A great fall-out of my Test Series analysis has been that it has provided me an alternate and very effective way of looking at the various teams' stay at the top. This has been triggered by a suggestion provided by Raghav Bihani.

I have approached this analysis with the following points in mind.

1. 4-0 wins should carry more weight than 2-1 wins.
2. Big wins (Inns/10-wkts etc) should carry more weight than narrow wins (1-wkt/20 runs etc).
3. Away results should carry more weight than home results.
4. Deciding Tests should carry more weight.
5. If a 4-Test series is pegged at 1.00, 3 & 2 Test series should carry lower weight than this and 5 & 6 Test series should carry more weight.
6. 1-Test contests are not series and have been ignored in this analysis as also the three Triangular tournaments. The reason for not including 1-Test contests is because inclusion would have a significant adverse impact on the calculations. As can be seen later the averaging across multiple series pre-supposes the need to have series performance as the base. Taking single Test performances as series performances, especially as the strength differentials are quite substantial, distorts the numbers. Anyhow there have been about 100 1-Test series and most of these involve teams in their early stages.
7. Win indices should be adjusted by relative team strengths. Stronger teams should get lower weight and weaker teams should get higher weight.

The first four of these were built into the Team analysis for Series and the last two have been rationalized with multiplying factors, suitably limited. Just to recap the series team analysis, the winning of a match gets a SIN (Series Index) value of just above 60 (for a 1-run win), upto a maximum of around 97 (for the innings and 579 run win). The losing team gets the balance, out of 100. The draws get either side of 50, depending on the nature of draw. Assigning 60+ for a win, as against, say, 55+ is to recognize Test wins in a sharp and definable manner. At the same time the team which draws the match but has been in command throughout, will get nearly 60.

In order to evaluate the results of the teams, I also have considered 10 consecutive Test Series, including the series being considered and averaged the SIN values to work out a TSIN (Ten Series Index) value. This means that for any evaluation a minimum of 10 Test series (easily 3 years) is considered. This value is determined for each series for each country and rolling values arrived at. These TSIN figures are then plotted on a graph similar to the one I had done couple of years back on batting and bowling streaks. Some of these points may not be clear now but will get clarified as we move on to the graphs.

Readers should understand that it is quite tough to get a TSIN value of 60.0 for the next 10 series for a team. 60 represents a reasonably comfortable series wins and every loss/draw/narrow-win has to be compensated within the 10 series period. Also the stronger teams are already pegged back because they are stronger and expected to do well. All this means that only four teams, viz., Australia, England, West Indies and South Africa have ever crossed 60.0 as a rolling average. The other 6 teams have never crossed 60.0 once in their history. That should put these values in perspective.

First a summary table of Series information by country.

Team        # of Series   SIN >70   TSIN>60    Mean SIN   High TSIN

Australia        178         22        41        55.74       66.52
England          221         21        12        52.25       62.33
West Indies      121          8        10        50.50       66.06
South Africa      98          6         4        51.32       60.67
Pakistan         116          4         0        48.31       54.56
India            126          6         0        47.88       55.67
Sri Lanka         73          5         0        46.83       53.92
New Zealand      126          4         0        43.03       52.94

First let us look at the graph for the Australian team. Let me repeat that these are not series performances but plotted using the TSIN values. As such the stay at the top or bottom would be clearly visible. There would not be abrupt moves up and down and the trends would be obvious.

What does one say. If you forget the initial few series, Australia have had only one really bad period, between 1982 and 1986. Hughes took over after the Packer era and did not move the world. Greg Chappell could not do much and Border took over a weakened side. The wholly unexpected World Cup 1987 triumph changed everything. Otherwise their TSIN values have almost always been above 50. But the real strength of Australians over the years has been the fact that out of the 178 series being considered in which they have TSIN values of 60 or above in 41 of the series.. They have had two real peaks, one between 1930 and 1951 and the other mind-blowing one between 1998 and 2007. Both these are expanded separately later.

West Indies have had a spectacular Manhattan structure until 2000 and then the poorer shanty towns take over. During the past 10 years, they have barely crossed 40. However their heyday was during the 1980s-90s when they had a run of 27 consecutive unbeaten series. Many teams went into Test series against West Indies during these years, considering a series draw as success. Wins were almost out of question. Maybe this defensive attitude also meant the fair number of draws. The later 25 series of this almost unparalleled period of domination is covered separately.

England has had a fairly steady performance graph. They peaked for a spell of 12 series during 1950s and this has been covered separately. Hutton, May, Cowdrey, Compton formed an immense batting lineup. Tyson, Statham, Laker, Appleyard and Lock were formidable on any surface. Other than this they had a brief spell of 60+ TSIN values during 2002-03, with the series ending around 2005. The 1980s were the lowest point for them. Note the spike in the last series. This has been caused by their 4-0 whitewash of the Indians, which fetched them a SIN value of 79. This about 25 above their average and has given a lift-up of 2.5 or so in the TSIN value.

South Africa has had quite a few peaks and near-peaks. Look at the period just after 1962. And as soon as they returned to international cricket during 1998 they had a peak of 10 Tests during which they averaged just above 60. Then they dropped off getting to a fairly low period around 2003, probably prompted by the World Cup debacle. They have since then picked up.

India has been just around average for over 70 years until around the turn of the century. Even then they have been averaging only around the 50-55 mark, never once putting in a sequence of 10 good series level performances. Not once have they reached a TSIN value of 60. Note the fall in the last series. This has been caused by their 4-0 loss to the Englishman, which fetched them a SIN value of only 21. This about 30 below their average and has dropped the TSIN value by around 3.0.

Pakistan has had a similar graph to India. They had reasonably good periods between 1975 and 1995, the Imran Khan years. They were pretty badly off around 1998, then picked up but have fallen off recently. Again no steady streak. No single TSIN figure exceeding 60.0.

New Zealand have had alternating good and bad periods. Other than for a short while during early-1980s, their best period has been either side of 1990. This period was orchestrated by Hadlee and Martin Crowe. They are badly dropping off recently.

Barring the first 15 years, Sri Lanka have been fairly steady around the 50+ mark. For a fairly young team, this has been a very good level of consistency.

I have given below the four truly outstanding streaks at top of teams. The criteria is that the concerned team should have secured an average TSIN value of over 60.0 in a minimum of 10 consecutive series. I have taken trouble to find as long a streak as possible. I have also not included the 10-series streaks which have only around 60% value. The bar is higher for these minimal streaks. Looks easy and simple to get in. Let me assure you that it is a very tough criteria and only four streaks have qualified. Australia have two such streaks, West Indies has one and England had a wonderful streak during the 1950s. South Africa had 4 series with TSIN over 60, that is all. The other four teams never even had a single TSIN value of 60.0.

These four streaks have been represented in the following graph. This time the graph has been posted on the actual SIN value since we need to look the details of these series streaks.

Australia played 28 series during 1999-2007. They won 24 of these, often by comfortable margins. The four series outside these successful ones are the 2-1 loss to India during 2001, Ashes loss by 2-1 to England during 2005, the 0-0 draw with New Zealand during 2001 and 1-1 home draw with India during 2003. It can be seen that in these four series Australia have ended with value below 50, but above 40. Australia's average SIN value during these 28 series was 64.57, an achievement which can only be understood after understanding the nuances of numbers used in this article.

West Indies' streak is the only unbeaten one in this elite group. However their 25 series average is not very high since they drew 8 of the 25 series. They also had the two white-washes against England during this streak. This 10-0 record also indicates that their other wins have been closer.

The Bradman-led Australian teams between 1930 and 1951, had a streak of 14 series during which they had an amazing average of 64.82. The only loss was the bodyline series to England and then the 1938 draw.

England had a nice 12-series streak during 1950s when they did very well. A single exception being the Ashes series of 1958-59 when they did very poorly.

Now for a numerical summary of these four streaks.

Team        Streak Period Series Won Drawn Lost SIN avge Tests Won Drawn Lost

Australia    1999-2007      28    24   2     2   64.57     90   69   11   10   
West indies  1981-1995      25    17   8     -   60.13    104   56   33   15
Australia    1930-1951      14    12   1     1   64.82     69   45   12   12     
England      1954-1960      12    10   1     1   62.26     54   33   15    6 

Which team's streak was the greatest. We can comfortably leave out the last two ones. There are not enough series and the results are not that great, although the Bradman-led streak is quite impressive. However 28 series is double the number 14 and means a lot more. Let us take the first two streaks. Australia, ever willing to take chances, playing for a win almost always, had an amazingly high winning record in these 28 series, viz., 85.7%. West Indies, had an unbeaten sequence of 27 series, the earlier two not included here since that would have got the SIN avge below 60. However many a drawn series cropped up. A not so great winning record of 68%. You can take your pick. Both teams have their many pluses and a few minuses.

My personal vote is is for the Australian streak of 28 Test series. Primarily because of the way they changed the approach to Test cricket, their conistent scoring rates well in excess of 3.50, their willingness to lose the odd series/test in their quest for a win, their more balanced bowling attack and Gilchrist. Again, let me emphasize, this is my personal preference. You need not agree, that is your prerogative. But do not criticise my selection in a negative manner. And, if these two teams face off in a 5-Test series, I will get this simulation going within the next 6 months, the result will be 3-2 for Australia on odd days and 3-2 for West Indies on even days !!!.

Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi. RIP. A truly great cricketer and human being, fearless person, attacking captain, secular to the core, fielder extraordinaire, mover of Indian cricket forward in a manner no one has ever done and would have been one of the greatest Indian batsmen ever if he could have seen one ball with two eyes instead of seeing two balls with one eye. All these with no helmets, no chest pads, no arm-guards, no thigh pads and hopefully the box, if the Indian Board could have afforded one. Who can ever forget his 148 at Headingley, one of the bravest back-to-the-wall knocks ever. The images of Pataudi brought to memory the black-and-white era, the period of Guru Dutt, Richie Benaud, Waheeda Rehman, Rod Laver, Dev Anand, Pele, John Wayne, Ramanathan Krishnan, Nutan, Salim Durrani, Alfred Hitchcock, Mohd Rafi & Lata singing, Milkha Singh, Raj Kapoor, Sivaji Ganesan, James Stewart, Paul/John/George/Ringo, Prasanna/Bedi/Chandra bowling together, a collection of magical Singhs with hockey sticks et al. Everything was done for the love of doing it, for a few bags of peanuts.

I had intended to complete my series of Test series analyses with the third part, the one on all-round performances. However the England-India Test series ended last week and the analysis on Team performances gained more relevancy. Hence I have switched the two. The All-round performance analysis will appear a few days later.

In this article I will cover the fairly long methodology at the end of the article. This is to ensure that the main theme of the article is not missed out.

As the recent England-India series unfolded, the win margins became bigger and bigger and by the time the series ended, one started hoping that India would have deemed to have climbed the Mt.Everest if they made England bat again. There were talks of this being India’s biggest ever defeat. I had looked beyond that and had a fleeting suspicion that this could indeed be any team’s biggest ever defeat.

So I started work on this hypothesis. I have embarked on a complex method of evaluating this and later on, as an additional analysis, linking with team strengths and series location. Let me emphasize that this analysis is based on the results and only results. The scorecard is the only document used. There may be many other factors responsible for the series results, to name a few, injuries, loss of form, non-preparedness, fitness, tiredness, selection issues, non-availability of key players, technical shortcomings et al. However these are outside the scope of this analysis. However it is my considered opinion that these would only have reduced the margin of series loss and match losses. If everything had worked for India, they might still have lost 1-2.

Each match is allotted 100 points. These are further allocated to the two teams based on the results. Not just the results but the numbers behind the results. The points secured by the two teams are averaged for the series. This is a very good indicator of the way teams have performed in the series. This method allows us to understand the difference between two series, both finishing 4-0, but one with very close well-fought matches and the other, like the recently completed one, huge-margin wins. As already explained, the methodology for the analysis is explained at the end.

Now let us look at the results.

I have selected only 4/5/6 Test series for multiple reasons. One is that I have kept the minnows out by this single decision. The other is that I want the teams’ winning margins to be achieved over greater number of matches. My apologies to Sri Lanka since most of their series have been kept out. But this cannot be helped.

My surmise was correct. In the 210 4/5/6 match Test series played so far, the England win over India is the most comprehensive and devastating in history of Test cricket. That is what many experts are saying but this is now proved here with hard analytical conclusions. Let me add that there is one 3-Test series which has a wider Win margin than this one. That came in the Sri Lanka-Zimbabwe series, held during 2001. I am now happy that I excluded the 3-Test series from the analysis since I think a win against a weak team should not dilute this analysis.

The slightly better news is that, taken in context, taking into account the relative team strengths and the home advantage for England, this is not the most comprehensive defeat ever but is pipped by the South African white-wash of the 1970 Australians.

Let us look at the tables.

Ser Year Home  Away  Res  #  [...Win-margin...]

615 2011 ENG vs Ind  4-0  4  80.84-19.16  61.69
 55 1931 AUS vs Saf  5-0  5  80.73-19.27  61.45
169 1970 SAF vs Aus  4-0  4  79.22-20.78  58.44
120 1959 ENG vs Ind  5-0  5  78.92-21.08  57.85
436 2000 AUS vs Win  5-0  5  78.86-21.14  57.71
270 1986 WIN vs Eng  5-0  5  78.65-21.35  57.30
256 1984 ENG vs Win  0-5  5  22.24-77.76  55.52
131 1962 WIN vs Ind  5-0  5  76.96-23.04  53.92
548 2006 AUS vs Eng  5-0  5  76.72-23.28  53.45
 38 1920 AUS vs Eng  5-0  5  76.65-23.35  53.31
507 2004 ENG vs Win  4-0  4  76.06-23.94  52.12
 77 1947 AUS vs Ind  4-0  5  75.89-24.11  51.77
 65 1935 SAF vs Aus  0-4  5  24.26-75.74  51.47
132 1962 ENG vs Pak  4-0  5  75.58-24.42  51.16
115 1958 ENG vs Nzl  4-0  5  75.43-24.57  50.86
404 1998 SAF vs Win  5-0  5  75.09-24.91  50.19
 83 1949 SAF vs Aus  0-4  5  25.95-74.05  48.11
 91 1952 ENG vs Ind  3-0  4  73.86-26.14  47.71
 52 1930 AUS vs Win  4-1  5  73.82-26.18  47.63
 79 1948 ENG vs Aus  0-4  5  27.78-72.22  44.44
117 1958 AUS vs Eng  4-0  5  72.13-27.87  44.25
 37 1913 SAF vs Eng  0-4  5  27.91-72.09  44.19
496 2003 SAF vs Win  3-0  4  72.08-27.92  44.17
112 1957 ENG vs Win  3-0  5  71.78-28.22  43.57
116 1958 IND vs Win  0-3  5  28.29-71.71  43.41

The first table is ordered by the raw Win-margin value. England won the 4-test series by the widest margin of 80.84-19.96. This is the equivalent of 4 innings wins. There was a huge innings win which compensated for the 196 run margin win. The summary of the top five series is given below.

The second biggest margin was inflicted by South Africa on Australia, during 1931. They were better by just a decimal point.

The third biggest margin was inflicted by South Africa on Australia, during 1970, just before the Apartheid break-down. They were better by nearly 1%. This also indicates the loss to the world cricket through the absence of the wonderful South African team of 1970. Before any one pounces on me let me say, through their own racial segregation policies. The boycott was 100% correct and essential.

The next one is the English whitewash of the 1959 Indian team. However the scores would indicate more of a fight by the weaker 1959 team. The fifth one is the 5-0 clean-out by the 2000 Australians against the transitional West Indians.

The best away performance is the 1984 clean sweep of England by the mighty West Indians. Their performance is ranked seventh in the table. Incidentally this is the only time in history of Test cricket that a home team has lost all 5 Tests in a 5-Test series.

Given below is a one-line summary for each series and the match points secured.

615 2011 ENG-Ind 196r(73.80),   319r(81.88),   I&242r(87.45), I&8r(80.25).
 55 1931 AUS-Saf I&163r(85.02), I&155r(84.77), 169r(73.09),   10w(78.54), 
 I&72r(82.22).
169 1970 SAF-Aus 170r(72.09),   I&129r(83.97), 307r(80.85),   323r(79.97).  
120 1959 ENG-Ind I&59r(81.82),  8w(75.84),     I&173r(85.32), 171r(70.81), 
I&27r(80.83).
436 2000 AUS-Win I&126r(83.88), I&27r(80.83),  5w(72.40),     352r(84.66), 
6w(72.52). 
...
256 1984 eng-WIN I&180r(85.54), 9w(72.12),     8w(75.38),     I&64r(81.97),
172r(73.78).  

Now for the second table, this time ordered by the difference in series Win margin and Team strength differential value.

Ser Year Home  Away Res # [...Win-margin..]  [TS differential-] WinIndex

169 1970 SAF vs Aus 4-0 4 79.22-20.78 58.44  49.51-50.49  -0.98  59.42
615 2011 ENG vs Ind 4-0 4 80.84-19.16 61.69  52.99-47.01   5.98  55.71
 38 1920 AUS vs Eng 5-0 5 76.65-23.35 53.31  49.85-50.15  -0.30  53.60
256 1984 ENG vs Win 0-5 5 22.24-77.76 55.52  47.39-52.61   5.23  50.29
113 1957 SAF vs Aus 0-3 5 32.37-67.63 35.26  57.20-42.80 -14.39  49.65
117 1958 AUS vs Eng 4-0 5 72.13-27.87 44.25  49.08-50.92  -1.84  46.09
120 1959 ENG vs Ind 5-0 5 78.92-21.08 57.85  56.26-43.74  12.53  45.32
 65 1935 SAF vs Aus 0-4 5 24.26-75.74 51.47  46.69-53.31   6.61  44.86
270 1986 WIN vs Eng 5-0 5 78.65-21.35 57.30  56.28-43.72  12.56  44.74
116 1958 IND vs Win 0-3 5 28.29-71.71 43.41  50.27-49.73  -0.53  43.94
 35 1911 AUS vs Eng 1-4 5 33.91-66.09 32.18  55.31-44.69 -10.63  42.81
507 2004 ENG vs Win 4-0 4 76.06-23.94 52.12  54.84-45.16   9.68  42.44
548 2006 AUS vs Eng 5-0 5 76.72-23.28 53.45  55.79-44.21  11.58  41.86
 55 1931 AUS vs Saf 5-0 5 80.73-19.27 61.45  60.59-39.41  21.18  40.27
296 1989 ENG vs Aus 0-4 6 29.70-70.30 40.60  49.14-50.86   1.71  38.89
 34 1910 AUS vs Saf 4-1 5 71.14-28.86 42.27  51.98-48.02   3.96  38.31
112 1957 ENG vs Win 3-0 5 71.78-28.22 43.57  52.80-47.20   5.60  37.97
404 1998 SAF vs Win 5-0 5 75.09-24.91 50.19  56.18-43.82  12.36  37.83
157 1967 AUS vs Ind 4-0 4 71.67-28.33 43.34  52.76-47.24   5.51  37.82
 58 1932 AUS vs Eng 1-4 5 32.54-67.46 34.91  51.08-48.92  -2.15  37.07
131 1962 WIN vs Ind 5-0 5 76.96-23.04 53.92  58.72-41.28  17.45  36.48
436 2000 AUS vs Win 5-0 5 78.86-21.14 57.71  61.01-38.99  22.03  35.69
 83 1949 SAF vs Aus 0-4 5 25.95-74.05 48.11  43.72-56.28  12.55  35.55
103 1955 WIN vs Aus 0-3 5 31.89-68.11 36.23  49.58-50.42   0.84  35.39
289 1988 ENG vs Win 0-4 5 28.31-71.69 43.38  45.97-54.03   8.05  35.32

Now for the second part. Here I have matched the Win margin for the series with the Team Strength differential between the two teams, averaged over the series, and derived an overall WinIndex. The Team strength values are normalized to the same 100 points basis. In addition to the Team Strength indices already available with me, I have incorporated a substantial 10% weighting for the team playing at home. This alleviates the away defeats slightly. Couple of examples will explain this concept.

Take England and India. Their Team strength averages for the series worked out to 50.61-49.39 in favour of England, in other words, England were stronger by a wafer-thin difference. Once the home advantage was applied this became 52.99-47.01 which is a reasonably significant 6% differential. One would have expected this to translate to a 2-1 win with close matches all around. That result would have translated to a 55-45 on the Win- margin value and would not have raised any eyebrows. What happened was a 61.69% differential which translates to a final WinIndex value of 55.71 (being the difference between the two differential values.

Let us now look at South Africa and Australia during 1970. South Africa was a clear weaker team and their Team Strength differential was 47.13-52.87. When the home advantage was applied this became 49.51-50.49. One would have expected a 1-1 draw and almost 50-50 Win-margin value. What happened, as happened 41 years hence, was a 4-0 thrashing of the visiting team. The final WinIndex is the difference between 58.44 and -0.98, which works to a value of 59.52. In this measure this result has overtaken the 2011 series and is the most comprehensive win, taken in context.

The 1920 drubbing of England comes in next , followed by the top most away performance in this table, the 5-0 blitz by West Indies against England during 1984. The fifth entry shows the other side of the fascinating South Africa - Australia contests. A stronger South African team losing to an unfancied Australian team, 0-3.

Now for the methodology.

Valuation of draws: In Test matches draws are not the straight-forward 0-0 or 1-1 or 0-0 matches in Football or Hockey. At two extremes, a draw can happen with one team a ball away from victory or it could happen that the match might have had a result had the match continued for 10 days. To take care of these widely-varying grey areas I have allotted a wide range of 40-60 points out of 100 for a draw. This also correctly means that the winning team will at least have a margin of 61-39.

Look at the following matches. The Win-margin values are self-explanatory.

Test#  236: Eng 200 ao & 229/6. Aus 584 ao. (Aus-Eng: 60-40).
Test#  616: Aus 143 & 148/8. Saf 332/9.     (Saf-Aus: 60-40).

Now look at the following matches. Two different types of 50-50 matches.

Test #1887: Aus 430 & 228/6. Ind 360 & 177/4. Match completely open (50-50).
Test #1781: Pak 679/7. Ind 410/1.   Timeless Test needed for result (50-50).

Valuation of Innings wins: There is no denying that innings wins are the most emphatic in Test cricket. And needless to add that a win by an innings and 242 runs is far more emphatic than a win by an innings and 8 runs. The most emphatic win in Test cricket is the Oval 1938 win of England over Australia, by an innings and 579 runs. This result gets an almost full score. The formula is

Innings win points = 80.0 + variable points based on the quantum of innings win.

Test # 266: Eng 903/7. Aus 201 & 123. (Eng-Ind: 97.82-2.18).  Inns/579r.
Test #2002: Ind 224 & 244. Eng 710/7. (Eng-Ind: 88.07-11.93). Inns/242r
Test #2003: Eng 591/6. Ind 300 & 283. (Eng-Ind: 80.27-19.73). Inns/8r.

Valuation of wins by Wickets: A ten-wicket win ranks quite close to an innings win while a one-wicket win ranks close to the minimum points for a win. This is a tricky situation and is handled by the following formula. It is essential to distinguish between a nine-wicket win with a 20 for 1 score and one with a score of 342 for 1. The first is very close to an innings win and the later is quite a tough win and the losing team needs to be given credit for setting the target.

Wicket win points = 60.0 + variable points based on wickets in hand and target.

Test #1204: Slk 394 & 73/1. Nzl 102 & 361.   (Slk-Nzl: 77.54-22.46). 9w(73r).
Test # 340: Saf 202 & 154. Eng 194 & 164/6.  (Eng-Saf: 70.72-29.28). 4w(164r).
Test #1453: Aus 490 & 146. Win 329 & 311/9.  (Win-Aus: 64.78-35.22). 1w(311r).

Valuation of wins by Runs: Wins by runs have the widest range in the results analysis. A 675-run win (this happened during 1928) probably should rank just behind the 1938 win while a 1-run win (happened in 1993) could have resulted in a loss with a one-ball switch of events. So any algorithm should take this into account. This is achieved by the following formula which has to distinguish between a 200 run win chasing 300 and a 200 run win chasing 500. The first is a more emphatic win and in the later case, the losing team needs to be given credit for setting the target.

Run win points = 60.0 + variable points based on runs differential.

Test # 176: Eng 521 & 342/8. Aus 122 & 66.     (Eng-Aus: 97.50-2.50).  675r.
Test #1947: Aus 519/8 & 219/5. Pak: 301 & 206. (Aus-   : 76.73-23.27)  231r.
Test #1210: Win 252 & 146. Aus 213 & 184.      (Win-Aus: 61.00-39.00).   1r.

The Match rating points are determined for each match, added for the series and divided by the number of matches. The final pair of numbers, say x-y (again x+y=100), reflects the series results in a very accurate manner. This would result in a very objective evaluation of the series concerned and substantiate the, mostly correct, subjective statements made by the experts.

I did a far simpler exercise for another article. I got all wins to a "Runs" basis using wickets left and match RpW in case of "wickets" and "innings" wins and the margin itself in case of "runs" wins. The results look amazingly alike indicating that one can slice and dice this in any way, it will remain the greatest ever defeat by an established Test team. The hypothesis I started with is proved without any doubt. The summarized table for that analysis is shown below.

Ser Year Home  Away # Win  Res WinRuns LossRuns
                               (Series average)

615 2011 ENG vs Ind 4 Home 4-0  404.8    0.0
169 1970 SAF vs Aus 4 Home 4-0  325.0    0.0
 77 1947 AUS vs Ind 5 Home 4-0  321.6    0.0
 55 1931 AUS vs Saf 5 Home 5-0  292.8    0.0
 52 1930 AUS vs Win 5 Home 4-1  292.6    6.0
 38 1920 AUS vs Eng 5 Home 5-0  285.4    0.0
496 2003 SAF vs Win 4 Home 3-0  283.0    0.0
132 1962 ENG vs Pak 5 Home 4-0  278.0    0.0
120 1959 ENG vs Ind 5 Home 5-0  272.2    0.0
548 2006 AUS vs Eng 5 Home 5-0  266.4    0.0

Where does Indian Test cricket go from here. Many better writers, players and administrators than me have already spoken. I am not going to repeat those words. These comments all have validity. I will conclude with one summary.

This result cannot be wished away with comments such as “one bad series”, "one cannot win everything", “a blip”, “we will bounce back”, “let England come to India” or “form is temporary, class is permanent” etc. This is a clean-up at the highest level and unless otherwise BCCI realizes this, India will find it difficult to recover in the years to come. They might very well remain amongst the top-2 ODI/T20 teams, but would slip down the Test ladder quickly.

The players must share the blame, but only a smaller share. The proud men they are, they must be hurting like hell. However BCCI should feel the hurt intensely. While recognizing the zone at which the marvellous English team played, let me assign the blame component, strictly within Indian cricket, and in sync with the tone of the article, as 80-20 for BCCI-Players. This one allocation tells the story. The wild-sweep term "BCCI" includes, amongst others, the President, Secretary/IPL-GC member/IPL-owner, selectors, training methods, fitness evaluation criteria, IPL, paid propagandists, PR men, schedulers, rest of the gravy-train occupants et al.

As far as England are concerned, they may lack the couple of big names and heavy hitters to sustain an occupancy at the top for a decade or so as the 1980 West Indians and 1990/2000 Australians did. However they have the quality, bench-strength and the ability to travel well to be a serious contender for the top position always, during the next 5 years. They may even lose the top position without playing another match. But that should not matter. They would bounce back. Their serious problem might be when they defend the 3-1 away win in Australia and 4-0 home win over India.

This seems to be the season for felling giant oaks. The Indian team, with high hopes and pedigree, was vanquished. A quirky and dubious rule pushed the greatest sprinter of all time, Usain Bolt, from the World Athletics 100 metres Final. Federer seems to be losing to all and sundry. Tiger Woods does not growl but mews. Arsenal loses to Manchester United 2-8. But the abiding memory through all these was the 400 metres semi final. To see Oscar Pistorius finish the 400 metres in 46.19 secs, running on carbon fibre legs (I hope someone does not send an insensitive comment that he gains by running on carbon fibre) was indeed heart-warming stuff. Incidentally this time would have won for Pistorius the 400 metres Gold medal in the 1956 Melbourne Olympics !!!

To download the multiple tables of the 210 x 4/5 Test series, please right-click here and save the file.

As per Kartick's request I have given below all 3-Test series which ended in 3-0 results, ordered by the Win margin.

Ser Year Home  Away  Res  #  Win Margin  RunIdx

554 2007 SLK vs Bng  3-0  3  85.30-14.70  474.7
 19 1896 SAF vs Eng  0-3  3  15.71-84.29  309.3
459 2001 SLK vs Zim  3-0  3  84.13-15.87  395.7
338 1994 IND vs Slk  3-0  3  82.37-17.63  381.0
 46 1928 ENG vs Win  3-0  3  81.63-18.37  296.7
515 2004 AUS vs Pak  3-0  3  81.59-18.41  368.0
187 1974 ENG vs Ind  3-0  3  80.61-19.39  374.7
  9 1886 ENG vs Aus  3-0  3  80.60-19.40  264.3
134 1963 NZL vs Eng  0-3  3  19.47-80.53  332.3
388 1997 PAK vs Win  3-0  3  80.39-19.61  280.3
420 1999 AUS vs Ind  3-0  3  80.26-19.74  325.3
326 1993 IND vs Eng  3-0  3  79.17-20.83  348.0
457 2001 AUS vs Saf  3-0  3  79.15-20.85  291.7
242 1982 PAK vs Aus  3-0  3  78.62-21.38  309.7
531 2005 AUS vs Win  3-0  3  78.61-21.39  295.7
148 1965 ENG vs Nzl  3-0  3  78.49-21.51  351.0
211 1978 ENG vs Nzl  3-0  3  77.51-22.49  230.0
364 1995 AUS vs Slk  3-0  3  77.21-22.79  338.7
455 2001 SLK vs Win  3-0  3  77.00-23.00  303.0
155 1967 ENG vs Ind  3-0  3  75.76-24.24  247.3
306 1990 PAK vs Nzl  3-0  3  75.30-24.70  215.0
416 1999 AUS vs Pak  3-0  3  75.25-24.75  283.3
178 1972 AUS vs Pak  3-0  3  73.41-26.59  203.3
221 1979 AUS vs Eng  3-0  3  73.02-26.98  170.7
504 2004 ENG vs Nzl  3-0  3  72.59-27.41  237.3
594 2009 AUS vs Pak  3-0  3  71.47-28.53  145.7
488 2003 PAK vs Bng  3-0  3  71.37-28.63  162.3
424 2000 NZL vs Aus  0-3  3  29.90-70.10  136.7
539 2006 SAF vs Aus  0-3  3  30.11-69.89  110.7
499 2004 SLK vs Aus  0-3  3  30.49-69.51  115.0

A number of readers had asked me to do a complete analysis of the Test team strengths. I had done some work on this earlier. However there is a need to throw out that lot and completely do this from scratch since the following related needs have been expressed at various times.

1. Completely integrate the career-to-date (c-t-d) values into the Team strength analysis.

2. Build in period based adjustments.

3. Allow no dilution into the process, especially the Bowling strength determination where a fifth weak bowler might completely distort the index values.

4. Give some weight for Bowling strike rates since these are Test matches.

Hence I blanked out the Team strength data and determined the Team strengths based on the following factors. By far, this turned out to be one of the most complex tasks undertaken by me since various adjustments had to be built in. The final selection of unique teams also presented quite a few problems.

1. Use only c-t-d values. Make adjustments during the early phase of the player's career. Essential for players like Mike Hussey, Brett Lee et al, whose first third of career was way better than the next two-third. I have been quite tough in this regard. During the first 50 innings or until 100 wickets have been captured, I have capped the c-t-d values at the career average, if it goes higher. Perfect example is Hussey. He had an average of 86.33 at the end of his 30th innings. But this has been capped at 52.50, which is his career average. Brett Lee had captured his first 50 wickets at 22.82. This has been increased to 30.82, which is his career average. I know it is quite tough on these players. However this has ensured that there are no spikes.

2. Determine the best 7 batsmen and use these batsmen figures to determine the Batting strength. This is to take care of night-watchman situations and genuine cases where the no.8 batsman in the batting order is better than the no.7 batsmen. The lower four batsmen are thus excluded. They might turn to be useful but do not really add to the strength.

3. After a lot deliberation I decided to do the Bowling strength determination with the best four bowlers only and not bring into consideration the fifth bowler. Traditionally most strong teams have had 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers. The fifth bowler only provided additional support but the team's bowling success really depended on their top four bowlers.

4. There is no separate weight for all-rounders since the top all-rounders would find their place into either the top-7 batting or top-4 bowling or both. If Imran Khan bats at no.7, he brings to the table a 37+ batting average and sub-23 bowling average. That is his strength and will be reflected in the team strength index.

5. Do a period-wise adjustment. This is the one area where I have done something radically different and a complete change to the existing process. Until now I had done adjustment based on the adjustment factor for the decade (or period) in which the Test was played in. I was aware that this had the following major shortcomings.

- The adjustment is done based on the decade/period the Test was played in. However the player could have played during that decade, the previous and in some cased the previous one. So the adjustments are not perfect.
- The adjustment factor is the same whether the batsman is Tendulkar (22 year-career), Dravid (16 years), Yuvraj Singh (8 years) or Raina (1 year). Not exactly good and has to be improved significantly.

As I sat for hours on end watching the WC simulations rolling by in the desktop, I kept on fiddling with ideas and then one day I had a spark. I kept looking at Peer comparisons and then suddenly discovered that I had the solution staring at me. Why not adjust each batsman's career-to-date values dynamically and independently, with his own peer values. It was a natural process to zero down to an adjustment based on the Peer value for the batsman himself, in other words, from his debut test to the current test.

Easier said than done. However I set about creating database segments containing data values, such as batting average and bowling average for all teams, for each batsman, for each test he played in. Needless to say, the Batting averages were only for the best 7 batsmen in each test. Also the adjustment for each player will kick in only after he has played 10 matches since there is insufficient data in the early stages. The adjustment is done by determining the ratio of 35.99 (the all-time average of the best 7 batsmen in each innings for 1989 tests) to the concerned batsman's C-t-d Peer average. If the C-t-d Peer average is higher than 35.99 then it has been a batsman-friendly x-tests era and the ratio would be below 1.000. If the C-t-d Peer average is below 35.99 then it has been a bowler-friendly x-tests era and the ratio would be above 1.000. A similar working for the bowlers, for whom the all-time bowling average is 31.76.

It was impossible to split the, already complex, players's c-t-d peer bowling average into Pace and Spin. Hence I have done this based on a composite bowling average and done the bowling type adjustment at a later stage. The spinners have their bowling averaged lowered by a fixed factor.

It has worked beautifully. This allows for the changes which take place during a player's career. If there was a glut of runs during a phase of 2/3 years, it would be reflected instantly.

6. In view of the importance of Bowling strike rates in Test cricket I have computed the Team strike rates for the four best bowlers separately and multiplied the Team Bowling index by a pro-rated value based on this.

7. The adjustments are done separately for Pace bowlers and Spinners.

The last but very important point. After hours, nay days of struggling to make an equitable adjustment and exasperation, I decided to bite the bullet and exclude 64 Test matches played before 1900. The problem was mainly with bowlers. The 1800s were downright crazy. 10 bowlers, who had captured 50+ Test wickets, had averages below 20 and this distorted everything else. However it must be mentioned that very relevant players such as Clem Hill (1896), Trumper (1899) and S.F.Barnes (1901) are included. The only serious players we would miss out are Lohmann, S.E.Gregory and W.G.Grace. Lohmann, with his 100+ at 10+ single-handedly wrecked all analysis. Based on numbers, Lohmann was the greatest bowler ever, by a few miles, may his soul rest in peace.

Finally a note on the tables. Teams like the 1945 Australians, 2005 Australians, 1990 West Indies would have multiple entries in the table since quite a few of these teams were quite strong. Now that I would be using Career-todate values there would be changes from match to match even if the eleven remains the same. Hence I have extracted one representative and best team amongst this group and presented here a unique team table. This means even if there are 25 Australian teams of 2005-06 era, having almost the same team combinations, I will select one amongst these 25. However the team selected will be a real life team from a played Test. In other words there would be only one 1948 Australian team, one 2005 Australia team and so on. At the same time if two West Indian teams had radically different bowling line-ups, say 1980 and 1990, both have been included. Of course the complete table contains all the entries and can be downloaded.

While selecting the teams out of this collection of teams, I have followed the common-sense based principle that two bowling teams which have two of the four bowlers changed and the batting team which had 3 of the batsmen (out of seven) changed, will be considered different teams. The selection had to be manually done by me. While I have tried to be careful, it is not certain that I have included all teams qualifying. If readers note any misses, they are requested to inform me so I could include the same. I had also to do quite a bit of cutting and pasting. Hence there might be minor errors.

I have used two further criteria in selecting these teams. One is that the selected team should be in the top-100 in the concerned table. The other is that there should be a rough correlation to the population of teams in the top-100 while looking for as much representation as possible.

Let us now look at the tables. First the top-10 Batting teams of all time.

1. Australia:    49.81
MtId: 1661-2003      CtdAvg PeerAvg  Adj  FinalAvge
Gilchrist A.C         58.80  36.92  0.975  57.31
Hayden M.L            52.01  35.86  1.004  52.20
Waugh S.R             51.07  35.90  1.002  51.19
Ponting R.T           51.12  36.01  0.999  51.09
Martyn D.R            46.38  35.89  1.003  46.51
Langer J.L            45.86  35.90  1.002  45.97
Lehmann D.S           44.95  36.39  0.989  44.45

2. ICC XI:       49.67
MtId: 1768-2005
Dravid R              58.30  36.76  0.979  57.08
Kallis J.H            56.88  36.74  0.980  55.72
Lara B.C              54.09  36.50  0.986  53.34
Sehwag V              55.81  38.96  0.924  51.56
Smith G.C             55.50  38.94  0.924  51.29
Inzamam-ul-Haq        50.80  36.54  0.985  50.04
Flintoff A            33.43  37.32  0.964  32.24

3. Australia:    46.98
MtId: 0303-1948
Bradman D.G          101.39  38.24  0.941  95.43
Harvey R.N            43.58  42.51  1.000  43.58
Barnes S.G            50.00  41.64  0.864  43.22
Morris A.R            46.49  41.61  0.865  40.20
Hassett A.L           46.20  41.94  0.858  39.64
Miller K.R            36.97  39.64  0.908  33.57
Loxton S.J.E          33.24  40.72  1.000  33.24

4. England:      46.86
MtId: 0176-1928 
Hobbs J.B             61.28  33.22  1.083  66.39
Sutcliffe H           60.73  36.68  0.981  59.60
Mead C.P              49.38  33.88  1.062  52.46
Jardine D.R           43.20  26.37  1.000  43.20
Hendren E.H           43.03  36.26  0.993  42.71
Hammond W.R           35.35  30.26  1.000  35.35
Chapman A.P.F         28.91  36.68  0.981  28.37

5. Australia:    46.02
MtId: 0237-1934 
Bradman D.G           95.35  37.62  0.957  91.23
Woodfull W.M          46.00  37.08  0.971  44.65
McCabe S.J            42.27  35.95  1.001  42.32
Ponsford W.H          43.67  37.15  0.969  42.30
Brown W.A             37.16  42.59  1.000  37.16
Kippax A.F            36.12  36.81  0.978  35.32
Chipperfield A.G      29.22  42.59  1.000  29.22

6. India:        45.87
MtId: 1964-2010 
Tendulkar S.R         55.57  37.25  0.966  53.69
Dravid R              53.75  37.59  0.957  51.46
Gambhir G             54.86  38.93  0.924  50.72
Sehwag V              53.53  39.18  0.919  49.17
Laxman V.V.S          46.64  37.62  0.957  44.62
Dhoni M.S             42.60  39.48  0.912  38.83
Yuvraj Singh          35.63  39.28  0.916  32.65

7. West Indies:  45.76
MtId: 0544-1963 
Sobers G.St.A         60.95  33.30  1.081  65.87
Worrell F.M.M         53.41  34.40  1.046  55.88
Kanhai R.B            48.75  35.29  1.020  49.72
Hunte C.C             44.30  35.08  1.026  45.45
Butcher B.F           43.11  34.97  1.029  44.37
Solomon J.S           34.00  35.05  1.027  34.92
McMorris EDAStJ       24.17  34.78  1.000  24.17

8. Australia:    45.54
MtId: 1863-2008 
Ponting R.T           58.02  37.03  0.972  56.39
Hayden M.L            53.20  36.83  0.977  51.99
Hussey M.E.K          51.10  38.36  0.938  47.94
Gilchrist A.C         47.90  37.86  0.951  45.53
Clarke M.J            44.79  37.70  0.955  42.76
Symonds A             40.61  38.22  0.942  38.24
Jaques P.A            36.00  38.49  1.000  36.00

9.West Indies:   44.96
MtId: 0405-1955 
EdeC Weekes           58.62  35.24  1.021  59.87
Walcott C.L           56.69  35.24  1.021  57.90
Worrell F.M.M         49.49  35.01  1.028  50.87
Sobers G.St.A         42.75  28.67  1.000  42.75
Stollmeyer J.B        42.33  35.76  1.006  42.61
Holt jnr J.K          33.08  31.25  1.000  33.08
Atkinson D.S.t.E      26.67  34.71  1.037  27.65

10. West Indies: 44.69    
MtId: 1006-1984 
Richards I.V.A        53.98  35.43  1.016  54.84
Greenidge C.G         49.69  35.43  1.016  50.48
Gomes H.A             46.44  35.10  1.025  47.62
Lloyd C.H             46.60  35.87  1.003  46.76
Richardson R.B        43.15  36.78  0.979  42.23
Haynes D.L            39.08  35.31  1.019  39.83
Dujon P.J.L           31.94  36.93  0.975  31.13

As expected the table is headed by the 2003 Australian team. One sentence describes this team. Gilchrist, the best batsman in this test, batted at no.7 !!! The purists might scoff and say that the next team was a disparate set of talented individuals. But the second place is taken by the ICC XI which played Australia during 2005. This team might not have had Tendulkar. It still boasted of 6 top batsmen with a 50+ average.

Now comes the mighty Australians in Bradman's farewell test during 1948. Let us not forget that they had Lindwall, with his 2 centuries yet to come, at no.8. This, despite Bradman's 101.39, his average at the beginning of the test, being reduced by 6%. England, of vintage 1928, with Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond, clocks in next. A slightly different Australians of 1934 are the next team. As compared to the 1948 team, this team had only Bradman.

In sixth place is the 2010 Indian team. As in the first team, this team had Dhoni at no.7, the statement which defines the batting strength admirably. The West Indian team of 1963, with Sobers, Kanhai, Butcher and Solomon, is in seventh place. In eigth place is the recent Australian team, with Hussey, Clarke and Symonds.

The table is rounded off by two West Indian teams of different ages. The 1955 West Indian team, with Sobers and the three W's is in ninth place. The table is rounded off by the Richards-led West Indies team of 1984. Not one of these 10 teams is out of place and almost all top batsmen of the world, barring Gavaskar, Kallis, Chappell, May, Compton, are represented.

Now for the best bowling teams.

1. West Indies:  49.89
MtId: 1158-1990
Marshall M.D          20.72  31.97  0.993  20.58  46.8
Bishop I.R            24.29  34.49  0.921  22.37  52.3
Ambrose C.E.L         23.97  33.11  0.959  22.99  54.6
Walsh C.A             23.91  32.84  0.967  23.13  57.9

2. Australia:    49.85
MtId: 0373-1953
Lindwall R.R          20.31  32.38  0.981  19.93  59.9
Miller K.R            20.50  32.38  0.981  20.11  61.5
Johnston W.A          22.02  31.93  0.957  21.07  69.1
Davidson A.K          24.64  19.42  1.000  24.64  74.8

3. West Indies:  49.53
MtId: 1068-1987
Marshall M.D          21.23  31.63  1.004  21.32  46.8
Garner J              21.17  31.27  1.016  21.50  50.9
Holding M.A           23.29  31.32  1.014  23.62  50.9
Walsh C.A             25.16  32.80  0.968  24.36  57.9

4. England:      48.48
MtId: 0434-1956
Tyson F.H             18.57  27.31  1.163  21.59  45.4
Laker J.C             21.50  30.42  1.004  21.59  62.3
Wardle J.H            22.24  30.29  1.009  22.44  64.7
Statham J.B           24.85  28.89  1.099  27.31  63.7

5. West Indies:  47.91
MtId: 0901-1981
Garner J              19.44  29.38  1.081  21.02  50.9
Croft C.E.H           21.19  29.38  1.081  22.91  49.3
Roberts A.M.E         25.18  30.28  1.049  26.41  55.1
Holding M.A           25.13  29.95  1.060  26.65  50.9

6. Australia:    47.87
MtId: 1731-2005
McGrath G.D           21.40  32.42  0.980  20.96  52.0
Warne S.K             25.50  32.39  0.943  24.06  57.5
Gillespie J.N         24.90  32.70  0.971  24.18  55.0
MacGill S.C.G         29.22  32.85  0.930  27.18  54.0

7. England:      47.50
MtId: 0881-1980
Botham I.T            18.69  30.28  1.049  19.61  57.0
Underwood D.L         25.30  31.47  0.971  24.56  73.6
Willis R.G.D          24.78  31.79  0.999  24.76  53.4
Hendrick M            25.84  30.85  1.029  26.60  71.4

8. South Africa: 46.99
MtId: 1860-2008
Pollock S.M           23.19  32.98  0.963  22.33  57.8
Steyn D.W             24.08  34.16  0.930  22.39  40.0
Ntini M               27.88  33.34  0.953  26.56  53.4
Nel A                 31.34  34.56  0.919  28.80  62.0

9. Pakistan:     46.80
MtId: 1158-1990
Waqar Younis          23.56  34.25  0.927  21.85  43.5
Imran Khan            22.87  31.91  0.995  22.76  53.8
Wasim Akram           25.10  32.86  0.967  24.26  54.7
Abdul Qadir           32.54  31.80  0.961  31.26  72.6

10. Australia:   46.41
MtId: 0765-1975
Lillee D.K            23.73  33.46  0.949  22.52  52.0
Mallett A.A           26.15  32.29  0.946  24.74  75.7
Walker M.H.N          27.48  33.50  0.948  26.05  73.1
Thomson J.R           28.01  33.50  0.948  26.55  52.7

There is a mild surprise at the top. the West Indian attack of 1990, comprising of the magnificent quartet of Marshall, Bishop, Ambrose and Walsh is ahead, by the thinnest of margins, of the 1953 Australian team, with its four top-quality bowlers, Lindwall, Miller, Johnston and Davidson. It is necessary to mention that West Indies is ahead only because of the superior strike rate index and that Davidson is not credited with his career bowling average, this test falling in his initial tests stage. Now comes another wonderful West Indian quartet from 1987, Marshall, Garner, Holding and Walsh.

Then comes the first of two English bowlins attack in this list, the 1956 foursome of Tyson, Laker, Wardle and Statham. Just behind them is the wholly different Caribbean pace quartet of Garner, Croft, Roberts and Holding, of vintage 1981.

The Australian batsmen have dominated the tables. However they also had top class attacks. The modern Australian attack is the one during 2005 and had McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and MacGill. Two attacking fast bowlers, a world class spinner and an excellent medium pacer complete the second English team of Botham, Underwood, Willis and Hendrick.

The fearsome South African pace attack of Pollock, Steyn, Ntini and Nel comes in next. Now the most balanced attack in this list, each a giant bowler, of Waqar, Imran, Akram and Qadir. The top-10 list is rounded off by the classical Australian attack of 1975, comparing of Lillee, Mallet, Walker and Thomson.

The Indian attacks miss out since they never had four really world class bowlers together. Even with adjustments, spin-dominated attacks, with averages between 25 and 30 are unlikely to fare well. For the record, the best Indian bowling attack was the one which played Test# 1782 (during 2006), with 42.39 points. The attack comprised of Kumble, Zaheer, Harbhajan and R.P.Singh. Same applies to New Zealand and Sri Lanka, Hadlee and Muralitharan notwithstanding.

Now the top-10 teams of all time.

MtId: 1744-2005 Australia   : 95.34 (48.28+47.06)
Langer J.L
Hayden M.L
Ponting R.T
Martyn D.R
Clarke M.J
Gillespie J.N
Katich S.M
Gilchrist A.C
Warne S.K
Kasprowicz M.S
McGrath G.D

MtId: 1768-2005 ICC World XI: 93.00 (49.67+43.33)
Smith G.C
Sehwag V
Dravid R
Lara B.C
Kallis J.H
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Flintoff A
Boucher M.V
Vettori D.L
Harmison S.J
Muralitharan M

MtId: 0999-1984 West Indies : 91.80 (44.36+47.44)
Greenidge C.G
Haynes D.L
Richardson R.B
Gomes H.A
Richards I.V.A
Dujon P.J.L
Lloyd C.H
Marshall M.D
Holding M.A
Garner J
Walsh C.A

MtId: 0300-1948 Australia   : 91.74 (45.41+46.33)
Barnes S.G
Morris A.R
Bradman D.G
Hassett A.L
Miller K.R
Brown W.A
Johnson I.W
Tallon D
Lindwall R.R
Johnston W.A
Toshack E.R.H

MtId: 1539-2001 Australia   : 91.20 (44.60+46.60)
Slater M.J
Hayden M.L
Langer J.L
Waugh M.E
Waugh S.R
Ponting R.T
Gilchrist A.C
Warne S.K
Gillespie J.N
Miller C.R
McGrath G.D

MtId: 1824-2006 Australia   : 90.21 (44.49+45.72)
Langer J.L
Hayden M.L
Lee B
Ponting R.T
Hussey M.E.K
Clarke M.J
Symonds A
Gilchrist A.C
Warne S.K
Clark S.R
McGrath G.D

MtId: 0222-1933 Australia   : 89.20 (44.55+44.65)
Fingleton J.H.W
Woodfull W.M
Bradman D.G
McCabe S.J
Ponsford W.H
Richardson V.Y
Oldfield W.A.S
Grimmett C.V
Wall T.W
O'Reilly W.J
Ironmonger H

MtId: 1319-1995 Australia   : 88.44 (43.62+44.82)
Slater M.J
Taylor M.A
Boon D.C
Waugh M.E
Waugh S.R
Ponting R.T
Healy I.A
Reiffel P.R
Warne S.K
McDermott C.J
McGrath G.D

MtId: 0530-1962 England     : 87.98 (42.89+45.09)

Pullar G
Cowdrey M.C
Dexter E.R
Graveney T.W
Barrington K.F
Parfitt P.H
Allen D.A
Millman G
Lock G.A.R
Trueman F.S
Statham J.B

MtId: 1168-1991 West Indies : 87.87 (40.12+47.75)
Greenidge C.G
Haynes D.L
Richardson R.B
Hooper C.L
Logie A.L
Richards I.V.A
Dujon P.J.L
Marshall M.D
Ambrose C.E.L
Walsh C.A
Patterson B.P

The best team table is dominated by six Australian teams down the ages, led by the 2005 Australian team, with very strong Batting and Bowling sub-teams. This is followed by Australian teams of 1948, 2001, 2006, 1933 and 1995. The second position is occupied by the very strong ICC Eleven, very strong on paper, poor on the field. West Indies has two teams, from 1983 and 1991. England has a single representative team, from 1962.

For the record, the strongest teams from the other countries are given below.

South Africa Test# 1860 (2008) against West Indies, with 86.24 points. 
India        Test# 1782 (2006) against Pakistan,    with 84.96 points. 
Pakistan     Test# 1443 (1999) against India,       with 84.92 points. 
Sri Lanka    Test# 1691 (2004) against Australia,   with 83.28 points. 
New Zealand  Test# 1700 (2004) against England,     with 78.14 points. 
Zimbabwe     Test# 1511 (2000) against New Zealand, with 66.64 points. 
Bangladesh   Test# 1905 (2009) against Sri Lanka,   with 54.60 points. 

To view/down-load the complete Team Strength related tables, please click on links given below.

Batting strength table: please click/right-click here.
Bowler strength table: please click/right-click here.
Team strength table: please click/right-click here.

I would like to inform the readers that I will be taking a month off to handle range of commitments I have during the World Cup. As things stand, I will be back after the completion of World Cup.

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

First, the summary of changes.

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

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

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

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

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

Performance Index

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

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

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

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

Series win points

The following table is self-explanatory.

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

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

Coming from behind

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

         SeriesId               From   Final

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Points allocation for winning team for series wins

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

B. Points allocation for both teams for series draws

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

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

C. Points allocation for losing teams in series losses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now for the other, equally mind-blowing streak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Australia have had plenty of such moments over the last nine years © Getty Images

As the title implies, this is an analytical look at the 100 Tests played by Australia between January 1, 2000 and now. This is a look at determining the extent of their dominance, the Why, and the possible What next.

There are a lot of similarities between the Australian cricket team and Roger Federer. Both dominated their respective games to a level unseen until now. Both had their achilles heal in the Indian team and Nadal respectively. However their overpowering performances during the rest of the period kept them right on top for a long time. They might have been beaten by lesser teams/players once in a while. But that did not make their conquerors World no.1.

When Djokovic defeated Federer at Melbourne, he did not move to (or claim) the No.1 position. Similarly with other players. It took one player, Nadal, to produce consistent top-drawer performances over a long period, across all surfaces, which propelled him to the top, displacing Federer. He won the Monte Carlo Open, Italian Open, German Open, French Open, Wimbledon, Canada Master's and Olympics and only then moved to the top position.

Even then, Federer only moved to No.2 and he showed the fire in him winning the US Open just as Australia have bounced back after their loss to India.

If India or South Africa want to unseat Australia, it is not sufficient that they beat Australia once a while. They have to back this up with consistent wins across the globe and against each other, and that too away. Until then neither team can claim the No.1 spot. Any views to the contrary are hollow and empty words.

Let us look at some tables summarising these 100 matches. These are mostly team-centric analysis with very few individual player references. The format of the tables has been designed to show the years and total horizontally to improve readability.

Summary of series results.

                Total       Won by      Won by
                Played    Australia   Other Team     Draw
All series        32          27           3           2
In Australia      17          15           -           2
Outside           15          12           3           -

The only series lost by Australia were against India during 2001 (1-2), against England during 2005 (1-2) and the recent one against India (0-2). The only series drawn were, surprisingly, both at home. The first one against New Zealand during 2001 (0-0) and the one against India during 2003-04 (1-1).

The three-Test series played against Pakistan during 2002, at Sri Lanka and UAE, has been taken as an away series. The ICC Test series (one match) has also been included in this table.

Only India have a good record against Australia. Of the five series played between these two teams during this period, two have been won by Australia, two by India and one drawn.

Summary of match results

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

All matches        8    14    11    12    14    15    10     4    12    100
Wins               8     8    10     8    10     9    10     4     5     72
Wins %         100.0  57.1  90.9  66.7  71.4  60.0 100.0 100.0  41.7   72.0
Losses             0     3     1     3     1     2     0     0     3     13
Losses %         0.0  21.4   9.1  25.0   7.1  13.3   0.0   0.0  25.0   13.0
Draws              0     3     0     1     3     4     0     0     4     15
Draws %          0.0  21.4   0.0   8.3  21.4  26.7   0.0   0.0  33.3   15.0
Inns wins          3     2     5     3     1     0     2     1     1     18
Inns wins %     37.5  14.3  45.5  25.0   7.1   0.0  20.0  25.0   8.3   18.0

Home matches       5     6     5     8     7     7     5     4     5     52
Home wins          5     3     5     5     5     6     5     4     3     41
Home wins %    100.0  50.0 100.0  62.5  71.4  85.7 100.0 100.0  60.0   78.8
Home losses        0     0     0     2     0     0     0     0     1      3
Home loss %      0.0   0.0   0.0  25.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0  20.0    5.8

Away matches       3     8     6     4     7     8     5     0     7     48
Away wins          3     5     5     3     5     3     5     0     2     31
Away wins %    100.0  62.5  83.3  75.0  71.4  37.5 100.0   0.0  28.6   64.6
Away losses        0     3     1     1     1     2     0     0     2     10
Away loss %      0.0  37.5  16.7  25.0  14.3  25.0   0.0   0.0  28.6   20.8

Barring small periods of vulnerability, Australia have dominated world cricket during the past nine years, as evidenced by these figures. They have an overall win record of 72% and a loss record of only 13%, only one in eight Tests. It is not that they are only dominant at home, as most teams are. Their home win % is 78.8% as compared to 64.6% outside.

During this period Australia have lost only three Tests at home. The first was the dead rubber Test (at 4-0) against England during 2003. The other two have been against India during 2003 and 2008 respectively, both in live situations. This is an imposing record.

Away from home, the maximum losses have been against India (5 times) followed by England (3 times). Overall Australia's draw % has been a low 15%. Barring recent times, they have always gone for a victory, risking a loss.

Australia's best years have been 2000, 2006 and 2007 when they had a 100% all-won record. Their worst year has been 2008 when they have won less than half the Tests, the only such year during this golden period. Another measure of their dominance has been the number of innings wins they have achieved, 18 in all, an amazing 18% overall. However it must be seen that 11 of these wins (nearly 25%) were achieved during the first four years and the numbers have fallen off recently. Important to note that, during these nine years, not once did Australia lose by an innings.

If one looks at Australia's recent record, say during 2007-08, they have played 16 Tests, won 9, lost 3 (all against India) and drawn 4 matches. This is not the sign of a dominating team, especially the high proportion of drawn matches. The South African series will be a clear pointer to the Australian revival from this minor slump. If they win 3-0 or 2-0, they would have established their dominance. If they win 1-0 or draw the series or lose, there will be a clear sign of fall.

Now let us look at possible contributing factors, both for the dominance and the (possible) fall from such a dominating position.

Summary of partnerships

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:Innings       13    25    17    21    27    29    18     7    22    179
Aus:Op >100        2     5     4     1     4     2     0     1     3     22
Aus:Op >100 %   15.4  20.0  23.5   4.8  14.8   6.9   0.0  14.3  13.6   12.3
Aus:Op <10         6     8     4     5     3     6     5     0     5     42
Aus:Op <10 %    46.2  32.0  23.5  23.8  11.1  20.7  27.8   0.0  22.7   23.5
Aus:Op runs      438  1546  1060   776  1458  1365   602   498  1015   8758
Aus:Op avge     33.7  61.8  62.4  37.0  54.0  47.1  33.4  71.1  46.1   48.9

Opp:Innings       16    27    22    24    28    30    20     8    24    199
Opp:Op >100        0     2     1     2     2     3     0     0     2     12
Opp:Op >100 %    0.0   7.4   4.5   8.3   7.1  10.0   0.0   0.0   8.3    6.0
Opp:Op <10         8     7     6    11     9     7     5     3     7     63
Opp:Op <10 %    61.5  28.0  35.3  52.4  33.3  24.1  27.8  42.9  31.8   35.2
Opp:Op runs      232  1031   778   784   732  1077   534   196  1031   6395
Opp:Op avge     17.8  41.2  45.8  37.3  27.1  37.1  29.7  28.0  46.9   35.7

During this period, Australia have had 12.3% of their opening partnerships exceeding 100. This is a very high proportion, on an average once every 4 Tests. Contrast this with the all-Test figure of 8.1%. Almost all these partnerships have had Hayden and more than half have been with Langer. Taking all aspects the best year was 2001-02 when they averaged over 60 for the opening partnership.

The opening failures have also been reasonable, at 23.5%. This compares favourably with the all-Test average for failures which is 28.7%.

Let us look at what the Australian opening bowlers have done. The opposing teams have missed playing only one of the second innings (during a rain-affected match against New Zealand during 2001) and have had only 6% of opening partnerships exceeding 100, below half of the Australian numbers and well below the all-Test figure of 8.1%. The failures have been similarly higher, at 35.2%, much higher than the all-Test value of 28.7%.

We have successfully identified the first two reasons. The success of the Australian opening batsmen and bowlers.

Late order batting

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:Last3wPtsh     8    17    12    12    22    22    11     3    18    125
Aus:Last3wRuns   491  1139   591   507  1093  1468   664   165  1090   7208
Aus:Last3wAvge  61.4  67.0  49.2  42.2  49.7  66.7  60.4  55.0  60.6   57.7

Opp:Last3wPtsh    16    25    20    22    26    27    18     8    20    182
Opp:Last3wRuns   613  1301   759  1018  1187  1246   819   347  1000   8290
Opp:Last3wAvge  38.3  52.0  38.0  46.3  45.7  46.1  45.5  43.4  50.0   45.5

The last Australian 3 wickets, when asked to perform, have averaged 57 runs, much higher than the all-Test average of 48. A credit to the batting skills of Warne, Gillespie et al. The corresponding opposite team number has been 45, somewhat comparable to the all time figure, no doubt bolstered by the recent Indian late-order batting exploits.

Team batting and bowling summary

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:BallsBwled  6909 12768  9420 11146 15176 14458 10076  3744 13252  96949
Aus:RunsScored  3942  8042  6279  7596  8994  8944  6125  2436  7300  59658
Aus:WktsTaken    160   248   215   224   257   281   191    80   211   1867
Aus: RpO        3.42  3.78  4.00  4.09  3.56  3.71  3.65  3.90  3.31   3.69
Aus: BpW        43.2  51.5  43.8  49.8  59.1  51.5  52.8  46.8  62.8   51.9
Aus:DiffBatRpO  0.57  0.60  0.98  0.95  0.58  0.47  0.55  1.00 -0.02   0.58
Aus:DiffBowS/R  23.9  27.4  30.7  48.4  -0.5  14.1  28.8  59.7   8.7   22.0

Opp:BallsBwled  6780 14286 10289 13738 13693 14487 10355  4047 13666 101341
Opp:RunsScored  3226  7554  5176  7172  6795  7833  5340  1962  7568  52626
Opp:WktsTaken    101   181   138   140   234   221   127    38   191   1371
Opp: RpO        2.85  3.17  3.02  3.13  2.98  3.24  3.09  2.91  3.32   3.12
Opp: BpW        67.1  78.9  74.6  98.1  58.5  65.6  81.5 106.5  71.5   73.9

The RpO figure during this period has started and finished at either side of 3.5 with a peak of around 4 during couple of years (2001-02). This is way above the all-Test figure of 2.79. The overall faster scoring was one of the main reasons for the Australian successes and the reduction in draws.

The overall bowling strike rate has been an excellent 52 balls per wicket, as compared to 68 overall. Once every 8+ overs means they were looking at dismissing an opposing team within a day's play.

The opposing teams have also been quite good with an overall RpO figure of 3.12. However they have been way below par in their strike rate value which is more than 70. However remember this includes 6 Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

I have also introduced couple of other factors, differential in nature. One is the difference between the Batting RpO values of Australia and the opposing teams. Australia have exceeded the other teams by an overall substantial value of 0.58. Only once, during the current year, have the other teams matched the Australian figures. Similarly Australia have consistently captured a wicket every 22 balls more frequently than the opposing teams. Only during 2004 have the other teams managed to better Australia's BpW figure.

Summary of innings scores

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:Comp Inns      7    13    10    10    19    18     8     2    16    103
Aus:Inns<100       0     0     0     0     1     0     0     0     0      1
Aus:Inns<100 %   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   5.3   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0    1.0
Aus:Inns          13    25    17    21    27    29    18     7    22    179
Aus:Inns>500       1     3     4     6     4     3     4     2     3     30
Aus:Inns>500 %   7.7  12.0  23.5  28.6  14.8  10.3  22.2  28.6  13.6   16.8

Opp:Comp Inns     16    19    21    20    24    26    17     8    18    169
Opp:Inns<100       1     0     3     1     3     0     0     0     0      8
Opp:Inns<100 %   6.2   0.0  14.3   5.0  12.5   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0    4.7
Opp:Inns          16    27    22    24    28    30    20     8    24    199
Opp:Inns>500       0     3     0     1     1     0     1     0     3      9
Opp:Inns>500 %   0.0  11.1   0.0   4.2   3.6   0.0   5.0   0.0  12.5    4.5

During these nine years only once have Australia been dismissed below 100. That was on the worst pitch ever created (in India at least), at Mumbai during 2004. They have exceeded 500 a whopping 16.8%, one in every six innings. These figures are overwhelming and point to a batting might, possibly comparable to the 1948 Australians. Look at 2003, when one in four of Australia's innings exceeded 500. Surprisingly this was not a great year for Australia since they lost three matches.

The opposing teams have been dismissed below 100 4.7% of the innings completed, slightly above the 3.84% overall. They have also exceeded 500 4.5% of the innings played, way below the overall 6.5%. Incidentally 7 of these 9 innings above 500 have been scored by India.

Finally the summarised reasons for the Australian domination. I would appreciate it if the readers do not write to me that these are obvious. These are not off-the-cuff subjective conclusions, as normally made. These are based on a thorough analysis and have been derived in an objective manner.

1. The success of the opening partnerships - both in terms of increased successes and considerably reduced failures.
2. The way the Australian opening bowlers have reversed the above trend, not allowing successes and the high number of breakthroughs very early in the innings.
3. An overall very high scoring rate.
4. A very high bowling strike rate despite the presence of the slightly lower-striking Shane Warne (57 bpw) throughout.
5. Rare batting failures and frequent batting successes in terms of innings scores.
6. The only reference to an individual in this team-centric analysis: one of the major reasons for Australian domination during these 9 years has been the performance of Adam Gilchrist, who scored 5130 runs at an average of 46.64 and effected 397 dismissals. That sort of all-round performance meant that Australia had invariably been able to play with an extra bowler/allrounder through the luxury of having Gilchrist bat at No.7.

What does the future hold for Australia. It is possible for Australia to lose their No.1 position, provided India maintains its very competitive recent Test performances, both home and away. They have to win away consistently and win at home comfortably. Similarly for the South Africans, with a lower degree of possibility. I am not certain whether any other team has the resources to test Australia over a long period. Pakistan lack a dynamic captain while England lack top-quality players.

Australia will go through a phase of re-building and will come back stronger. However the days of domination are probably over. The No.1 position will swing between 3-4 teams.

The same thing applies to Federer. He will win around 15-16 Grand Slam titles and probably go back to No.1, but not at the dominating level as exhibited earlier. So the similarities between Australian team and Federer will continue.