
  304, 244+77, 38+0, 0+82, 13+270, 26+212, 169, 51+144, 18+102, 103+16
  304, 321, 38, 82, 283, 238, 169, 195, 120, 119

Gooch G.A       1672 (1146-1990)
  85+37, 154+30, 333+123, 116+7, 85+88, 20+58, 59+54, 87+117, 13+18, 34+154
  122, 184, 456, 123, 173, 78, 113, 204, 31, 188

Richards I.V.A  1664 (0768-1976)
  30+101, 50+98, 142, 130+20, 177+23, 64, 132+63, 4+135, 66+38, 291
  131, 148, 142, 150, 200, 64, 195, 139, 104, 291

Finally the 10-test table. Again the same three batsmen. Bradman has aggregated 1869 runs in a 10-test sequence. The irony is that there is a zero embedded in this sequence. Gooch and Richards only suffer when compared to Bradman. 114 batsmen have crossed 1000 runs in 9 Tests and 8 of these have crossed 1500 runs.

The surprise in these 10x3 efforts is the complete absence of a single Indian batsman. I am wary of giving a possible reason. Only thing I can think of is the overall strong batting lineup of India, not allowing one batsman to dominate for a series of Tests. That might very well have been the case for Australia a few years back. Incidentally Gambhir has a 10-test aggregate of 1640 runs and is just behind Richards.

Readers would have noted that Gooch is the only batsman to have featured in the top-3 positions in all these 10 tables. Bradman is missing in the 1-test and 3-tests tables. I agree that one swallow does not make a summer and these 10 tests are not representative of the batsman's career. However we have to recognize Gooch's 10 golden tests.

I am sure readers would like to see the best 1-10 test sequence aggregates of their favourite batsmen. Instead of cluttering up the main article I have uploaded the file and readers can view/download the complete player file.

This has been added as a postscript. This is the 10-innings sequence, rather than the 10-test sequence, as asked for by some readers. The table is presented with no comments.

Lara B.C             1   400 (1696-2004)
Hayden M.L           1   380 (1661-2003)
Jayawardene D.P.M.D  1   374 (1810-2006) (Lara's 375 is in between)

Hammond W.R          2   563 (0225-1933)
Bradman D.G          2   548 (0236-1934)
Sobers G.St.A        2   490 (0450-1958)

Hammond W.R          3   638 (0224-1933)
Bradman D.G          3   625 (0236-1934)
Smith G.C            3   621 (1651-2003)

Hammond W.R          4   739 (0224-1933)
Bradman D.G          4   720 (0194-1930)
Sobers G.St.A        4   679 (0448-1958)

Bradman D.G          5   835 (0195-1930)
Hammond W.R          5   779 (0177-1928)
Sangakkara K.C       5   763 (1838-2007)

Gooch G.A            5   756 (1147-1990)
Zaheer Abbas         5   747 (0936-1982)
Sobers G.St.A        5   731 (0448-1958)

Bradman D.G          6   966 (0194-1930)
Sangakkara K.C       6   915 (1838-2007)
Zaheer Abbas         6   838 (0935-1982)

Bradman D.G          7   984 (0196-1930)
Sangakkara K.C       7   921 (1837-2007)
Gooch G.A            7   878 (1146-1990)

Bradman D.G          8  1087 (0195-1930)
Mohammad Yousuf      8   993 (1813-2006)
Sangakkara K.C       8   962 (1838-2007)

Bradman D.G          9  1239 (0195-1930)
Sangakkara K.C       9  1085 (1822-2006)
Mohammad Yousuf      9  1025 (1813-2006)

Bradman D.G         10  1370 (0194-1930)
Sangakkara K.C      10  1185 (1820-2006)
Sobers G.St.A       10  1115 (0450-1958)

R.V.Subbu has asked one of the most intriguing and exciting questions on this blog. He wanted to know who has the best 52-test streak, second to Bradman. Thanking him for a wonderful question I set to work, the process already having been set, and the results are given below. The funny thing is that the first time I did this I did not set the Bradman exclusion filter and got the following information.

Bradman D.G. 52 6996 99.94

Laughing at my own idiocy, I set the filter and got the results.

Ricky Ponting, in a 52-test span between Test # 1595 (Saf vs Aus 15/03/2002) and Test # 1819 (Aus vs Eng 1/12/2006) accumulated 5853 runs at an average of 74.09 (90-11-5853-74.09-23 hundreds). His average improved from 45.09 to 59.97..

This is a logical extension of the current article and I must thank R.V.Subbu again for setting the spark.

The second is, surprise, Lara, who, starting with Test # 1542 and ending at one test before the end of his career, aggregated 5573 runs in 52 tests. Supports my contention that he retired couple of years too soon, or was forced to retire.

The third is, surprise again, Sobers, who scored 5468 runs in 52 tests starting Test # 443 (just before his record-breaking 365).

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 batsmen who have scored 2000 runs or more are included.

To view/down-load the 52-Test sequence table, please click/right-click here.

To view/down-load the 80-innings sequence table, please click/right-click here. Readers should note that Logie does not figure in this table since he played in 52 tests but had only 78 innings.

VVS Laxman: one of the top third innings knocks © AFP

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

Alastair Cook: has he escaped his run of bad form? © Getty Images

Having written a couple of blogs unpicking the value of innings-to-innings consistency among batsmen and bowlers, I'm now turning my attention to variability of performance over longer periods. In these analyses, I look at how players' careers are made up of spells of relative success and failure. In other words, what I'm interested in is the statistical basis of what we often call form. Once again, I'm going to start with batsmen and, for reasons of space, I've concentrated on Test cricket only.

The key statistical technique I have used to look at this issue is the simple moving average. That is to say, I have cut up each player's career into a series of overlapping blocks of the same length, and calculated his average for each block in turn. In my base case, the length of block I have chosen is 20 innings. This means that we start with the individual's average over his first 20 innings, then we look at innings 2–21, then innings 3–22, and so on. (There are good arguments for using a slightly more sophisticated kind of moving average; if you're interested in why I didn't, please see the Technical Appendix at the foot of this blog.)

Later, I'm going to do some number-crunching on the results of my analysis but, to begin with, I want to do something a bit simpler. I want to draw pictures of the results. By and large, I think that cricket statisticians tend to be pretty poor at finding helpful ways of visually presenting the scads of data we often turn out, and we could all do with giving more thought to information graphics. There's a couple of visualisations we routinely see on telly (especially in limited-overs cricket, in which the so-called "worm" and "Manhattan" are used with some frequency), but I'm convinced it would be useful to have an awful lot more tricks of this kind up our sleeves. [Note: I drafted this paragraph before Anantha published his most recent It Figures blog, which I was really pleased to see.]

I find it particularly remarkable that there is no common way of depicting individual players' career records over time (what a statistician would call a longitudinal approach). We all know that, to one degree or another, all players go through peaks and troughs of performance, and that the career stats with which they end up iron out the kinks in their record, through the magic of aggregates and averages. I think it would be great to have a way of thinking about – and looking at – the information that gets lost.

So, in this column, I am introducing my stab at plugging this gap. Because I'm a statistician, I call it the Longitudinal Career Graph (LCG for short); if I were a telly producer, I'd probably call it an iceberg plot, or something like that. An example is shown in Figure 1, depicting Sachin Tendulkar's test batting career. There are two key features:

* Firstly, the player's moving average throughout his career is given in the shaded area. It is shown relative to his long-run career average, which is pegged to the central axis: whenever the black area is above the axis, the player averaged more over the previous 20 innings than he did over his whole career and, whenever the black area is below the axis, his average for the last 20 innings was worse than he achieved in the long run. The advantage of presenting the data in this way is that it allows us immediately to see a given player's hot and cold streaks in relation to his overall level of performance (which is important because, of course, the kind of figures that constitute a purple patch for one player might represent a dry spell for another).

* Secondly, the evolution of the player's career average over time is indicated by the red line (this is a straightforward depiction of what Statsguru calls the cumulative average). Because the final career average is the point of reference for the moving average plot, the red line will always end at the exact point around which the black area pivots.

Fig 1 Longitudinal Career Graph showing Sachin Tendulkar's Test batting career (20-innings moving average) © Gabriel Rogers

(By the way, I'm not going to use them here, because I can't squish them into the 470 pixels Cricinfo give me to play with, but I've also developed a flashier version which gives more context about where and against whom runs were made – here's Tendulkar again, as an example.)

As you get used to reading these graphs, you'll come to recognise that Tendulkar's LCG shows a pretty constant level of achievement, without too much in the way of dramatic swings of form (that is to say, there's not a whole lot of black on his graph). Nevertheless, we can see relatively good and relatively bad streaks, perhaps most obviously over his last 50 or 60 knocks, with an apparent drop-off in form reaching a nadir at the turn of 2007, and then a distinct renaissance over the last two years (over his last 20 innings, he averages 78.22, with 7 hundreds, which isn't far behind his best-ever 20-knock streak of 81.17).

If you prefer a few more thrills on your rollercoaster ride, how about Mohammad Yousuf's test career, shown in Figure 2? There's a lot more shaded area on his LCG, indicating that his career has been subject to more dramatic ups and downs. Most conspicuous of all is the amazing peak he reached at the end of 2006. In the 20 innings from the tail-end of 2005 to that point, he scored 2011 runs at an average of 105.84, reaching three figures in precisely half of those 20 knocks. There are troughs to go with the peaks, though, including one at the present moment (he averages 31.80, without a single century, in his last 20 Test innings).

Fig 2 Longitudinal Career Graph showing Mohammad Yousuf's Test batting career (20-innings moving average) © Gabriel Rogers

So much for pretty pictures; what about some numbers? The question I address, here, is which cricketers' careers appear to have been more (or less) streaky. In order to quantify streakiness, I use a measure that is directly related to the area of black on each batsman's LCG – the greater the area, the streakier the player. [Technically, the measure is the root mean squared deviation of the moving average relative to the long-run career average, which is then scaled by the overall average, to provide CV(RMSD).] Table 1 gives a list of the most and least streaky batsmen in Test history, sorted according to this measure.

Streakiest of the lot is Mike Gatting. His career consisted of three clear phases: to start with, he looked like he was going to fail to live up to the reputation he had gained in county cricket, with a moving average between 20 and 30 for his first fifty or so Test innings; then, he found his feet at Test level and, for the next fifty knocks, his moving average was over 40 (and, at its peak, rose to 86.92); that level of achievement couldn't last, however, and he sank back to 20–30 when he was recalled in the 1990s. The upshot of all this is that Gatting's career average of 35 is a terrible estimator of how he performed at any one time – he was either much better than that or much worse, depending on which phase you caught him in.

Fig 3 Longitudinal Career Graph showing Mike Gatting's Test batting career (20-innings moving average) © Gabriel Rogers

The best-ever 20-innings streaks are Bradman's, naturally (in fact, there are only nine batsmen who have achieved over 20 innings what Bradman managed to sustain over a whole career four times that length). Behind the Don, we find Shivnarine Chanderpaul, who, from the second innings of the Old Trafford Test of 2007 until the first innings in Napier the following year, averaged 122.09. That streak produces a dramatic peak in his LCG (Figure 4), one that is exaggerated by the notable dips in performance that are also evident – indeed, no-one's best and worst streaks encompass such a broad range as his.

Fig 4 Longitudinal Career Graph showing Shivnarine Chanderpaul's Test batting career (20-innings moving average) © Gabriel Rogers

Another remarkable case is that of Aravinda de Silva. There is a massive gap in average between his worst 20-knock streak (18.20) and his best (103.40), but what makes this gulf doubly notable is that the two streaks were almost directly consecutive (there was just one innings between them).

At the other end of the scale, the least streaky batsman in Test history was one of Gatting's opponents on the most infamous day of his career (and a fella who happens to be on the radio as I draft this), Rameez Raja. His LCG shows that he had almost no form-related deviations in his career. He averaged 33.37 over his first 20 test innings, and scarcely deviated from that level at any stage in his career, ending with a long-run average of 31.83. In his best 20 innings, he averaged 38.95; in his worst 20, 26.37.

Fig 5 Longitudinal Career Graph showing Rameez Raja's Test batting career (20-innings moving average) © Gabriel Rogers

It's not a surprise that the ranks of the least streaky include several batsmen whom I previously identified as having consistent records on an innings-to-innings level. Mark Richardson is there, and it is further evidence of his consistency to see that his 20-innings moving average never dropped any lower than 35.40 (only 11 players have done better than that). Other players who feature in the most consistent 20 of both lists are Richardson's namesake, Peter, Alastair Cook (more about him in a minute), Ranatunga, Bravo, Rameez, Chauhan, Greig, and Stollmeyer. It stands to reason that the batsmen with least variability in their records would also be those whose average stayed pretty constant throughout.

The same isn't true at the other end of the list, however: the streakiest batters are not the same ones who appeared least consistent on an innings-to-innings level. To start with, this surprised me but, after a moment's thought, it makes perfect sense: if your performance in any given innings is unpredictable, then you're less likely to end up with extended phases of good and poor performance (and, if you were consistently poor, then you'd be dropped).

Unlike innings-to-innings consistency - which I showed to be weakly, but identifiably, correlated with both higher runscoring and likelihood of victory - there is absolutely no evidence of an association between streakiness (or the lack of it) and overall batting average or win-rate (r ²=0.001, p=0.507 and r ²<0.001, p=0.648, respectively). Some good players have up-and-down records; others are much more stable. There's no evidence of an overall advantage for either profile.

The analyses above are all well and good, but do they really help us to understand form? In order to answer that question, it is important to make a distinction between a run of good (or bad) form and a run of good (or bad) scores. Batsmen themselves sometimes make a very similar point, especially when it comes to streaks of low scores (how often did Michael Vaughan tell us he was in great nick; he just kept getting out?) It is central to this argument – and central to the science of statistics – that we should attempt to distinguish any real trend from the influence of chance. If you roll a pair of dice many times, you're bound to observe runs of high scores and runs of low ones, even though the probability of getting any particular result is the same every time you roll the dice and, in the long run, the overall average will be 7.

The way in which we tend to think of form in cricket is not like this at all, though: it is much more like imagining that there are series of rolls when the dice are weighted to make a high score more likely, and series of rolls when low ones are most probable. So how do we distinguish between the two models? The key to the answer is that, if you had a pair of non-constantly weighted dice, you would observe greater variation in your overall series of rolls than you would if there was nothing but plain old luck at play.

To apply this principle to cricket data, I used a statistical technique called bootstrapping. I took each batsman's career and put the innings in a random order, to create a new virtual career, but one in which the sequence of knocks is based purely on chance, with no fundamental underlying trends (i.e. no form). For each batsman, I generated 10,000 form-free careers of this type. Then I compared the amount of variability in the random careers with what we see in the batsman's real record. In particular, I worked out the proportion of simulations showing at least as much streakiness – i.e. at least as high a RMSD based on the 20-innings moving average – as the batsman's actual career. This gives us an estimate of the probability that a career as streaky as (or more streaky than) the batsman's real one would have arisen even if there was no underlying variation in form. A statistician would call this estimate an empirical one-tailed p-value.

The p-value for each player is given in Table 1. It will be clear from the explanation above that small p-values (indicating a low likelihood that the player's career would have turned out at least as streaky as it did through chance variation alone) increase our confidence that there probably is evidence of form-related fluctuations in a player's career.

To give one obvious example: it seems extremely unlikely (p=0.007) that a career with the profile of Mike Hussey's would have developed unless there was some kind of variation in his underlying run-scoring capacity (i.e. form). His LCG (Figure 6) gives a fairly dramatic depiction of the deterioration (and subsequent slight resurgence) in his scoring.

Fig 6 Longitudinal Career Graph showing Michael Hussey's Test batting career (20-innings moving average) © Gabriel Rogers

A few other players have careers that show the opposite profile; for instance, chance seems like an unlikely explanation of the clear upward trend to Daniel Vettori's Test batting career (p=0.018). Others have careers that are too up-and-down (Yousuf, Chanderpaul, de Silva), or too dominated by one atypical peak (Gatting, Vengsarkar) to be likely to have occurred without some underlying variability in form.

However, it turns out that cases like these are the exception rather than the rule. In a substantial majority of cases, the careers batsmen end up with are perfectly consistent with the hypothesis that an individual's long-run average provides a reasonable estimator of his run-scoring ability throughout his time in the game. This suggests pretty strongly that a lot of what we think of as form is really just random variation – the streakiness of the evenly weighted dice. Cricket fans are not alone in this: it is very well established that human beings – and perhaps especially sports fans – have a pretty poor appreciation of the play of chance (a phenomenon known as the clustering illusion).

A case in point is Alastair Cook. A couple of weeks ago, gallons of newsprint were spilled describing his supposed slump in form. However, it turns out that his is one of the least form-inflected careers of all, as his LCG (Figure 7) shows. Even before his recent Oval revival, he had averaged 39.16 in his last 20 Test innings – hardly setting the world on fire, but hardly the record of a lost cause, either. In fact, his best-ever 20-innings run in Test cricket is 53.24, and his worst is 32.00 and, in the grand scheme of things, this is not very much variation at all. This much can be inferred from the fact that the streaks overlap: there are 11 innings that appear in both!

Fig 7 Longitudinal Career Graph showing Alastair Cook's Test batting career (20-innings moving average) © Gabriel Rogers

When I took Cook's innings and put them in a random order 10,000 times, a huge majority – 9,925 – of those virtual careers showed greater streakiness than we see in his actual career. If you could see the LCGs of the form-free careers, they would almost all have conspicuously more black on them than we see on Cook's real-world graph (in the most extreme, "Cook" averaged 20.55 in one 20-innings streak and 91.19 in another). And just about all of them contained at least one cold streak that looks much worse than his recent slump.

In fact, Cook is just an extreme example of a phenomenon that is very widely observed in this dataset. Brian Lara was in an extraordinary run of good form when he averaged 83.89 in 20 consecutive innings in 2004–05, right? But shuffle his scores around at random and just over three quarters of the careers you produce will contain a streak just as hot. There's a greater weight of evidence to mark out Rahul Dravid's slump of a couple of years ago as "real" but, still, put his innings in any old order and, about 15% of the time, you'll end up with a trough at least as deep. That's a degree of uncertainty that would be very unlikely to convince statisticians in any other field that we were looking at anything other than a blip.

In this respect, I hope that, as the pressure mounted on Cook, he adopted an attitude similar to that advised by Greg Chappell (as quoted by Aakash Chopra in this column): "When not in form you should look back at your career stats. More often than not you'd find that you scored runs in every fourth or fifth innings, and hence every innings of low score is actually taking you closer to the innings in which you'd score runs." This is, doubtless, excellent advice from a psychological perspective and it's almost excellent advice from a statistical perspective, too (although we should be careful of the gambler's fallacy – that is, assuming that streaks are liable to correct themselves by some sort of "law of averages"). What we can say is that many apparent slumps like Cook's recent one are, mathematically speaking, entirely consistent with simple random variation around a constant mean that is well estimated by the batsman's career average. Or, in other words, form is temporary, but class... well, even if it isn't permanent, it seldom fluctuates much.

Technical appendix

1. To start with, an acknowledgement. The approach set out in this blog is heavily influenced by (and, in some places, directly pinched from) Curve Ball, an excellent book on baseball stats by two academic statisticians. (It's aimed at people who are fascinated by baseball and mildly interested in numbers, but I've found it works just as well for those of us who'd put that the other way around.)

2. It may be noted that, although I've presented some p-values, I haven't, at any stage, used the dread words statistically significant. Conventionally, we talk about a finding being significant if its p-value is lower than some threshold. That threshold is very often 0.05 – equivalent to saying we'll accept a 1-in-20 chance of considering our finding significant when, in fact, it's just a fluke. I'm wary of this approach, for a couple of reasons: firstly, the threshold is always arbitrary, and always involves a trade-off between type I and type II errors (in other words, the more cautious you are about interpreting something as significant, the greater the chance that you'll falsely classify something as non-significant). Secondly, there's a problem, here, with multiple testing. There are 255 batsmen in the dataset, so we'd expect to end up with 12 or 13 with p-values less than 0.05 just by chance. You could correct for this, using Bonferroni methods or similar, but I took the view that that would be complicated to explain, probably unnecessarily conservative, and would put too much stress on my approximated p-values (it would require p to be accurate to five or six decimal places, and you'd need a lot more than 10,000 samples to establish that). For these reasons, I present my p-values without correction and without (much) comment.

3. Whenever an analysis is dependent on a statistician's arbitrary choices, it is crucial to examine how much of an influence these decisions had on the results of the analysis. This is a process known as sensitivity analysis, because it analyses the extent to which the outputs of the process are sensitive to its underlying assumptions.

I did loads of these analyses. The most obvious place to start is with the size of the window over which the moving average was calculated. I looked at longer and shorter windows; here are the results for 10 innings and 30 innings. You'll see that neither list is terrifically different from the 20-innings analysis. It's interesting to see that there have been a few players who've managed 10-innings streaks with higher averages than Bradman's best; highest of all is Kumar Sangakkara's 2006–07 effort of 1,185 runs with 6 hundreds (5 of them 150+) at 197.50. No one other than Bradman has ever sustained an average of 100-plus for 30 innings, though.

Another obvious sensitivity analysis is to question the use of the simple moving average at all. The measure has some disadvantages, the most notable amongst which is that it can appear to be driven not by what's happening at a particular moment in time, but by what happened 20 innings before (take another look at Tendulkar's LCG: that sudden drop-off towards halfway through 2005 comes about because it's the point at which his 241* at the SCG in 2004 is more than 20 innings ago and, thus, falls out of the calculated moving average). An alternative approach that minimises this problem is the exponentially weighted moving average, in which innings are never completely discarded; they just receive ever-decreasing weight as they recede into the past. I chose not to use this method, in my base case, because it answers a slightly different question – something like: taking into account everything we know about a player's career to date, and placing more importance on his most recent outings, what kind of form was he in at any given instant? This is a valid question that might have its uses (perhaps if you were trying to predict how well you expect the player to do in his next innings – although it doesn't answer that question very well). However, it's not quite what I'm interested in, here, which is capturing how well a batsman did over a given phase (and, in that context, I think it's entirely appropriate that the measure should be influenced by notable scores falling out of the window of interest).

Nevertheless, to investigate how much difference the alternative approach makes, I redid all the analyses detailed above using EWMAs instead of the simple moving average. The weighting coefficient I used was 0.066967, which may sound like a weird number, but it's the one that dictates that the weight applied halves every ten innings (so ten innings ago is worth 50% as much, 20 innings ago 25%, and so on). The results table is here. By and large, there is very little difference between these results and those calculated according to the simple moving average. Maybe this mode of analysis gives very slightly more prominence to players who have a distinct trend to their careers (either worsening – a la Adams and Hussey – or improving – like Vettori and Imran). On the whole, though, I can't tell much difference between them.

4. If any statsheads read my methods and inferred (correctly) that I used bootstrap sampling without replacement, and thought that I really should have used a with-replacement approach, it's a fair cop. I just thought it'd be much easier to explain the process as shuffling the deck rather than sampling from a theoretical distribution approximated by the empirical dataset. I did some sensitivity to show that it doesn't make a huge amount of difference, in this case, but I accept that with-replacement is theoretically the better approach (plus, of course, it allows you to do amusing things like estimate confidence intervals for the batting average) (another time).

Brian Lara: arguably played the greatest fourth innings knock © Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bradman's 270 was rated the best Test innings by Wisden © Getty Images

It is the responsibility of the first 6 batsmen in a Test innings to score the required runs and the low order batsmen, normally the bowlers, to provide support. There are times when it happens the other way around. The low order batsmen score more runs than the top order. There is an inherent charm and excitement in these innings. Often these also turn out to be match-winning innings. More often than not one of the top order batsman stays on to shepherd the late order. It could also be that these are true cases of innings revival controlled by genuine late order batsmen. In this article I have taken a comprehensive look at such innings.

I may be wrong. However there is only one innings in test cricket in which, for strategic reasons, a captain sent his entire low order first on an a "gluepot" of a wicket, and then he himself came on to play one of the greatest Test innings ever. This match is discussed later. So this is the only innings in which the late order was expected to outscore the top order.

First some summary facts. These are current up to match no 1965, the second Pakistan-Australia match.

Number of innings played: 6187 (Maximum-7860)

Number of innings played in which the late order (wkts 6-10) has out-performed the top order (wkts 1-5).

All tests:  1431 (in 6187 innings - 0.23 times per innings).

Pre-WW2:     206 (in  883 innings - 0.23 times per innings).
  Pre-WW1:     120 (in  454 innings - 0.26 times per innings).
  WW1-WW2:      86 (in  429 innings - 0.20 times per innings).
1948-1969:   251 (in 1242 innings - 0.20 times per innings).
1970-1989:   340 (in 1426 innings - 0.24 times per innings).
1990-2010:   634 (in 2636 innings - 0.24 times per innings).
  1990-1999:   264 (in 1087 innings - 0.24 times per innings).
  2000-2010:   370 (in 1549 innings - 0.24 times per innings).

The complete table of 1431 innings is available for view, import and analysis for users. The table is in reverse chronological order. To view/down-load the complete table, please click/right-click here.

How do we view the information in a summary form in this analysis. I have created three summary tables for viewing. In all tables I have also shown the highest scorer and the batting position he batted in to give an idea of who coordinated the revival.

The first is a table ordered on the ratio between the second half runs and first half runs. For the selected innings this value is 1.00 or more. In this table I have selected only innings in which this ratio is 4.00 or more. There is no rocket science in this number. It is a high enough number to limit the number of table entries to a reasonable number. Also we are pushing up the bar. Anyhow this is only a cut-off for display. By definition these will be innings such as 25 for 5 recovering to 200 all out or 100 for 5 recovering to 400+ for 8 and so on. It is more likely we have low scoring innings in this table. Let us look at the table.

   Year MtId Bow Bat R 5Wkts Final <2nd Half> Highest Score
                     e Score Score Runs To1Hf Runs(BP) Batsman
                     s

 1.1952 0354 Eng Ind     6/5  98 ao  92 15.33  38 ( 4) Hazare V.S
 2.1995 1306 Slk Pak    15/5 212 ao 197 13.13 117 ( 7) Moin Khan
 3.2004 1683 Zim Bng    14/5 169 ao 155 11.07  61 ( 8) Khaled Mashud
 4.1935 0239 Win Eng    23/5 258 ao 235 10.22  85 ( 8) Holmes E.R.T
 5.2005 1765 Ind Zim    18/5 185 ao 167  9.28  52 ( 5) Taibu T
 6.1898 0056 Eng Aus W  32/5 323 ao 291  9.09 188 ( 3) Hill C
 7.1888 0030 Eng Aus     7/5  70 ao  63  9.00  32 ( 6) Lyons J.J
 8.1967 0623 Eng Pak    26/5 255 ao 229  8.81 146 ( 9) Asif Iqbal
 9.2008 1875 Win Aus W  18/5 167 ao 149  8.28  79 ( 7) Symonds A
10.2000 1520 Aus Win    22/5 196 ao 174  7.91  96 ( 7) Jacobs R.D

The highest ratio reached is 15.33 when India recovered from 6 for 5 to 98 all out, assisted by Hazare. Readers should remember that if the sixth wicket had fallen soon after, India might not have reached 26, the record low total of New Zealand. The bowling attack was a fearsome one, viz., Trueman, Bedser, Laker and Lock. Pakistan's recovery, controlled by Moin Khan, is lot more substantial, with a ratio of 13.13. However the innings which catches one's eye is the Australian recovery from 32 for 5 to 323 all out, orchestrated by Clem Hill's 188, which is in the top-10 of the Wisden-100 innings table. Recent recoveries have been led by the two keepers, Khaled Mashud and Taibu.

It can also be seen that very few of these tests are likely to be won, considering the low-score nature of recovery. Hill's innings was one of the successful ones and Symonds, which was in the second innings. 18 out of 76 have resulted in wins.

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

The second is a table ordered on the number of runs added by the last 5 wickets during the selected innings. In this table I have selected only innings in which the runs added are 300 or more. By definition these will be innings such as 150 for 5 recovering to 475 all out or 300 for 5 moving on to 700+ for 8 and so on. It is more likely we have high scoring innings in this table. Let us look at the table.

   Year MtId Bow Bat R 5Wkts Final <2nd Half> Highest Score
                     e Score Score Runs To1Hf Runs(BP) Batsman
                     s

 1.1955 0414 Nzl Pak W  87/5 561 ao 474  5.45 209 ( 8) Imtiaz Ahmed
 2.1937 0257 Eng Aus W  97/5 564 ao 467  4.81 270 ( 7) Bradman D.G
 3.1955 0406 Win Aus   233/5 668 ao 435  1.87 137 ( 5) Miller K.R
 4.2009 1911 Eng Win   334/5 749/9  415  1.24 291 ( 3) Sarwan R.R
 5.1966 0609 Win Eng W 130/5 527 ao 397  3.05 165 ( 4) Graveney T.W
 6.2010 1953 Bng Nzl W 158/5 553/7  395  2.50 189 ( 5) Guptill M.J
 7.1972 0695 Nzl Win   171/5 564/8  393  2.30 183 ( 5) Davis C.A
 8.2005 1774 Eng Pak W 247/5 636/8  389  1.57 223 ( 4) Mohammad Yousuf
 9.2009 1933 Ind Slk   375/5 760/7  385  1.03 275 ( 4) Jayawardene D.P.M.D
10.1996 1336 Zim Pak   176/5 553 ao 377  2.14 257 ( 8) Wasim Akram

At the top of the table, Imtiaz Ahmad, batting at no.8, scored 205 and helped Pakistan recover from 87 for 5 to 561 all out.

The next match is an all-time classic. The innings by Bradman was determined to be the best ever Test innings in the Wisden-100 exercise. Australia's 200 for 9 was countered by England with 76 for 9, on a diabolical pitch. Then Bradman countered by sending his low order batsman, to let the pitch dry out. These batsmen promptly lost their wickets, but consumed valuable time. Bradman walked in and scored 270 to take Australia to 564 and a comfortable win. It was a tribute to Bradman the tactician as much as Bradman the batsman.

The most intriguing innings is by Wasim Akram who scored 257 at no.8 and took Pakistan from 176 for 5 to 553 all out in the company of Saqlain Mushtaq.

More tests in this table are won since the recovered innings score is almost always in excess of 400. 28 out of 59 have resulted in wins.

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

The third is a table ordered by the final score reached, but with a different criteria for selection. I have selected only innings in which the ratio is 2.50 or more and 200 or more runs are added by the last 5 wickets. This is done to ensure that we get a representative population of truly great late order batting performances. By definition these will be innings such as 150 for 5 recovering to 450 all out but not 7 for 5 to 70 all out nor 375 for 5 to 760 for 7. This table is likely to contain the really relevant innings. Let us look at the table.

   Year MtId Bow Bat R 5Wkts Final <2nd Half> Highest Score
                     e Score Score Runs To1Hf Runs(BP) Batsman
                     s

 1.1937 0257 Eng Aus W  97/5 564 ao 467  4.81 270 ( 7) Bradman D.G
 2.1955 0414 Nzl Pak W  87/5 561 ao 474  5.45 209 ( 8) Imtiaz Ahmed
 3.2010 1953 Bng Nzl W 158/5 553/7  395  2.50 189 ( 5) Guptill M.J
 4.1966 0609 Win Eng W 130/5 527 ao 397  3.05 165 ( 4) Graveney T.W
 5.1955 0406 Aus Win   143/5 510 ao 367  2.57 219 ( 7) Atkinson D.S.t.E
 6.1908 0098 Eng Aus W 135/5 506 ao 371  2.75 160*( 9) Hill C
 7.1925 0160 Eng Aus W 118/5 489 ao 371  3.14 201 ( 7) Ryder J
 8.2002 1594 Nzl Eng W 106/5 468/6  362  3.42 200 ( 5) Thorpe G.P
 9.1976 0784 Pak Nzl   104/5 468 ao 364  3.50 152 ( 7) Lees W.K
10.1984 0975 Nzl Eng   115/5 463 ao 348  3.03 164 ( 7) Randall D.W
11.2008 1857 Ind Aus W 121/5 463 ao 342  2.83 162 ( 6) Symonds A
12.1931 0209 Nzl Eng   129/5 454 ao 325  2.52 137 ( 7) Ames L.E.G
13.2005 1759 Zim Nzl W 113/5 452/9  339  3.00 127 ( 8) Vettori D.L
14.1983 0972 Win Ind    92/5 451/8  359  3.90 236*( 4) Gavaskar S.M
15.1994 1264 Eng Saf   105/5 447 ao 342  3.26 104 ( 6) Kirsten P.N
16.1970 0675 Eng Aus   107/5 440 ao 333  3.11 171 ( 5) Redpath I.R
17.2001 1566 Bng Zim    89/5 431 ao 342  3.84  94 ( 6) Wishart C.B
18.2006 1824 Eng Aus W  84/5 419 ao 335  3.99 156 ( 7) Symonds A
19.1984 0997 Aus Win W 104/5 416 ao 312  3.00 139 ( 7) Dujon P.J.L
20.1981 0907 Aus Eng W 104/5 404 ao 300  2.88 118 ( 7) Botham I.T

Since this test balances the ratio and runs added measures, the number of tests won in these matches is also likely to be on the higher side. 34 teams have won out of 87.

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

I would appreciate if readers download the master table, import into an Excel sheet and come out with nice nuggets of information including country-wise numbers. These would be published with due acknowledgement.

The one thing that strikes me at the outset is that there are very few such recoveries by India, barring the one led by Gavaskar. I am not sure whether this indicates a lack of quality of the Indian late order batsmen or the strength of top order batting or a combination of both. Surprisingly, West Indies and Pakistan have many such recoveries.

Brian Lara has a high Significant Innings percentage of 45.69 © AFP

I will summarise the changes below.

1. As many readers have suggested, I have used the innings as the basis for determining the significant innings rather than the two team innings together. This takes care of the many Tests where the two innings by a team are as different as chalk and cheese. If we take the famous Calcutta Test of 2001, the two Indian innings were 171 and 657. The 59 in the first innings was an outstanding innings considering the 171 for 10 as the basis, probably not if we take 728 for 17 as the basis.

2. This is one lapse which was missed by all the readers. And for that matter myself. In the base analysis, I had taken the wickets as the base for determining the runs and balls cut-off. This is quite wrong. I should have taken the number of batsman who batted as the basis. Take the West Indian innings of 790 for 3. The base should be 5 (which includes Sobers) and not 3 (the number of wickets). If a team is all out, the base will be 11. Of course batsmen who did not bat will be excluded, but batsman who retired hurt will be included. This is absolutely the correct method.

3. Raise the multiplier values for two reasons. One is the consideration of innings as the base and the other is the taking of batsmen as base rather than wickets. I have also introduced a graded multiplier. The multiplier is highest at 2.00 for low rpb/bpb (runs per batsman and balls per batsman) values for 1-7 batsmen and stays at 1.00 for high rpb/bpb values ford 8-11 batsmen. The capping of run-cutoff at 100 and balls-cutoff at 200 is also retained.

4. I will ignore all not out innings below 10, if they have already not become SI, from the total innings. This is a very relevant suggestion. This is necessary since quite a few batsmen, especially in the late order and in later innings remain unbeaten on low scores. Since they have not been given the opportunities to further their innings, these innings are excluded from the total.

5. Now that we have the single innings as the base and have raised the cut-off values, there is no need to have the one-third criteria. Even in the 26 by New Zealand, the 11 by Sutcliffe does not really warrant being considered as a SI. On the other hand, Hutton's 30 out of 52, Tancred's 26 out of 47 and Flintoff's 24 out of 51 must be included. This is done by keeping the lower limit for runs cut-off as 20.

6. Finally one very important addition. I have done a weighting of the innings by determining a Situation innings index value. A 100 out of 200 and a 100 out of 500 are both significant innings. However the first innings is far more significant than the later. This measure indicates the extent of significance. It is possible that this factor can very well be used to determine the influence of batsmen. So there is an additional table based on the average SI Index value. The SI Index value is a simple calculation. The innings measure, runs or balls, is divided by the runs cut-off or balls cut-off, as required. Thus the minimum value for this is 1. Where a player has crossed both cut-offs, the higher index value is taken.

Let me conclude this section by saying that the user responses have been outstanding revealing a very incisive way of thinking. Let us now look at the tables now.

First the table of players, ordered by the % of SIs played. This is a reflection of the consistency of the players. Players such as Dravid, Border et al are likely to be at the top. They are likely to score two 75s in successive innings.

List of players, ordered by the % of SIs achieved

SNo Batsman              Cty Mats  Runs Inns  SIs % of SI

  1.Bradman D.G          Aus   52  6996   80   40  50.00
  2.EdeC Weekes          Win   48  4455   81   38  46.91
  3.Hobbs J.B            Eng   61  5410  101   47  46.53
  4.Barrington K.F       Eng   82  6806  129   59  45.74
  5.Lara B.C             Win  131 11953  232  106  45.69
  6.Dravid R             Ind  139 11395  236  106  44.92
  7.May P.B.H            Eng   66  4537  105   47  44.76
  8.Sutcliffe H          Eng   54  4555   83   37  44.58
  9.Hutton L             Eng   79  6971  137   61  44.53
 10.Chanderpaul S        Win  124  8710  210   93  44.29
 11.Hammond W.R          Eng   85  7249  137   60  43.80
 12.Younis Khan          Pak   63  5260  111   48  43.24
 13.Gavaskar S.M         Ind  125 10122  211   91  43.13
 14.Umrigar P.R          Ind   59  3631   93   39  41.94
 15.Flower A             Zim   63  4794  110   46  41.82
 16.Compton D.C.S        Eng   78  5807  129   53  41.09
 17.Kallis J.H           Saf  138 10911  232   95  40.95
 18.Javed Miandad        Pak  124  8832  187   76  40.64
 19.Richards I.V.A       Win  121  8540  180   73  40.56
 20.Tendulkar S.R        Ind  166 13447  269  107  39.78

The top three remain the same. A few minor changes down the table. Chanderpaul moves down a few places. Sutcliffe also moves down. Lara, Dravid and May move up. Andy Flower moves down a few places.

The most significant change is that of Tendulkar who moves up quite a few places into the top-20 table.

Now the table of players, ordered by the % of SIs played. This is a reflection of the extent of significance once the cut-off is reached. This is likely to have players like Sehwag, Lara et al at the top. They are likely to score a 150 and 0 in two successive innings.

List of players, ordered by the average SI index value

SNo Batsman              Cty Mats  Runs Inns  SIs SII   Avge
                                                  Pts   SII

  1.Bradman D.G          Aus   52  6996   80   40  92  2.320
  2.Sehwag V             Ind   76  6691  129   40  80  2.009
  3.Hanif Mohammad       Pak   55  3915   95   33  65  1.995
  4.Sangakkara K.C       Slk   88  7549  146   52 102  1.965
  5.Lara B.C             Win  131 11953  232  106 207  1.959
  6.Pietersen K.P        Eng   62  5166  111   35  66  1.914
  7.Amiss D.L            Eng   50  3612   86   27  51  1.897
  8.Flower A             Zim   63  4794  110   46  87  1.892
  9.Cullinan D.J         Saf   70  4554  111   33  61  1.877
 10.Crowe M.D            Nzl   77  5444  129   42  78  1.865
 11.Walcott C.L          Win   44  3798   73   29  54  1.863
 12.Atapattu M.S         Slk   90  5502  149   40  74  1.853
 13.Mitchell B           Saf   42  3471   79   30  55  1.844
 14.Ijaz Ahmed           Pak   60  3315   92   25  45  1.836
 15.Hill C               Aus   49  3412   89   30  54  1.833
 16.Saeed Anwar          Pak   55  4052   91   35  64  1.832
 17.Asif Iqbal           Pak   58  3575   97   28  51  1.832
 18.Gomes H.A            Win   60  3171   87   21  38  1.830
 19.Harvey R.N           Aus   79  6149  134   48  87  1.821
 20.Gooch G.A            Eng  118  8900  215   75 136  1.820

The batsman non pareil, Bradman has an average SI Index value of 2.27. Then comes Sehwag, as expected. His string of high scores have propelled him to this second position. Now there is a surprise. Hanif Mohammad, the chalk to cheese (or vice versa) of Sehwag, closely follows Sehwag. His third position indicates how under-rated the great little master was. What he did for Pakistan cricket is unbelievable. That too on difficult pitches and often away. Now come two modern greats, Lara and Sangakkara. This confirms their penchant for out-performing often.

I have given below the best three innings as far as the SI Index is concerned. The first one is the Asif Iqbal classic. During 1967, Pakistan scored 216 in the first innings. England replied with 440. Then Pakistan slumped to 65 for 8. Asif Iqbal then played the greatest of all late order innings and one of the best ever. He added 190 with Intikhab Alam and took the total to 255. England won comfortably. Asif Iqbal’s innings has the highest SI index value ever of 5.41, based on a runs-cutoff value of 27.7 (255/11, multiplied by a factor of 1.333 (no 8-11) and adjusted downwards by 10% for being the second innings).

Pakistan 2nd innings
+Wasim Bari                              b Titmus              12
Mohammad Ilyas        c Cowdrey          b Higgs                1
Saeed Ahmed           c Knott            b Higgs                0
Majid Khan                               b Higgs                0
*Hanif Mohammad       c Knott            b Higgs               18
Ghulam Abbas          c Knott            b Higgs                0
Mushtaq Mohammad      c D'Oliveira       b Underwood           17
Javed Burki                              b Underwood            7
Asif Iqbal            st Knott           b Close              146
Intikhab Alam                            b Titmus              51
Saleem Altaf          not out                                   0
Extras                (b 1, lb 1, nb 1)                         3
Total                 (all out, 101.1 overs)                  255
FoW: 1-1, 2-5, 3-5, 4-26, 5-26, 6-41, 7-53, 8-65, 9-255, 10-255.

England 2nd innings
G Boycott             c Murray           b Boyce                5
DL Amiss              not out                                 262
JA Jameson            c Rowe             b Barrett             38
FC Hayes              run out                                   0
*MH Denness           c Rowe             b Barrett             28
AW Greig                                 b Gibbs               14
DL Underwood          c Murray           b Sobers              12
+APE Knott            run out                                   6
CM Old                                   b Barrett             19
PI Pocock             c sub              b Boyce                4
RGD Willis            not out                                   3
Extras                (b 10, lb 11, w 1, nb 19)                41
Total                 (9 wickets, 183 overs)                  432
FoW: 1-32, 2-102, 3-107, 4-176, 5-217, 6-258, 7-271, 8-343, 9-392.

Pakistan 2nd innings                                            R   M   B  4 6
Saeed Anwar           not out                                 188 452 259 23 1 4
Wajahatullah Wasti    c Mongia           b Srinath              9  54  33  2 0
Saqlain Mushtaq       c Mongia           b Harbhajan Singh     21 108  86  1 0
Ijaz Ahmed            c Mongia           b Srinath             11  55  47  1 0
Yousuf Youhana        c Dravid           b Srinath             56 139 123  7 1 2
Shahid Afridi         c Laxman           b Srinath              0   1   1  0 0
Saleem Malik          lbw                b Srinath              9  34  16  1 0
+Moin Khan            c Mongia           b Prasad               8  22  13  1 0
Azhar Mahmood         lbw                b Srinath              0   9   9  0 0
*Wasim Akram          c Mongia           b Srinath              1   7   3  0 0
Shoaib Akhtar                            b Srinath              1  14   8  0 0
Extras                (lb 3, w 5, nb 4)                        12
Total                 (all out, 99 overs)                     316
FoW: 1-26 (Wajahatullah Wasti, 10.5 ov), 2-94 (Saqlain Mushtaq, 35.3 ov), 3-147 
(Ijaz Ahmed, 49.1 ov), 4-262 (Yousuf Youhana, 82.3 ov), 5-262 (Shahid Afridi, 82.4 ov), 
6-284 (Saleem Malik, 88.4 ov), 7-301 (Moin Khan, 93.1 ov), 8-302 (Azhar Mahmood, 94.6 ov), 
9-304 (Wasim Akram, 96.2 ov), 10-316 (Shoaib Akhtar, 98.6 ov).

To view/down-load the complete player table, ordered by the average values of SI Index, please click/right-click here.

I have also made available the complete list of significant performances for all the 159 qualifying batsmen.

To view/down-load the table for all the first 1960 tests, please click/right-click here.

Finally the grand-daddy of all tables. Let me warn you these tables are huge, 500kb each. These are the lists of all significant innings, all 14782 of them, covering all 1960 tests played.

To view/down-load the complete table for tests 1-999, please click/right-click here.

To view/down-load the complete table for tests 1000-1960, please click/right-click here.

A few readers have asked for some summarized figures based on criteria. I have given these, and more below. I have not done the %. I leave it for the readers.

Summary information
===================

TotInns:68988    TotInnsSel: 64964
Perfs: 14782
100+runs: 3374   50+runs: 6581     <50runs:4827
200+balls: 1233  100+balls: 2545   <100balls: 2062
BPos 1-7: 12835  BPos 8-11: 1947
Both: 3053       Rpw: 11141        Bpw: 588
1Inns: 8678      2Inns: 6104
Wins: 4433       Losses: 5678      Draws: 4671
SI1: 5.41        SI2: 4.52         SI3:4.48

List of selected players ordered by the average SI index value

Batsman          Cty Mats  Runs Inns  SIs  SII    Avge
                                           Pts    SII


Headley G.A      Win   22  2190   39  18  46.15  2.214
Pollock R.G      Saf   23  2256   41  15  36.59  2.033
Nurse S.M        Win   29  2523   54  16  29.63  2.026
Turner G.M       Nzl   41  2991   72  27  37.50  1.936
Hazare V.S       Ind   30  2192   52  18  34.62  1.912
Ponsford W.H     Aus   29  2122   47  11  23.40  1.896
Nourse A.D       Saf   34  2960   62  29  46.77  1.842
Gambhir G        Ind   31  2798   53  18  33.96  1.812
Mankad M.H       Ind   44  2109   70  16  22.86  1.812
Macartney C.G    Aus   35  2131   53  16  30.19  1.781
Taylor H.W       Saf   42  2936   76  34  44.74  1.774
McCabe S.J       Aus   39  2748   61  20  32.79  1.760
Rowe L.G         Win   30  2047   48  11  22.92  1.747
Richardson M.H   Nzl   38  2776   64  31  48.44  1.672
Rowan E.A.B      Saf   26  1965   49  21  42.86  1.665
O'Neill N.C      Aus   42  2779   67  23  34.33  1.565
Dhoni M.S        Ind   43  2428   66  18  27.27  1.415

Headley almost touches Bradman. The other great, Greame Pollock, also crosses 2.00.

On 29 June 2010

As requested by Abhi and Alex I have expanded the Player tables with the following information.

1. Add number of fifties and % of selected inns to enable comparison with SI %.
2. Runs per innings for significant innings.
3. Total of SI Runs and % of total career runs.

I have also corrected the format of the Selected players Si report to enable proper downloading into XL files.

To view/down-load the complete revised player table, ordered by the % of SIs played, please click/right-click here.

To view/down-load the complete revised player table, ordered by the average values of SI Index, please click/right-click here.

Don Bradman has the fastest scoring rate among batsmen who have faced more than 100 balls per innings © Getty Images

Three things stand out for me. The first is the over-representation of players from days gone by. One has to go to 14th place to find someone (Mark Richardson) who played this century, and in this list of 30, there are only two other, Dravid and Kallis. Test cricket was clearly more a battle of attrition in the past than it is now. But also, there were simply more balls available to be defended in those times than there are now.

Secondly, the obduracy of Herbert Sutcliffe is perhaps understated. His figure of nearly 164 balls per innings is more than 15% higher than the next most obdurate, Bradman. And at a run every 2.89 balls, he was hardly fluent, either. Another player whose high position deserves recognition is New Zealand’s Glenn Turner, a very major player in a struggling team

Thirdly, the absence of any West Indians in this list confirms the impression of a carefree approach to batting. The preponderance of Australian and English batsmen is not significant. Many of the Test scorecards involving other countries simply don’t have the “balls faced” data available. The highest placed West Indians are Sobers and Chanderpaul, both just over 96 balls per innings. But in the three innings for which we have “balls faced” data, George Headley averaged 139 balls per innings.

Rearranging the table in order of scoring fluency, we have:

In this respect, Bradman (over 20% more fluent than anyone else) and Hobbs show their class, while who would have thought that Ponsford would have rated so highly here? Perhaps we need to re-assess some of these players! Barrington beats Border. Lawry beats Redpath. But Tavare and Bailey are where we expect!

The last table gives the same data for top three most obdurate players at each position in the batting order. The qualification has been reduced to at least ten innings where “balls faced” data is known.

Occupancy of the crease clearly declines as one descends through the batting order, although the figures at number 6 are interesting. It is not only the special character of Trevor Bailey causing this, because Sobers and Chanderpaul also are higher than many players above them in the batting order. I suspect it is a realisation by a number 6 that he is the last specialist batsman, and he sets himself to bat through the innings with the tail.

A study of players at the other end of the scale, those who survive least, is also interesting, but that can wait for another time.

Mark Richardson wasn't the most attractive batsman, but with him you knew, more than with any other player, what you were going to get © Getty Images

My first few analyses for It Figures are all going to be broadly about the same thing, and that thing could broadly be called consistency. I’ll bet that, at some time or other, everyone reading this post has criticised a cricketer for being inconsistent. I’ve done it myself but, whenever I have, I’ve had a nagging doubt: is performing brilliantly in one match and terribly in the next really any worse (or better) than being moderately good in two games on the trot? Maybe some stats can help us to unpick this issue.

I’m going to start by looking at batsmen. More specifically, my focus, in this first post, is batsmen’s innings-to-innings consistency. If Batsman A has scores of 0, 138, 11, 0, & 101, and Batsman B has scores of 52, 50, 45, 48, & 55, then they both have the same average (50.00). However, there’s a very obvious difference between the ways in which they’ve achieved the mark that we won’t appreciate, if we concentrate on the average alone.

There are two big questions here, for me: (i) is it possible and instructive to identify batsmen with more or less consistent careers, and to quantify how much variability their records show? and (ii) does it matter? Is there any way in which a run of scores like Batsman A’s is demonstrably better or worse – for himself and/or his team – than that of Batsman B?

Mister Hugely Reliable

S Rajesh comes close to answering the first of my questions in this It Figures avant la lettre column from 2006. He proposed a consistency index that is derived by dividing a batsman’s average by the standard deviation (SD) of runs scored in each of his innings. I think he’s on exactly the right lines, here, but I think the index can be improved in two ways. Firstly, I’m twitchy about combining one measure – the batting average – that makes an adjustment for not-out innings with another – the SD of the same dataset – that does not. For this reason, I’d rather rely on simple runs-per-innings (RPI), in this context. This way, both halves of the sum are quantifying the same thing and, although both may be affected by not-out innings, they are both affected equally. The second modification I have made is to turn the sum upside-down, so we have SD divided by RPI. Mathematically, this makes no difference to the ranking of results (although it means that low numbers, rather than high ones, indicate greater consistency).

The advantage of doing these two things is that the number you end up with has a solid interpretation: it is the percentage of deviation around the mean that is observed, on average, throughout the dataset. Dividing the SD by the mean is a trick statisticians use quite often; they call the result the coefficient of variation (CoV). As Rajesh pointed out, it’s important to perform this scaling, rather than concentrating on SDs on their own, otherwise the batsmen who score most runs will always appear to have more variability in their records. A batsman with scores of 5, 30, and 100 has the same CoV as one with scores of 10, 60, and 200, though they have very different SDs.

So much for the theory; what about the results? Table 1 shows the batsmen who have been most and least consistent on an innings-to-innings basis throughout Test history, with a few notable figures picked out from the middle of the table.

Top of the lot is Kiwi opener Mark Richardson. He may not have set the world alight compared to some of his dashing contemporaries, but his solidity as an opening batsman can easily be overlooked: he reached double figures in 80% of his Test innings (a very high proportion, as noted in another Numbers Game a few years ago), and only ever registered one duck. What stopped him from threatening the real top rank of the game was that, though he’d seldom get out cheaply, he was also pretty unlikely to score very heavily, as a total of four centuries from 65 innings and a top score of 145 attests. These characteristics are perfect for a low CoV, because they imply that a large majority of his innings fell in a relatively tight range in the middle of possible scores. Cricket will always find a way of surprising you but, to a greater extent than with any other batsman, you knew what you were going to get from Richardson.

I was slightly surprised to see MS Dhoni riding high in this list. His reputation is for a more free-spirited kind of play than might be expected to generate a low CoV. But it turns out that any such assumptions do him a bit of a disservice: his Test record is that of a reliable runscorer, rather than a hit-or-miss gunslinger. Simon Katich’s presence next to him is perhaps more in keeping with his reputation.

It is intriguing to see both Herbert Sutcliffe and Sir Jack Hobbs in the top half-dozen of this list. There could surely be no firmer foundation for a partnership as successful as theirs than the kind of shared dependability this statistic suggests. If they both had more mercurial profiles then, though they each might have scored as many runs, they would have been unlikely to have shared so many significant partnerships.

The fact that Jacques Kallis has fallen down the list somewhat compared to Rajesh’s analysis is, to a small extent, a reflection of my slightly different methods, but it’s more to do with the fact that his record has become a wee bit more inconsistent in the 4 years since Rajesh wrote his column.

According to this analysis, the least consistent batsman in Test history is Vinoo Mankad. His career has the opposite profile to Mark Richardson’s: there is a very high proportion of low scores in his record (he only got into double figures 57% of the time) but, when he got in, he often went on to score big hundreds (including two doubles in one series against New Zealand in 1955/56). In contrast to Richardson’s reliable-but-unspectacular record, Mankad’s performances were an awful lot less predictable.

Wasim Akram’s position at the bottom of the list is very largely ascribable to the effect of one mammoth score of 257* in the midst of a dataset that characteristically reflects a much more modest level of achievement (there’s a good argument for calling this the most out-of-character innings in Test history, as discussed in a recent Ask Steven). If that one innings is excluded from his record, his CoV reverts to a much more run-of-the-mill 1.119.

Marvan Atapattu’s status is probably not surprising for a man who started his Test career with a famous string of failures, but ended up with 6 double-centuries under his belt.

So...?

The unanswered question I find most intriguing is whether, in the grand scheme of things, any of this matters. As cricket fans, we’re quite used to berating inconsistent batsmen (“you never know what you’re going to get: one day, he’s brilliant; the next, he couldn’t buy a run”) but, then again, we may have a paradoxical tendency to look down our noses at those with the least variable records (“he’s good at getting in, but he never goes on to register a matchwinning score”). Is either of these positions more justifiable than the other?

I’ve come up with two ways of answering this question. The first is to examine whether consistent batsmen, ultimately, score more runs than their more mercurial counterparts. It’s all very well to invent hypothetical 50-averaging batsmen with consistent and inconsistent records, like I did in my introduction, but it may be that, in the real cricketing world, batsmen with one profile or the other are more likely to achieve a decent average.

To explore this, I used a statistical technique called regression (to be more precise: univariate ordinary least squares linear regression), which enables us to assess the relationship between two variables. The results are shown in Figure 1. Each batsman’s CoV is plotted against his average, with the typical relationship between the two (the regression line) indicated by the red dotted line. You can see that, although there’s an awful lot of scatter around the trend, the datapoints generally appear to line up with a slight downwards slope. This suggests that there is a weak but identifiable association between the two variables, with more consistent batsmen tending to average slightly more (for any statsheads, that means that r ² is a pretty dismal 0.065, but p<0.001 for the slope coefficient).

Fig 1 Association between consistency (coefficient of variation) and success (average) for Test batsmen © Gabriel Rogers

Clearly, there are plenty of examples that do not fit the general trend too well, but it appears that, on average, consistency is associated with higher runscoring. Actually, a more pronounced correlation would have been surprising, because we didn’t see a very obvious hierarchy in the consistency list – no one is suggesting that Mark Richardson was, in any meaningful way, a better batsman than Brian Lara. Nevertheless, it does seem to be the case that consistency is, by and large, a positive thing for individual batsmen. This may seem like an obvious finding, but I don’t think it’s been demonstrated before.

My second way to assess the value of batting consistency was to see whether it has a positive effect for the team. So I looked to see if there’s any correlation between each batsman’s CoV and his record of winning matches. I did this in exactly the same way, plotting one variable against the other, and drawing a univariate regression line through the results. For Test match cricket, there was a very weak, but still detectable, association between CoV and percentage of matches won (r ²=0.015; p=0.005); this vaguely suggests that, the more consistent a batsman is, the more likely he is to be on the winning side. It’s a pretty unsatisfactory analysis, though, with an awful lot of noise around the hint of a signal. What I was more interested to find is that the correlation gets quite a bit stronger when, instead of winning record, you look at each batsman’s not-losing record. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 2. You can see a relatively shallow, but pretty obvious, upwards slope to the dataset, showing that, on average, the most consistent batsmen are also those who have lost the lowest proportion of the Test matches in which they have played.

Fig 2 Association between consistency (coefficient of variation) and losing record for Test batsmen © Gabriel Rogers

The fact that consistency is associated with not-losing more strongly than it is with winning suggests that consistent batsmen really come into their own when it comes to securing draws for their teams. (And, indeed, regressing CoV against draw-rate produces a strongly significant result [p=0.002].) So, if you’ve got a team packed with consistent batsmen, you might not win too many more games, but you might draw some that less consistent teams would lose. I’m not quite sure how to explain this finding in cricketing terms; if you’ve got any bright ideas, please feel free to comment!

Once again from the top in pyjamas

The remainder of this post repeats the above analysis for ODI cricket.

Table 2 lists the most and least consistent batsmen in ODIs, The list is topped by Australia’s two great “finishers” – Michaels Hussey and Bevan. We’re used to seeing them high on lists of ODI stats, but it’s worth remembering that – because CoV, as I have calculated it, relies on RPI rather than average – the high number of not-outs in each of their records has no direct influence on their excellent consistency ratings. Plenty of players have higher RPIs that these two; it’s only once not-outs are factored in that their averages rise so high (although that doesn’t necessarily mean the not-outs inflate their average, as is often assumed; Charles Davis has done good work on this). Accordingly, it is notable that consistency stats for these two players agree with their conventional records: I conclude that it was the dependability – as much as the volume – of their contributions that marked them out as matchwinners for their team.

It’s surprising to see Ian Bell so high in the list (actually, it’s kinda surprising to learn that Ian Bell has 2,000 ODI runs). His reputation may not suggest limited-overs strength but, if you look at his record, it’s clear that he has very seldom failed completely in ODIs. Of course, there’s a relative lack of dramatic successes, too, and we’ve already seen that these two characteristics tend to produce a low CoV.

Another unexpected finding is that Sachin Tendulkar’s ODI record is not an especially consistent one. To an extent, this is just because his scores encompass such a wide range. Obviously, Tendulkar has a much higher proportion of big scores in his record than someone like Ian Bell. Less predictably, however, he also has a higher proportion of cheap dismissals, and it is the swing from one extreme to the other that produces a higher CoV. Tendulkar’s customary position at the top of the ODI order may provide part of the explanation for both of these features: if he hits his stride in any given innings, he will have full opportunity to score plenty of runs, and this may not be true of those who bat lower in the order; on the other hand, he also has the challenge of facing the new ball with close catchers in place – something that may raise his probability of early dismissal. It is notable that there are relatively few opening batsmen amongst those with the lowest CoVs (although I checked, and this is not a systematic bias in the dataset: batting position is not, in itself, predictive of consistency).

In contrast, it is anything but a shock to see Tendulkar’s teammate, VVS Laxman, near the foot of the table: has any batsman more dramatically personified sublime-to-the-ridiculous swings of achievement in the ODI era?

I don’t know if you’ve noticed it, but I think there’s quite a difference between the ODI consistency list and the Test match equivalent, in Table 1, above. It seems to me that – the odd diminutive ginger anomaly aside – there is some sort of hierarchy going on in the ODI list. Players in the top part of the table are, by and large, better than those who come lower down. So we might expect to see a more pronounced correlation between ODI CoV and batting average than was the case in the analogous Test analysis. Any such expectation would be right on the money, as Figure 3 shows. There is a fairly strong association between the two variables (r ²=0.196; p<0.001), with a clear downward trend, suggesting that lower CoVs – indicating greater consistency – are associated with higher averages. I’m pretty sure that there is no mathematical reason why consistency should appear to be more valuable in ODI cricket than it is in the five-day game. If anyone can think of a cricketing reason, please do put it in the comments.

Fig 3 Association between consistency (coefficient of variation) and success (average) for ODI batsmen © Gabriel Rogers

And, if it’s positive for individual batsmen to be more consistent in their ODI runscoring, you’d expect their teams to see some benefit. As Figure 4 shows, this would appear to be another reasonable inference: batsmen with lower CoVs are, on average, those who win most ODIs (r ²=0.163; p<0.001).

Fig 4 Association between consistency (coefficient of variation) and winning record for ODI batsmen © Gabriel Rogers

Conclusions

So what if, playground style, you’re offered first pick between two batsmen with different records? Given a choice between a consistent batsman and an inconsistent one who averages more, you’d be a fool not to go for the one with the higher average. However, if your choice was between two batsmen with similar averages but different CoVs, I’d go for the more consistent one every time, as a result of what I’ve learned in this analysis. My expectation would be that he’d help me win – or at least not lose – a greater proportion of my matches. What is more, if I was provided with no information at all about the batsmen’s averages, but did know their CoVs, I’d favour whoever had the more consistent record, because it would be a reasonable – though far from infallible – guess that he’d also have the better average.

One corollary of this conclusion may be that “matchwinning” performers are a bit of a myth. In the future, I want to do some work on whether there is such a thing as a true matchwinner in cricket (what analysts in other sports sometimes refer to as clutch players) but, with this analysis as my starting point, my provisional view is that the kind of batsman who quietly gets on with contributing on a match-to-match basis may be of at least as much value as one who has an exceptional game once in a while.

I’ve got some related posts coming up about consistency among bowlers, and swings of form over longer periods.