This is the follow-up article to the one analysing the batsmen performance in conditions related to bowler quality and pitch types. There were a number of very useful suggestions and after a careful study some of these have been implemented. There have been very sound arguments also that there is an element of double-counting and this method, in general, favours batsmen with very good bowling attacks backing them. This point is accepted. However it would be impossible for me to implement these radical suggestions without a lot of work, including quite a bit of validation. Hence I have gone ahead with the current method, modified suitably. The elimination of the double-counting and the development of a single evaluation factor will be done later.

]]>

1. Take the top-7(or fewer) partnerships rather than individual scores. This was suggested by Arjun again. The partnerships basis might very well end with similar numbers. However it seems to smoothen the outlier/out performer situation. If 320 for 2 was reached through 200, 50, 40 and 30, the 200 seems clearly to be a way-out performance and brings some attendant concerns. However in whichever way the partnerships have been formed, 100/100/120 or 150/20/150, the partnerships clearly convey the comfort feelings for distinct PAIRS of batsmen, rather than single batsman. This will obviate, to a great extent, the need to take off outliers.

3. However I do not want to miss out the low-3 scores, suggested by Anshu, since that normalizes the values. However this time I will take the individual scores since these represent clear failures. But I will be tougher and limit these failures to top-6 rather than top-7 since the top-6, barring stray no.7 guys like Gilchrist, (pre-WC-Win) Dhoni, Vettori et al, represent the real batsmen.

4. I will consider varying numbers for both these measures. Otherwise the impact will go out of proportion. The table is given below.

- Upto 5 innings in match: 3 + 2.
-  6 to 10 innings:        4 + 2.          
- 11 to 20 innings:        5 + 3.          
- 21 to 29 innings:        6 + 3.          
- 30 to 44 innings:        7 + 3.    
      

5. The final Bowler-Pitch index will be derived as a Geometric Mean (GM) of the BQI and RSI values. Both are basically runs. The GM has many benefits. It is ALWAYS a number between the smaller and arithmetic mean values. As the difference between the two numbers increases, it moves closer to the smaller number. And we never get out-of-the-range values.

6. Probably one mistake I made was to combine the first three groups as tough super groups. This set the cat amongst the pigeons. Richards' 82% was way out and readers spent quite some time on that. The first two groups are fine: they are really tough conditions. However the third one is the middle group in which many many runs are scored and should not have been combined with the first two groups. Hence I now have three super groups. The first one is the really tough one (5-4), the second one, the middle group (3) and the third one the easiest to bat against (2-1).

7. I have compiled the values for innings played and the batting averages for each group and have shown these important values, as asked for by many readers.

8. I am not going to give the individual group values. There is too much data. I will give only the summaries by the three super groups.

9. I have done the run-weighted BPI value for each batsman. However I will only show two tables of extreme values of this measure. The similarity of the numbers will warrant some obvious comments.

10. Look at the tough groups numbers carefully. The % of career score only indicates that the batsman faced tough conditions and made some runs on these more often in his career than a more fortunate peer. However an average of above 40 in the revised tough groups is something to sit up and take notice.

11.I have also given a table of selected innings for the top-3 groups. These are not presented as the best innings ever played. However these were made in very tough conditions, bowler-pitch wise. Some of these might be in this table because the bowlers behind the concerned batsmen were outstanding. But they certainly were special innings.

12.Finally I am going to present these tables with minimal comments. My hands are protesting.

1. Player wise distribution table by super groups

Batsman	Cty	Career	Career	Batting	Tough	Grps	(5-4)		Middle	Grp	(3)		Easy	Grps	(2-1)
		Inns	Runs	Avge	Inns	Runs	Avge	%	Inns	Runs	Avge	%	Inns	Runs	Avge	%
Tendulkar S.R	Ind	309	15432	55.71	58	1684	29.54	10.9%	117	5522	54.14	35.8%	134	8226	69.71	53.3%
Dravid R	Ind	284	13262	52.63	52	1554	31.71	11.7%	106	3924	39.64	29.6%	126	7784	74.85	58.7%
Ponting R.T	Aus	274	12915	52.50	47	1266	28.13	9.8%	104	4619	47.13	35.8%	123	7030	68.25	54.4%
Kallis J.H	Saf	254	12260	57.02	70	2337	37.10	19.1%	94	3910	48.88	31.9%	90	6013	83.51	49.0%
Lara B.C	Win	232	11953	52.89	91	3462	38.90	29.0%	76	3052	41.81	25.5%	65	5439	84.98	45.5%
Border A.R	Aus	265	11174	50.56	90	2858	38.62	25.6%	107	4386	47.16	39.3%	68	3930	72.78	35.2%
Waugh S.R	Aus	260	10927	51.06	74	2203	34.97	20.2%	94	4071	50.26	37.3%	92	4653	66.47	42.6%
Gavaskar S.M	Ind	214	10122	51.12	61	2177	38.19	21.5%	81	3459	43.78	34.2%	72	4486	72.35	44.3%
Jayawardene M	Slk	213	10089	50.44	52	1707	34.14	16.9%	68	2626	41.03	26.0%	93	5756	66.93	57.1%
Chanderpaul S	Win	234	9709	49.28	69	2147	35.20	22.1%	91	3501	45.47	36.1%	74	4061	68.83	41.8%
Sangakkara K.C	Slk	179	9347	55.97	36	1107	32.56	11.8%	62	3005	51.81	32.1%	81	5235	69.80	56.0%
Gooch G.A	Eng	215	8900	42.58	97	3250	34.57	36.5%	71	2971	43.06	33.4%	47	2679	58.24	30.1%
Javed Miandad	Pak	189	8832	52.57	63	2176	36.27	24.6%	67	2778	48.74	31.5%	59	3878	76.04	43.9%
Inzamam-ul-Haq	Pak	200	8830	49.61	48	1412	32.09	16.0%	82	3642	47.30	41.2%	70	3776	66.25	42.8%
Laxman V.V.S	Ind	223	8728	46.18	40	1058	27.84	12.1%	82	2894	40.19	33.2%	101	4776	60.46	54.7%
Hayden M.L	Aus	184	8626	50.74	30	1064	35.47	12.3%	72	2978	44.45	34.5%	82	4584	62.79	53.1%
Richards I.V.A	Win	182	8540	50.24	57	2370	43.09	27.8%	78	3547	47.93	41.5%	47	2623	63.98	30.7%
Stewart A.J	Eng	235	8465	39.56	97	2716	30.52	32.1%	86	3262	41.29	38.5%	52	2487	54.07	29.4%
Gower D.I	Eng	204	8231	44.25	85	2720	34.00	33.0%	75	3132	45.39	38.1%	44	2379	64.30	28.9%
Boycott G	Eng	193	8114	47.73	62	1925	33.77	23.7%	84	4023	52.93	49.6%	47	2166	58.54	26.7%
Sehwag V	Ind	165	8098	50.93	30	740	24.67	9.1%	49	1859	40.41	23.0%	86	5499	66.25	67.9%
Sobers G.St.A	Win	160	8032	57.78	43	1362	32.43	17.0%	58	2757	54.06	34.3%	59	3913	85.07	48.7%
Waugh M.E	Aus	209	8029	41.82	62	2261	40.38	28.2%	84	2879	36.91	35.9%	63	2889	49.81	36.0%
Smith G.C	Saf	168	7761	49.43	32	1015	32.74	13.1%	60	2387	41.88	30.8%	76	4359	63.17	56.2%
Atherton M.A	Eng	212	7728	37.70	96	2555	26.89	33.1%	79	3202	42.69	41.4%	37	1971	56.31	25.5%
Langer J.L	Aus	182	7696	45.27	44	953	21.66	12.4%	63	3172	54.69	41.2%	75	3571	52.51	46.4%
Cowdrey M.C	Eng	188	7624	44.07	73	2306	33.42	30.2%	79	3392	48.46	44.5%	36	1926	56.65	25.3%
Greenidge C.G	Win	185	7558	44.72	58	1824	32.00	24.1%	77	3239	46.27	42.9%	50	2495	59.40	33.0%
Mohammad Yousuf	Pak	156	7530	52.29	42	1175	30.13	15.6%	52	1941	38.06	25.8%	62	4414	81.74	58.6%
Taylor M.A	Aus	186	7525	43.50	53	1509	30.80	20.1%	73	2941	43.25	39.1%	60	3075	54.91	40.9%
Lloyd C.H	Win	175	7515	46.68	53	1963	39.26	26.1%	68	2772	46.98	36.9%	54	2780	53.46	37.0%
Haynes D.L	Win	202	7487	42.30	66	2242	35.59	29.9%	85	2860	39.72	38.2%	51	2385	56.79	31.9%
Boon D.C	Aus	190	7422	43.66	54	1747	34.94	23.5%	69	2222	35.84	29.9%	67	3453	59.53	46.5%
Kirsten G	Saf	176	7289	45.27	62	1512	26.07	20.7%	65	2802	46.70	38.4%	49	2975	69.19	40.8%
Hammond W.R	Eng	140	7249	58.46	14	319	26.58	4.4%	33	1214	39.16	16.7%	93	5716	70.57	78.9%
Ganguly S.C	Ind	188	7212	42.18	39	937	27.56	13.0%	73	2585	38.01	35.8%	76	3690	53.48	51.2%
Fleming S.P	Nzl	189	7172	40.07	64	1471	23.73	20.5%	83	3757	48.17	52.4%	42	1944	49.85	27.1%
Chappell G.S	Aus	151	7110	53.86	59	2037	38.43	28.6%	54	2461	52.36	34.6%	38	2612	81.62	36.7%
Bradman D.G	Aus	80	6996	99.94	11	537	53.70	7.7%	23	2275	98.91	32.5%	46	4184	113.08	59.8%
Flower A	Zim	112	4794	51.55	47	1263	30.07	26.3%	35	1313	45.28	27.4%	30	2218	100.82	46.3%

I am not going to do too much elaboration but will allow the readers to do their own interpretations. Now that the innings and batting averages are shown some points will be obvious.

1. It can be seen that batsmen like Botham, Wood, May et al have the tough super group % as 40+. However it can also be seen that they have all played around 50% of their innings in these groups.
2. There was a comment that batsmen from same teams had similar numbers. This is effectively disproved now. Ponting is 9.8%, Mark Waugh is 28.2%, Martyn 23.4%, Clarke 16.5% and Gilchrist 16.9%. Haynes 29.9%, Greenidge 24.1% and Lloyd 26.1%. Jayawardene is 16.9% and Sangakkara is 11.8%, with similar averages. And so on.
3. Clarke and Gilchrist have tough group averages exceeding 40. The best is McDonald/Bradman with 53+ and R.Mclean with 50+.
4. Kumble's tough group % is 22+ and Dravid's 11.7%. This does not mean anything. However the averages are 13.4 and 31.7. So read and interpret these numbers with care.
5. Slice and dice in whichever way you want to, Hammond props up the tables.

2. Top batsmen by run-weighted BQI values

Batsman	Cty	Career	Batting	Weighted
		Runs	Avge	BPI
McLean R.A	Saf	2120	30.29	41.2
Ramprakash M.R	Eng	2350	27.33	41.5
Howarth G.P	Nzl	2531	32.45	42.0
McDonald C.C	Aus	3107	39.33	43.0
Wood G.M	Aus	3374	31.83	43.0
Waite J.H.B	Saf	2405	30.44	43.2
Botham I.T	Eng	5200	33.55	43.4
Bailey T.E	Eng	2290	29.74	43.5
Hughes K.J	Aus	4415	37.42	43.6
Greig A.W	Eng	3599	40.44	43.6
Hudson A.C	Saf	2007	33.45	43.6
Benaud R	Aus	2201	24.46	43.7
Goddard T.L	Saf	2516	34.47	43.8
Wasim Raja	Pak	2821	36.17	43.8
Coney J.V	Nzl	2668	37.58	43.8
Gregory S.E	Aus	2282	24.54	43.9
Randall D.W	Eng	2470	33.38	44.0
May P.B.H	Eng	4537	46.77	44.1
Cronje W.J	Saf	3714	36.41	44.1
Rhodes J.N	Saf	2532	35.66	44.1

These are the top batsmen based on the run-weighted BPI values. McLean and Ramprakash lead the field. Most batsmen are in the 1950s-80s period.No modern batsman figures in the top-20. No sub-continental batsman is in the top-20. They all have 45+ values. A few unfancied batsmen like Ramprakash, Wood, Hughes, Howarth have made into this list.

3. Bottom batsmen by run-weighted BQI values

Batsman	Cty	Career	Batting	Weighted
		Runs	Avge	BPI
Cook A.N	Eng	5876	48.97	52.9
Trott I.J.L	Eng	2031	56.42	53.4
Ponsford W.H	Aus	2122	48.23	53.6
Jones A.H	Nzl	2922	44.27	53.8
Washbrook C	Eng	2569	42.82	54.1
Headley G.A	Win	2190	60.83	54.2
Hendren E.H	Eng	3525	47.64	54.2
Edrich W.J	Eng	2440	40.00	55.2
Hammond W.R	Eng	7249	58.46	55.4
Ames L.E.G	Eng	2434	40.57	57.2

This is the other end. Many modern batsmen and batsmen from the 1920s figure here. Somehow Ames has managed to push Hammond off the last place. Cook and Trott are the leading batsmen of today who have found their place here. Most of today's top batsmen are around the 50 mark.

4. Selected innings which crossed the BPI zone of excellence

MtNo	Year	Batsman	For	Vs	BatPos	Runs	BPI Grp	BPI	Result
788	1976	Amiss D.L	Eng	Ind	OP	179	5	34.9	Won
23	1886	Shrewsbury A	Eng	Aus	3	164	5	35.0	Won
361	1952	Endean W.R	Saf	Aus	3	162	5	35.0	Won
331	1951	Simpson R.T	Eng	Aus	3	156	5	33.6	Won
1171	1991	Gooch G.A	Eng	Win	OP	154	5	32.4	Won
45	1895	Graham H	Aus	Eng	5	105	5	29.1	Won
915	1981	Hughes K.J	Aus	Win	5	100	5	28.9	Won
827	1978	Sadiq Mohammad	Pak	Eng	2	97	5	26.6	Drawn
45	1895	Trott A.E	Aus	Eng	9	85	5	29.1	Won
890	1980	Wasim Raja	Pak	Win	6	77	5	29.1	Drawn
1056	1986	Greenidge C.G	Win	Pak	1	75	5	26.1	Won
1773	2005	Lara B.C	Win	Aus	4	226	4	40.6	Lost
1451	1999	Lara B.C	Win	Aus	4	213	4	41.4	Won
1070	1987	Greenidge C.G	Win	Nzl	OP	213	4	40.8	Won
258	1937	Bradman D.G	Aus	Eng	3	212	4	41.6	Won
42	1894	Gregory S.E	Aus	Eng	6	201	4	38.8	Lost
593	1965	Edrich J.H	Eng	Nzl	OP	310	3	49.2	Won
236	1934	Bradman D.G	Aus	Eng	5	304	3	48.2	Drawn
1641	2003	Fleming S.P	Nzl	Slk	3	274	3	47.3	Drawn
671	1970	Pollock R.G	Saf	Aus	4	274	3	47.5	Won
1697	2004	Dravid R	Ind	Pak	3	270	3	48.7	Won
257	1937	Bradman D.G	Aus	Eng	7	270	3	44.2	Won
1743	2005	Younis Khan	Pak	Ind	3	267	3	48.3	Won
1358	1997	Young B.A	Nzl	Slk	OP	267	3	49.2	Won
1271	1994	Houghton D.L	Zim	Slk	4	266	3	47.8	Drawn
1800	2006	Fleming S.P	Nzl	Saf	3	262	3	49.0	Drawn
1716	2004	Jayasuriya S.T	Slk	Pak	OP	253	3	43.8	Won
845	1979	Bacchus S.F.A.F	Win	Ind	2	250	3	49.6	Drawn

I am sure there would be adverse comments on this table. Individual innings will be commented upon saying they do not belong here. Possibly they do not. However these were very good innings played, whose inclusion here is based on the parameters set. Any list which includes Gooch's 154, Lara's 223/213, Hughes' 100, Bradman's 212/270/304, Greenidge's 213, Graeme Pollock's 274, Dravid's 270, Jayasuriya's 253 et al cannot really be a bad table. These innings would fill almost anyone's list of top-25 or so innings. The selection criteria is a composite one involving Runs, BPI group and BPI value.

To download/view the document containing the Bowler-Pitch-Index values for 7340 innings, please click/right-click here.

To download/view the document containing the Player tables for selected 261 batsmen tables please click/right-click here.

]]> tag:blogs.espncricinfo.com,2012:/itfigures//123.27010 2012-01-17T07:06:09Z 2012-02-04T06:32:40Z

Kim Hughes has scored 88% of his career runs in tough batting conditions © Getty Images

Finally the time has come for me to complete the analysis of batsmen by two important factors, Bowler quality and Pitch quality. This exercise was started about 7 months back and has moved on wonderfully well with meaningful insights from many readers. In my earlier two articles I had covered the BQI and RSI ("Runs scored index": revised name for Pitch quality) methodologies. As has happened quite frequently lately, the article, with over 10 tables and 4 graphs, has become very long and I necessarily have to split it into two articles.

]]> BQI is a pre-match estimate of the bowling quality expected, based on the career-to-date home/away averages, he location of the Test and the recent form of players. There is a provision to handle the early Tests of top bowlers. The final grouping is given below.

15.0 - 27.0: Group 5 -  998 (13.7%) Amongst the best of all time
27.0 - 32.0: Group 4 - 1675 (22.6%) A very good attack
32.0 - 38.0: Group 3 - 2111 (28.5%) Good attack   
38.0 - 45.0: Group 2 - 1596 (21.5%) Below average       
45.0 - 60.0: Group 1 -  953 (13.7%) A poor attack

RSI is a post-match determination of the ease of scoring in the Test. This is done by considering the top-10 scores and determining the Runs per innings. The final grouping is given below. This has been slightly modified from the previous article. The lower limit was raised and the upper limit was lowered since otherwise there were too few matches in these end categories.

Below  45.0: Group 5 - 224 (11.0%) A nightmare for the batsmen
45.0 - 55.0: Group 4 - 330 (16.3%) Quite difficult to bat on
55.0 - 67.5: Group 3 - 516 (25.4%) Good pitch - favouring bowlers
67.5 - 80.0: Group 2 - 499 (24.1%) Good pitch - favouring batsmen
80.0 - 90.0: Group 1 - 269 (13.3%) A high-scoring pitch.
Above 90.0 : Group 0 - 200 ( 9.9%) Where the bowlers are cannon-fodder.

To determine the impact of the bowling quality and the pitch quality, my first idea was to add the two values and determine groups based on that. Both measures are indicative of runs. However that was a non-starter since the range of RSI values was much wider and it was not a normal distribution unlike the BQI values which were normally distributed. BQI is a traditional average (Runs per wicket) while RSI consists of the average of the top-10 values. Adding these two resulted in a lopsided distribution and proper grouping was impossible.

Hence I finalized on adding the two group values. Here there were no such problems. The ranges were similar and there was no lopsided distribution. This method takes care of close matches between well-matched teams as also lop-sided matches such as between Australia and Zimbabwe or currently Australia and India. The extreme groups are exactly what they are portrayed as: impossible to bat on or impossible to bowl on. Let us briefly look at the numbers derived by adding the same.

10 / 9 : At least one 5. Nothing below 4. A batsman's nightmare.
 8 / 7 : At least one 4. Nothing below 2. A bowler dominated pitch.
 6 / 5 : 1 or 0 means a 5 comes in. 3 is a key number either way. 
Fair to batsmen and bowlers.
 4 / 3 : Max BQI is 4 and max RSI is 3. Possibly formed with 1s/2s. 
Strongly batsman-dominant pitch.
 2 / 1 : Either 2 & 0 or 1 & 1 or 1 and 0. A bowler's graveyard.

The final BPI groups are outlined below.

10 -  156
 9 -  404  Group total:  560 ( 7.6%) PLATINUM group. 
              Scoring runs is extremely tough.
 8 -  702
 7 - 1115  Group total: 1817 (24.8%) GOLD group. 
              Scoring runs is very difficult.
 6 - 1416
 5 - 1345  Group total: 2761 (37.6%) SILVER group. 
               Possible to score runs, but lot of application called for.
 4 - 1090
 3 -  707  Group total: 1797 (24.5%) BRONZE group. 
              Scoring runs is very easy.
 2 -  315
 1 -   86  Group total:  401 ( 5.5%) TIN group. 
              Free runs served on the buffet table.

It should be understood that this analysis has some inherent features, outlined below.

1. This analysis takes into account Bowling and Pitch qualities, which form one cornerstone of an Innings Ratings analysis. As such the match-specific factors such as match status, innings status, position at entry, result, support received, management of late-order batsmen et al are not considered.

2. It will favour batsmen coming from bowler-dominated countries like New Zealand, England.

3. The sub-continent batsmen will lose some of their sheen.

4. High individual scores will almost always be associated with high RSI values. Hence these scores are likely to be valued less. It is possible that this could be compensated partly by the bowling quality. For instance Laxman's classic of 281 has a RSI of 0 but a BQI of 4. Similar numbers for Sehwag's 319. Jayasuriya's 340 has 0 and 1. Clarke's 329 has 0 and 2. On the other hand, Hammond's 336 has 3 and 1. And so on. Warner's 180 gets a 4 and 2 (the Indian attack quite average).

5. The purpose of the analysis is to look a new dimension of batting (i-e) from the Bowling and Pitch points of view. There is no intention to put down certain players. Please do not come out with such comments. These will not be recognized.

Incidentally I consider these three groups, viz., Platinum, Gold and Silver as the tough and challenging conditions. These comprise of 6 BPI groups and represent 61.3% of the total runs. There might be fluctuations within these groups. However runs scored in these conditions should be accorded the tough-runs category. Later in this article I will do an analysis based on the runs scored in these three challenging conditions.

Now for a different summary. This table summarizes the group runs for the subset of 266 batsmen selected for this analysis. The cut-off is 2000 Test runs. This sample size is very significant and represents about 60% of the total runs scored.

PLATINUM group:    45228 runs ( 3.9%)
GOLD group:       220331 runs (19.2%)
SILVER group:     438904 runs (38.2%)  Tough groups:  704463 runs (61.3%)
BRONZE group:     350118 runs (30.5%)
TIN group:         93731 runs ( 8.6%)  Easier groups: 443849 runs (38.7%)
                                       Total:        1148312 runs (100.0%)

Player Group wise distribution table

Batsman	Cty	Career	Platinum	(10-9)	Gold	(8-7)	Silver	(6-5)	Tough	Grps	Bronze	(4-3)	Tin	(2-1)	Easy	Grps
		Runs	Runs	%	Runs	%	Runs	%	Runs	%	Runs	%	Runs	%	Runs	%
Tendulkar	Ind	15432	408	2.6	1750	11.3	4880	31.6	7038	45.6	6542	42.4	1852	12.0	8394	54.4
Dravid	Ind	13262	322	2.4	1797	13.5	4133	31.2	6252	47.1	5720	43.1	1290	9.7	7010	52.9
Ponting	Aus	12915	254	2.0	989	7.7	5509	42.7	6752	52.3	4753	36.8	1410	10.9	6163	47.7
Kallis	Saf	12260	99	0.8	2179	17.8	4602	37.5	6880	56.1	3394	27.7	1986	16.2	5380	43.9
Lara	Win	11953	563	4.7	2829	23.7	3985	33.3	7377	61.7	4224	35.3	352	2.9	4576	38.3
Border	Aus	11174	470	4.2	2286	20.5	4624	41.4	7380	66.0	3242	29.0	552	4.9	3794	34.0
Waugh S.R	Aus	10927	373	3.4	1677	15.3	4605	42.1	6655	60.9	3472	31.8	800	7.3	4272	39.1
Gavaskar	Ind	10122	395	3.9	2031	20.1	3994	39.5	6420	63.4	2779	27.5	923	9.1	3702	36.6
Jayawardene	Slk	10089	213	2.1	1301	12.9	3526	34.9	5040	50.0	3780	37.5	1269	12.6	5049	50.0
Chanderpaul	Win	9709	478	4.9	1959	20.2	3663	37.7	6100	62.8	2736	28.2	873	9.0	3609	37.2
Sangakkara	Slk	9347	36	0.4	1255	13.4	3729	39.9	5020	53.7	3014	32.2	1313	14.0	4327	46.3
Gooch	Eng	8900	676	7.6	2795	31.4	3077	34.6	6548	73.6	1811	20.3	541	6.1	2352	26.4
J Miandad	Pak	8832	270	3.1	2282	25.8	2860	32.4	5412	61.3	2538	28.7	882	10.0	3420	38.7
Inzamam	Pak	8830	169	1.9	1322	15.0	3584	40.6	5075	57.5	3580	40.5	175	2.0	3755	42.5
Laxman	Ind	8728	384	4.4	1070	12.3	2541	29.1	3995	45.8	3533	40.5	1200	13.7	4733	54.2
Hayden	Aus	8626	253	2.9	803	9.3	3281	38.0	4337	50.3	2977	34.5	1312	15.2	4289	49.7
Richards	Win	8540	425	5.0	2145	25.1	4460	52.2	7030	82.3	1371	16.1	139	1.6	1510	17.7
Stewart	Eng	8465	729	8.6	2573	30.4	3264	38.6	6566	77.6	1611	19.0	288	3.4	1899	22.4
Gower	Eng	8231	313	3.8	2208	26.8	3364	40.9	5885	71.5	2211	26.9	135	1.6	2346	28.5
Boycott	Eng	8114	272	3.4	1515	18.7	4032	49.7	5819	71.7	2117	26.1	178	2.2	2295	28.3
Sehwag	Ind	8098	148	1.8	761	9.4	1810	22.4	2719	33.6	3824	47.2	1555	19.2	5379	66.4
Sobers	Win	8032	114	1.4	1115	13.9	3995	49.7	5224	65.0	2358	29.4	450	5.6	2808	35.0
Waugh M.E	Aus	8029	220	2.7	1720	21.4	3478	43.3	5418	67.5	2356	29.3	255	3.2	2611	32.5
Smith G.C	Saf	7761	0	0.0	966	12.4	2702	34.8	3668	47.3	3204	41.3	889	11.5	4093	52.7
Atherton	Eng	7728	527	6.8	2710	35.1	3098	40.1	6335	82.0	1146	14.8	247	3.2	1393	18.0
Hammond	Eng	7249	31	0.4	322	4.4	1595	22.0	1948	26.9	3122	43.1	2179	30.1	5301	73.1
Fleming	Nzl	7172	328	4.6	1138	15.9	3623	50.5	5089	71.0	1986	27.7	97	1.4	2083	29.0
Bradman	Aus	6996	0	0.0	716	10.2	2207	31.5	2923	41.8	2998	42.9	1075	15.4	4073	58.2
Hutton	Eng	6971	533	7.6	862	12.4	1948	27.9	3343	48.0	1934	27.7	1694	24.3	3628	52.0
May	Eng	4537	544	12.0	1806	39.8	1293	28.5	3643	80.3	605	13.3	289	6.4	894	19.7
Flower A	Zim	4794	354	7.4	781	16.3	1503	31.4	2638	55.0	1616	33.7	540	11.3	2156	45.0
H Bashar	Bng	3026	207	6.8	580	19.2	1139	37.6	1926	63.6	1100	36.4	0	0.0	1100	36.4

The table is self-explanatory. The table consists of the top-25 batsman, by aggregate of runs and five special selections. Bradman and Hammond represent the pre-WW2 era, Hutton and May, the 1950s-60s and Fleming, New Zealand. There is a case for Martin Crowe's inclusion but 1700 runs was too much to ignore. Andy Flower and Habibul Basher represent Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.The complete Excel sheet containing the group-wise breakdown for the qualifying 266 batsmen can be downloaded and perused.

Graph of career runs ordered by runs scored against tough and easy groups © Anantha Narayanan

This graph splits the batsman career runs by the tougher groups (10-5) and easier groups (4-1). Since the overall average for the tough groups runs is around 60%, it is fair to assume that a tough group runs % of above 50 should be acceptable. The Indian quartet of Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag are all below 50%. As does Graeme Smith. However it can be seen that both the pre-WW2 stalwarts, Bradman and Hammond are also below 50%. In fact Hammond's 26.9% is the lowest, by a wide margin, amongst all established players. Let us spare a moment for Peter May whose tough-runs % is in excess of 80, amongst the highest in this group.

Graph of percentage of career runs scored against tough groups © Anantha Narayanan

In this graph, I have shown the batsmen, at the top and bottom of the ladder of tough-groups run %. The very much under-rated Australian batsman, Kim Hughes, leads the table having scored an amazing 88% of his runs in these tough conditions. Spare a moment to recognize this achievement. Ian Botham, again under-rated as a batsmen, has also scored 88% of his runs in tough conditions. Warne might have got his measure, but Cullinan was no bunny, coming in third with 82.8%. Richards is a surprise placement at fourth ad Atherton in the fifth position. The top 20 positions has no current player. The nearest we get to a modern player is Graham Thorpe (and Nasser Hussain). The best India batsman is Viswanath, with 77.7%. For these graphs I have considered only batsmen who have scored 4000 or more runs.

At the other end, we have the Indian stalwarts, Laxman, Tendulkar and Sehwag. Bradman and Sutcliffe are also in the bottom 10. Hammond props up the table with 26.9%.

Platinum Group (Groups 9 and 10) tables

Batsman Team Career Runs Runs %           Harvey R.N Aus 6149 913 14.8 May P.B.H Eng 4537 544 12.0 Lamb A.J Eng 4656 471 10.1 Smith R.A Eng 4236 399 9.4 Hughes K.J Aus 4415 397 9.0 Stewart A.J Eng 8465 729 8.6 Richardson R.B Win 5949 472 7.9 Knott A.P.E Eng 4389 339 7.7 Botham I.T Eng 5200 402 7.7 Hooper C.L Win 5762 443 7.7

Batsman Team Career Runs Runs %           Harvey R.N Aus 6149 913 14.8 Stewart A.J Eng 8465 729 8.6 Gooch G.A Eng 8900 676 7.6 Lara B.C Win 11953 563 4.7 May P.B.H Eng 4537 544 12.0 Hutton L Eng 6971 533 7.6 Atherton M.A Eng 7728 527 6.8 Cowdrey M.C Eng 7624 519 6.8 Thorpe G.P Eng 6744 510 7.6 Chanderpaul S Win 9709 478 4.9

The presence of Harvey and May in the top two positions in the % of career runs indicates that run scoring during the 1950s-60s was tough and these runs should mean more. The list then moves to the 80s-90s. Almost all the later players are from this period. I am almost certain that no one from this list of top-10 would get into any list of top-10 batsmen. But the lowest placed batsman on this has scored more than 7% of his runs in the toughest of conditions. Hats off to them.

The second table contains the Platinum group batsmen ordered on the runs scored. Harvey is again on top. What a great batsman he was? Then the English stalwarts, Stewart and Gooch, who spent half their careers facing the West Indian quicks. Lara represents the modern era. Not many runs, and less than 5%, but more than anyone else of this period. May, Hutton and Cowdrey of the 50s-60s come in. Surprising inclusions are Thorpe and Chanderpaul.

Gold Group (Groups 7 and 8) tables

Batsman Team Career Runs Runs %           May P.B.H Eng 4537 1806 39.8 Atherton M.A Eng 7728 2710 35.1 Botham I.T Eng 5200 1750 33.7 Hughes K.J Aus 4415 1456 33.0 Gooch G.A Eng 8900 2795 31.4 Thorpe G.P Eng 6744 2087 30.9 Stewart A.J Eng 8465 2573 30.4 Hussain N Eng 5764 1746 30.3 Graveney T.W Eng 4882 1473 30.2 Redpath I.R Aus 4737 1428 30.1

Batsman Team Career Runs Runs %           Lara B.C Win 11953 2829 23.7 Gooch G.A Eng 8900 2795 31.4 Atherton M.A Eng 7728 2710 35.1 Stewart A.J Eng 8465 2573 30.4 Border A.R Aus 11174 2286 20.5 Javed Miandad Pak 8832 2282 25.8 Gower D.I Eng 8231 2208 26.8 Kallis J.H Saf 12260 2179 17.8 Haynes D.L Win 7487 2178 29.1 Richards I.V.A Win 8540 2145 25.1

The Gold Group tables, representing the batsmen who have performed very well against very tough conditions also follows a similar path. This table is almost totally dominated by the English batsmen from 1950-2000. This clearly indicates that the conditions in England were such and the English batsmen also travelled reasonably well. It is of interest to note that May has scored over 50% of his runs in the toughest of conditions. And Gooch, nearly 40%. Atherton deserves a separate mention,. And what about Botham as a batsman, a third of his runs on these conditions. Spare a thought for the much maligned Kim Hughes, one of only two Australians.

In the table ordered on runs scored, Lara leads by a few runs from Gooch and Atherton. This confirms that Lara scored many of his runs in tough situations. Javed Miandad's presence in the later table is a welcome introduction of an Asian batsman and speaks of his class.

Silver Group (Groups 6 and 5) tables

Batsman	Team	Career Runs	Runs	%
Cullinan D.J	Saf	4554	2999	65.9
Kallicharran A.I	Win	4399	2488	56.6
Viswanath G.R	Ind	6080	3203	52.7
Richards I.V.A	Win	8540	4460	52.2
Lloyd C.H	Win	7515	3838	51.1
Fleming S.P	Nzl	7172	3623	50.5
Greenidge C.G	Win	7558	3792	50.2
Boycott G	Eng	8114	4032	49.7
Sobers G.St.A	Win	8032	3995	49.7
Boucher M.V	Saf	5407	2583	47.8

This is the middle group and should and does see a lot of runs scored. Cullinan might have been a Warne-bunny but he sure scored over 65% of his runs in this middle not-so-easy conditions. Viswanath is the leading Indian here having scored over 50% of his runs. Some famous batsmen, viz., Richards, Lloyd, Sobers, Greenidge have scored around 50%. Boucher is a surprising addition here. He seems to have scored quite a bit of his tally in this group. It is possible that he has scored more at home than away.

I have not got a separate table ordered on runs. Suffice to say that the most runs have been scored by Ponting, with 5509 runs, Tendulkar, with 4880 runs and Border, with 4624 runs.

Bronze Group (Groups 4 and 3) tables

Batsman	Team	Career Runs	Runs	%
Younis Khan	Pak	6205	3717	59.9
Zaheer Abbas	Pak	5062	2527	49.9
Mohammad Yousuf	Pak	7530	3698	49.1
Sehwag V	Ind	8088	3824	47.3
Dilshan T.M	Slk	4662	2164	46.4
Sutcliffe H	Eng	4555	1992	43.7
Dravid R	Ind	13206	5720	43.3
Hammond W.R	Eng	7249	3122	43.1
Bradman D.G	Aus	6996	2998	42.9
Hussey M.E.K	Aus	5435	2323	42.7

The Bronze table represents the runs scored in conditions which are strongly in favour of the batsmen. Now you can see the entry of almost all top batsmen, including Bradman and Hammond coming in. Younis Khan is the only batsman to get well over the 50% mark of his career runs. Zaheer Abbas and Mohd Yousuf are around 50%. Then Sehwag, with 47.3%. It is of interest to note that the table is headed by modern batsmen and batsmen of the pre-WW2 vintage. There is not one batsman from the 1950s to 1980s.

Again I have not got a separate table ordered on runs. Suffice to say that the most runs have been scored by Tendulkar, with 6542 runs, Dravid, with 5720 runs and Ponting, with 4753 runs. These are the top three run-getters in Tests.

Tin Group (Groups 2 and 1) tables

Batsman	Team	Career Runs	Runs	%
Hammond W.R	Eng	7249	2179	30.1
Hutton L	Eng	6971	1694	24.3
Compton D.C.S	Eng	5807	1339	23.1
Cook A.N	Eng	5868	1151	19.6
EdeC Weekes	Win	4455	870	19.5
Sehwag V	Ind	8088	1555	19.2
Gayle C.H	Win	6373	1172	18.4
Samaraweera T.T	Slk	5022	916	18.2
de Villiers A.B	Saf	5239	909	17.4
Kallis J.H	Saf	12260	1986	16.2

These are the easiest of runs. The pitches are flattest of flat and the bowling extremely benign. This is a surprising mix of the 1930s, 1950s, 1960s and 200s period batsmen. However more than half are from the current lot of batsmen.

Again no separate table ordered on runs. Suffice to say that the most runs have been scored by Hammond, with 2179 runs, Kallis, with 1986 runs and Tendulkar, with 1852 runs. Incidentally Lara, amongst modern batsman has a very low tally of these easy runs, with 352. Inzamam- ul-haq has only 175 runs and Richards, only 139 runs.

Some preliminary conclusions can be drawn. The conditions for batsmen were favourable to the batsmen during the pre-WW2 period. Then during the next 50 years or so, the conditions became more favourable for bowlers. This was also partly due to the rather low scoring rates of 1950s-60s. Then over the past 15 years, the conditions have become more favourable to the batsmen. Partly also because of the faster scoring and the consequent benefits. And the English batsmen of the post-WW2 period have had the toughest of conditions to make runs.

This is a fascinating set of tables. The significant positions are filled by lesser batsmen. This is a natural outcome when players score well over 10000 runs. There are significant questions to be answered. Lara is the only top scorer to have found a place in a Platinum or Gold table. And the nearest to him is Chanderpaul. Why? Also the volume of runs and the averages are used freely when talking about batsmen. This analysis shows the importance of looking at the match conditions in which these runs were scored. Forgotten batsmen like Hughes and Cullinan stand out. The value of runs scored by Richards, Atherton, Viswanath, Gooch et al stands enhanced. Readers' comments on these important points will be most welcome. Again, let me remind everyone. Please make objective comments and avoid accusations. This analysis is about 266 batsmen and not one or two.

To download/view the document containing the Player tables for selected 261 batsmen tables please click/right-click here.

In the next part of the article I will cover the following.

1. The Batsman tables based on the run-weighted BPI values.
2. Graphs for above, both top-30 batsmen and high and low values.
3. Career details of runs and relevant BPI group for 5 selected players, total, home and away.
4. A selection of top innings played in the Platinum and Gold groups.

Incidentally I have written another article, not an analytical one, for another site. I thought it would be good for the interested readers to peruse the same. I have uploaded the MSWord file and provided the link below. Please click/right-click here. ]]> tag:blogs.espncricinfo.com,2012:/itfigures//123.26806 2012-01-03T06:00:57Z 2012-02-04T06:32:52Z

A detailed analysis of pitches using Runs-per-wicket and Balls-per-wicket values

Anantha Narayanan Shane Bond in the Hamilton Test match in 2002 when 36 wickets fell for just 507 runs © Photosport

This is the second of three very important and significant articles on batting performances against differing conditions and players. The first did a revised take on the Bowling Quality Index. This one covers the Pitch Quality and the third one would combine both and do an analysis of runs scored by batsmen.

]]>

Over the past two weeks, the six of us have shared the work and downloaded over 600 scorecards. I have incorporated the balls played information for all these and also took the opportunity to post the 4s/6s information also. Now my database is looking wonderful with 1374 scorecards (68% - a far cry from 37%) containing balls played and 4s/6s data. From match no 1070 (1987), I have an unbroken sequence of 957 scorecards with complete data. This opens up many new avenues of analysis, especially in the analysis of boundaries hit.

Once again my heartfelt thanks to Raghav, Boll, Rameshkumar, Ranga and Anshu, who spent hours during the holiday season. May their tribe flourish.

There is nothing to be gained by looking at history to determine the quality of pitch. The following example will convince anyone on the futility of such a view. Let us look at happenings in the same ground, Hamilton, in two matches played within 12 months of each other.

Tale of two Tests at Hamilton

2003: Ind 99 ao & 154 ao. Nzl 94 ao and 160 for 6. 36 wkts at 14.1.
2003: Nzl 563 ao & 96/8. Pak 463 ao. 28 wkts at 40.1, despite the last innings.

Let us move north for a few thousand kilometres from the Waikato river to Sabarmathi river and into dusty Ahmedabad. Again two matches within an year of each other.

India at Ahmedabad within a 18-month period

2008: India 76 ao against South Africa. RpW: 33.2.
2009: India 760/7 against Sri Lanka. RpW: 76.1.

If I averaged these two figures and come out with 400 or so, I would be correctly laughed off the pitch. That is the type of mistake non-informed and superficial analysts would do. So I am not going to look at history. There are hundreds of such examples. There is nothing worse than averaging such widely varying values.

Instead I am going to look only at the specific match. I am not also going to make the mistake of going down to innings. The recent match from "The Twilight Zone" at Cape Town is enough reason to stay away from this. 284 ao, 96 ao, 47 ao, 236/2 neither indicates a horror pitch of RpW (Runs per Wicket) of 7.2 considering the middle two innings nor a very comfortable pitch with an RpW of 43.3 looking at the first and fourth innings. This is a match with a RpW value of 20.7. A difficult pitch but not an impossible one to bat on.

Thus it is clear that the overall match RpW seems to be closer to the actual pitch condition. This will take care of many a match in which the innings scores change significantly. Four innings and five days present us with a chance to come very close to determining the way the match went.

I will only consider the first 7 batsmen. The last four batsmen will distort the picture. Thus I am going to look at a maximum of 28 innings and determine the average. This is called T7-RpW.

Now we come to a different problem. The RpW works well in most cases. However there are some matches in which the extremely low rate of scoring means that very few runs were scored but quite a few balls were faced. This indicates not a diabolical pitch but only a difficult pitch. To a considerable extent the ultra-defensive approach of the batsmen would have contributed to this situation.

First let us see two examples, at either end, where the RpW and BpW (Balls per wicket) are in sync.

Match  216: Scores 36 ao, 153 ao & 45 ao. RpW: 8.5. BpW: 22.3.
Match 1374: Scores 537/8 & 952/7.         RpW: 113. BpW: 215.

These represent the two extremes. Whatever measures are taken the pitches remain where they are: diabolical to the nth degree in either direction. Hence in these and hundreds of other matches the RpW values are sufficient.

Now let us take a look at three matches, taken as two comparisons.

Match 1037: Saf 109 & 101,  Aus 230.      RpW: 14.1. BpW: 33.7.  RpO: 2.50
Match 0438: Saf 164 & 134, Eng 110 & 130. RpW: 14.3. BpW: 60.8. RpO: 1.40

These two matches have similar RpWs of around 14. If we consider only the RpW, we may conclude that batsmen of both matches had the same level of difficulty. However that is far from the truth. In the second match the BpW is nearly twice that in the first match. If it took the bowlers nearly 61 balls to claim a wicket, that is below the career strike rates of Walsh, Swann, Caddick, Zaheer Khan and Snow, how can the pitch be that difficult. It is clear that the pitch is far from diabolical but the batsmen have made a meal and half of it. The scoring rate has been abysmal. The RpW value has to be adjusted slightly upwards.

Match 0438: Saf 164 & 134, Eng 110 & 130.    RpW: 14.3. BpW: 60.8. RpO: 1.40
Match 0782: Pak 417 & 105/4, Nzl 157 & 360.  RpW: 33.8. BpW: 60.7. RpO: 3.23

In this pair of matches, one being repeated, the RpW values show nearly 150% variation. However the BpW values are similar. In the second match the batsmen have been positive and achieved very respectable RpW value. The first team has gone on the defensive and got only a sub-15 RpW value.

I am sure the readers are going to say that the period, viz., the 1950s, when Test no 438 was played, was a defensive one and teams did not think twice about scoring very slowly, irrespective of the situation. The slowest Test innings ever is New Zealand scoring 69 for 6, during 1955, against Pakistan in 90 overs: Yes, it is correct, not a misprint. In fact it is this very trend which has to be taken care of. New Zealand lost only 6 wickets in 90 overs, leading to an innings RpW of 90. Was it a 11.5-RpW quagmire of pitch. No, certainly not. It was probably a 30-RpW wicket. It is this adjustment I am referring to.

After trying out a few scenarios I have hit upon a simple method. One which would be clearly understood and accepted by all. I have realized that both RpW and BpW are important. Hence I have determined the Pitch Quality Index by adding the two values together. However I feel that the RpW value is more important. Hence the RpW gets three-fourths weight and the BpW value, one-fourth weight.

This is not as arbitrary as it looks. With an overall RpO of 3.0 across all matches, the BpW value is around twice that of the RpW value and 75-25 looks perfect. 67-33 will make this skewed too much towards the BpW value. As an example, take RpW of 30 and BpW of 60. 67-33 takes PQI to 40 (20 + 20). 75-25 comes out with a PQI of 37.5 (22.5 + 15). The final PQI values do not matter. The almost equal weight, as shown in the first case, negates my requirement that RpW should have a higher impact.

Again readers should realize that the seemingly arbitrary nature of this does not matter since it is only a derived interim index value. It is also applied across all matches. I will call this composite value PQI (Pitch Quality Index).

I can anticipate a question why the BpW has been taken and not BpI since that seems to make more sense. However since I am adding two disparate figures, it is not correct to have one based on wickets and the other based on innings. If a top-7 batsman could not be dismissed, then to that extent the pitch has to be related to that. If Lara's 582 balls are not included in the computation of the BpW (as against the BpI) figure at Antigua, that would correctly increase the BpW value by about 35 (since 16 top order wickets fell in that match), bringing to light the true dead nature of the pitch.

It can be seen that the period in which the match is played does not have any relevance since only what happened in the match is taken into account. For instance take two Tests in 2001: Test# 2021 (Aus vs Nzl) has a PQI of 27.2 (PG-5), Test# 2016 (Saf-Aus) has a PQI of 27.7 (PG-5). Now look at Test# 2008 (Slk vs Aus) with a PQI of 77.6 (PG-1) and Test# 2009 (Pak-Slk) with a PQI of 77.6 (PG-1). Such examples abound even during the notorious batting-friendly periods. Readers should never forget that this is a post-match actual measure.

Given below are the matches with extreme PQI values. Teams are all out if not mentioned otherwise.

The top-10 and bottom-10 Tests in PQI table

MtId Year Hme Awy< ------Top-7 Batsmen------ >
                 Ins No Runs   BpW   RpW   PQI Grp Innings scores

0028 1888 Eng Aus 28  1  190   7.0  19.1  10.1  5  (116, 53, 60, 62)
0216 1932 Aus Saf 21  0  178   8.5  22.3  11.9  5  (36, 153, 45)
0238 1935 Win Eng 28  3  248   9.9  20.6  12.6  5  (102, 81/7, 51/6, 75/6)
0030 1888 Eng Aus 21  0  199   9.5  23.1  12.9  5  (172, 81, 70)
0027 1888 Aus Eng 28  0  229   8.2  27.5  13.0  5  (113, 42, 137, 82)
...
...
...
0878 1980 Pak Aus 11  2  931 103.4 216.9 131.8  0  (612, 382/2)
1374 1997 Slk Ind 14  2 1366 113.8 215.4 139.2  0  (537/8, 952/6)
0696 1972 Win Nzl 14  5  903 100.3 270.1 142.8  0  (365/7, 543/3, 86/0)
0418 1955 Ind Nzl 14  5 1012 112.4 292.3 157.4  0  (450/2, 531/7, 112/1).
1781 2006 Pak Ind 10  3 1025 146.4 190.7 157.5  0  (679/7 and 410/1)

Three of the low PQI matches were played during before WW1 and two during the 1930s. On the other hand the high PQI Tests have been distributed over the years. The PQI runs from 10.1 for the 1888 Test through 11.9 during 1932 at MCG and through 157.4 at New Delhi during 1955 and finally 157.5 during the run-deluge at Lahore during 2006.

A brief referral back to the three matches we had considered earlier.

1037: 14.1 & 33.7 lead to 20.6 (Group 5 - but lower) 
0438: 14.3 & 60.8 lead to 29.8 (Group 5)
0782: 33.8 & 60.7 lead to 42.8 (Group 3).

It can be seen that the differing BpW figures has certainly separated these three matches in a clear manner.

The distribution is quite skewed. This is confirmed by the statistical measures. The distribution has a mean of 48.5 and a Standard Deviation of 16.6 which means the Coefficient of Variation is a rather high 0.34.

The range of the PQI is so wide that all calculations go awry. Remember that this is post-match measure, unlike the BQI which is a pre-match expectation. Hence it was possible to put limits on BQI. Here nothing like that can be done. The distribution is also not a Normal one like the BQI. There are only 80 matches between 86 (half of 172) and 172. So the PQI cannot be allocated blindly or by making standard assumptions. Hence I have done the following. The 27 is a starting point determined by looking at low RpW and BpW values. Then reasonable gaps are allowed for subsequent groups. It is possible that some fine-tuning will be done when I do the Batsmen analysis, especially in the formation of groups.

Summary of PQI Grouping

Below  27.0: Group 5 - 101 ( 5.0%) A nightmare for the batsmen
27.0 - 37.0: Group 4 - 388 (19.2%) Difficult to bat on
37.0 - 47.0: Group 3 - 563 (27.8%) Good pitch - slightly favouring bowlers
47.0 - 60.0: Group 2 - 576 (28.4%) Good pitch - slightly favouring batsmen
62.0 - 80.0: Group 1 - 313 (15.4%) A belter (I have had too much of Shastri!!!)
Above 80.0 : Group 0 -  85 ( 4.2%) Where "open season" is declared on bowlers.

Finally while the memory is fresh, let me show the relevant values for the two Tests which finished a few days back.

Boxing Day Tests

Match 2025: Scores 333, 282, 240 & 169. RpW: 25.6. BpW: 52.9. PQI: 32.5
Match 2026: Scores 338, 168, 279 & 241. RpW: 29.0. BpW: 57.6. PQI: 36.1

Note how similar the matches have been. If the sequence is ignored, the innings are virtually identical. The total runs scored in the two matches are 1024 and 1026 respectively. The only significant difference is that the Top-7 in the Melbourne Test have performed poorly. This, and the slightly higher BpW value has pushed the PQI for the Kingsmead Test slightly higher. However both are in Pitch Group 4, the second toughest one. I think very few will disagree with this. It is of interest to note that the 8-11 Batting average for the Melbourne Test is 21.3.

To download/view the document containing the complete PQI tables please click/right-click here.

In the next article I will form a composite of BQI and PQI for each innings and arrive at a Bowling-Pitch Group. This would be a true indicator of the conditions the batsmen played in and the attack he faced. I will do a analysis of the runs scored by batsmen against different combination groups.

Revision of PQI calculation based on Arjun's alternative method.

Given below is the revised Pitch Group allocation based on MT10 (Top 10 innings of match) values. This was suggested by Arjun Hemnani. This has a lot of pluses going for it, mainly the inclusion of all performances irrespective of the batting position.

Match# 684 is a perfect example of why we should not take Average but Runs per Innings.

Win 363 ao. Ind 376 ao. Win 307/3. Ind 123/0.

The third and fourth innings had two high score not outs. The first two innings had a high score not out each. Net result is 754 runs in 4 (10-6) innings leading to a MT10-Avge of 188.5, the third best. A total farce. This is the only Test with 6 MT10 not outs. 5 not outs, there are two matches. One seems okay. The other not. Then come the matches with 4 not outs, led by two matches with the highest MT10-Avge of 191.0 and 190.3. Only the later, Match# 1426 truly deserves this number. This is the Taylor-334 match.

So taking average is truly out. The current match, with 3 top innings already as not outs, would also go that way. One possibility to is to limit the number of not outs to 3. Works well but rather artificial.

Finally the simplest and most elegant solution is to take the MT10-RpI. After all these are the top-10 innings of the match. So remaining unbeaten does not mean that much of a difference. What does it matter whether we take 400*/329* or 400/329. The RpI has worked out very well.

For the T7-PQI I used the BpW as an additional measure. However here there is no need to do that for reason given below.

The 28 innings used to determine the T7-RpW had a number of small innings, with varying balls played associations. Hence I used the BpW measure to smoothen these wide variations within a match and across matches. However in this case we would select only the top-10 innings of the match. As such I have found that the MT10 Runs have a strong correlation to the MT10 Balls played. Hence there is no need to incorporate the Balls played information, which anyhow gets determined on a pro-rata basis for a third of the matches.

Summary of PQI Grouping - Based on Top-10 innings in match

Below  40.0: Group 5 - 112 ( 5.5%) A nightmare for the batsmen
40.0 - 52.5: Group 4 - 358 (17.7%) Difficult to bat on
52.5 - 65.0: Group 3 - 490 (24.2%) Good pitch - slightly favouring bowlers
65.0 - 80.0: Group 2 - 599 (29.5%) Good pitch - slightly favouring batsmen
80.0 - 95.0: Group 1 - 342 (16.9%) A belter (I have had too much of Shastri!!!)
Above 95.0 : Group 0 - 125 ( 6.2%) Where "open season" is declared on bowlers.

]]>

This is the follow-up to the previous articles. Another 13 tables have found their place. This is probably a more interesting set of tables since some of the analysis is by innings and relate to result. The comments are given at the end of each tables.

]]> 12. Great defensive winning bowling performances in fourth innings

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R WonBy

0073 1902 Aus Eng-120/10 A Trumble H        S 4 25.0- 9- 53- 6 W   3
0943 1982 Eng Aus-288/10 A Cowans N.G         4 26.0- 6- 77- 6 W   3
1243 1994 Saf Aus-111/10 A de Villiers P.S    4 23.3- 8- 43- 6 W   5
0019 1885 Aus Eng-207/10 H Spofforth F.R      4 32.1-22- 90- 6 W   6
0009 1882 Aus Eng- 77/10 A Spofforth F.R      4 18.4-15- 44- 7 W   7
0042 1894 Eng Aus-166/10 A Peel R           S 4 30.0- 9- 67- 6 W  10
0179 1929 Eng Aus-336/10 A White J.C        S 4 64.5-21-126- 8 W  12
1436 1998 Eng Aus-162/10 A Headley D.W        4 17.0- 5- 60- 6 W  12
1442 1999 Pak Ind-258/10 A Saqlain Mushtaq  S 4 32.2- 8- 93- 5 W  12
0025 1887 Eng Aus- 97/10 A Barnes W           4 30.4-29- 28- 6 W  13
1720 2004 Ind Aus- 93/10 H Harbhajan Singh  S 4 10.5- 2- 29- 5 W  13
0437 1957 Saf Eng-214/10 H Tayfield H.J     S 4 49.2-11-113- 9 W  17
0905 1981 Eng Aus-111/10 H Willis R.G.D       4 15.1- 3- 43- 8 W  18
1377 1997 Eng Aus-104/10 H Caddick A.R        4 12.0- 2- 42- 5 W  19
0106 1910 Saf Eng-224/10 H Vogler A.E.E     S 4 22.0- 2- 94- 7 W  19
2021 2011 Nzl Aus-233/10 A Bracewell D.A.J    4 16.4- 4- 40- 6 W  7
1422 1998 Eng Saf-195/10 H Gough D            4 23.0- 6- 42- 6 W  23
0390 1954 Pak Eng-143/10 A Fazal Mahmood      4 30.0-11- 46- 6 W  24

This is ordered by the margin of wins. All wins by fewer than 25 runs are considered. Norman Cowans's and Fanie de Villiers's performances are of recent vintage. Fred Spofforth has been responsible for two sub-10 run wins. Bob Willis's mind-blower effort of eight for 43 followed Ian Botham's from-the-edge innings of 149. Saqlain Mushtaq's was after the nearly-innings of Sachin Tendulkar.

Let me devote some space to one specific performance. That is Hugh Tayfield's nine for 113. This was analyzed and concluded as the best ever Test bowling performance in the famous Wisden-100 lists which I had prepared for Wisden. If I do the lists today, I have no doubt that this would be on top. England, trailing by 89 runs in first innings, dismissed South Africa for 142 and England had to score 232 for a win on a turf wicket. Tayfield bowled unchanged for 35 8-ball overs on the last day and never flagged even when England were 147 for 2. He captured the next 8 wickets for nothing and England fell short by 17 runs. This performance had everything. Low total to defend, close margin of win, top order wickets, against a good batting side and the result.

Bracewell's heroics this week were missed out and thanks to Yash, this entry has been added.

12a. Great defensive winning bowling performances in fourth innings - 2

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

0706 1973 Ind Eng-163/10 H Bedi B.S         S 4 40.0-12- 63- 5 W  28
0906 1981 Eng Aus-121/10 H Botham I.T         4 14.0- 9- 11- 5 W  29
0515 1961 Saf Nzl-166/10 H Pollock P.M        4 20.3- 8- 38- 6 W  30
0058 1899 Eng Saf- 99/10 A Trott A.E          4 27.4-14- 49- 5 W  32
1207 1993 Pak Nzl- 93/10 A Wasim Akram        4 22.0- 4- 45- 5 W  33
1207 1993 Pak Nzl- 93/10 A Waqar Younis       4 13.3- 4- 22- 5 W  33
1945 2010 Aus Pak-139/10 H Hauritz N.M      S 4 12.0- 1- 53- 5 W  36
0001 1877 Aus Eng-108/10 H Kendall T.K      S 4 22.1-12- 55- 7 W  45
0707 1973 Aus Pak-106/10 H Walker M.H.N       4 21.2- 8- 15- 6 W  52
1382 1997 Saf Pak- 92/10 A Pollock S.M        4 11.0- 1- 37- 5 W  53
0094 1907 Eng Saf- 75/10 H Blythe C         S 4 22.4- 9- 40- 7 W  53
0438 1957 Saf Eng-130/10 H Tayfield H.J     S 4 32.3- 6- 78- 6 W  58
0895 1981 Ind Aus- 83/10 A Kapil Dev N        4 16.4- 4- 28- 5 W  59
0659 1969 Ind Nzl-127/10 H Bedi B.S         S 4 30.5-16- 42- 6 W  60
0028 1888 Aus Eng- 62/10 A Ferris J.J         4 15.2-11- 26- 5 W  61
0028 1888 Aus Eng- 62/10 A Turner C.T.B       4 16.0- 8- 36- 5 W  61
1338 1996 Ind Saf-105/10 H Srinath J          4 11.5- 4- 21- 6 W  64
0052 1896 Eng Aus- 44/10 H Peel R           S 4 10.0- 5- 23- 6 W  66
0012 1883 Eng Aus- 83/10 A Barlow R.G         4 23.0-20- 40- 7 W  69
0334 1951 Saf Eng-114/10 A Rowan A.M.B      S 4 27.2- 4- 68- 5 W  71
0409 1955 Eng Saf-111/10 H Statham J.B        4 29.0-12- 39- 7 W  71
0817 1978 Nzl Eng- 64/10 H Hadlee R.J         4 17.5- 4- 26- 6 W  72
0112 1911 Aus Saf- 80/10 H Whitty W.J         4 16.0- 7- 17- 6 W  89
1257 1994 Win Eng- 46/10 H Ambrose C.E.L      4 10.0- 1- 24- 6 W 147

This was asked for by Anand. He wanted Srinath-like performances to come in. These are matches in which the winning target was below 200 but the margin is greater than 25. So these performances would have escaped the previous selection. Again these are ordered by the margin of wins.

Look at Bedi's effort, 40 overs for 63 runs. Probably the most important ones in this table are Srinath's 6 for 21 at Ahmedabad against South Africa and the double-barrelled virtuoso performance of Wasim and Waqar against New Zealand, that too away. This also finds a place in table no 21. Shaun Pollock's 5 for 37 was away against Pakistan. The most recent one was Hauritz's effort against Pakistan.

13. Great defensive bowling performances in the fourth innings in close draws

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Needed

1379 1997 Zim Nzl-275/ 8 H Huckle A.G       S 4 32.0- 2-146- 5 =  10
1087 1987 Nzl Aus-230/ 9 A Hadlee R.J         4 31.0- 9- 67- 5 =  16
1052 1986 Aus Ind-347/10 A Matthews G.R.J   S 4 39.5- 7-146- 5 =   0 Tie
1052 1986 Aus Ind-347/10 A Bright R.J       S 4 25.0- 3- 94- 5 =   0 Tie
0984 1984 Eng Pak-217/ 6 A Cowans N.G         4 14.0- 2- 42- 5 =  25
0498 1960 Win Aus-232/10 A Hall W.W           4 23.5- 3- 63- 5 =   0 Tie
0311 1949 Win Ind-355/ 8 A Jones P.E          4 41.0- 8- 85- 5 =   5

This was the surprise I had mentioned in the Part 1 article. To pick draws in a bowling-centric article is not easy. However these efforts were primarily responsible for the results. This collection also includes the three performances in the two ties. Wesley Hall bowled his heart out and ensured that the Brisbane match was tied. Remember that Australia were 226 for 6, needing only seven more runs. Hall took the key wicket of Richie Benaud and there were three run-outs. Hall also captured four top order wickets. Matthews and Bright shared all the Indian wickets. India were only a single hit away in 1949 but Jones held them at bay.

14. Bowling spells which dismissed teams for low scores in the first innings of match - Away

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

1370 1997 Aus Eng- 77/10 A McGrath G.D        1 20.3- 8- 38- 8 =
1212 1993 Win Aus-119/10 A Ambrose C.E.L      1 18.0- 9- 25- 7 W
0049 1896 Eng Saf-115/10 A Lohmann G.A        1 20.0- 9- 42- 7 W
1153 1990 Nzl Pak-102/10 A Pringle C          1 16.0- 4- 52- 7 
0347 1952 Win Aus-116/10 A Gomez G.E          1 24.0- 3- 55- 7 
0681 1971 Eng Nzl- 65/10 A Underwood D.L    S 1 15.4- 7- 12- 6 W
0094 1907 Saf Eng- 76/10 A Faulkner G.A     S 1 11.0- 4- 17- 6 
0303 1948 Aus Eng- 52/10 A Lindwall R.R       1 16.1- 5- 20- 6 W
0415 1955 Pak Nzl- 70/10 A Khan Mohammad      1 16.2- 6- 21- 6 =
0421 1956 Win Nzl- 74/10 A Ramadhin S       S 1 21.2-13- 23- 6 W
1462 1999 Nzl Ind- 83/10 A Nash D.J           1 11.0- 3- 27- 6 =
1267 1994 Pak Slk- 71/10 A Waqar Younis       1 14.0- 4- 34- 6 W
0343 1951 Win Aus- 82/10 A Worrell F.M.M    S 1 17.1- 3- 38- 6 W
0014 1884 Aus Eng- 95/10 A Boyle H.F          1 16.4- 9- 42- 6 =
0066 1902 Eng Aus-112/10 A Barnes S.F         1 16.1- 5- 42- 6 
0346 1952 Eng Ind-121/10 A Tattersall R     S 1 21.0- 3- 48- 6 W
0037 1892 Eng Saf- 97/10 A Ferris J.J         1 24.3-11- 54- 6 W
0140 1921 Aus Eng-112/10 A Gregory J.M        1 19.0- 5- 58- 6 W
0275 1946 Aus Nzl- 42/10 A O'Reilly W.J     S 1 12.0- 5- 14- 5 W
0031 1889 Eng Saf- 84/10 A Smith C.A          1  9.0- 6- 19- 5 W
1929 2009 Aus Eng-102/10 A Siddle P.M       S 1  9.5- 0- 21- 5 W
1871 2008 Saf Ind- 76/10 A Steyn D.W          1  8.0- 2- 23- 5 W
1080 1987 Win Ind- 75/10 A Patterson B.P      1  8.5- 1- 24- 5 W
1566 2001 Zim Bng-107/10 A Friend T.J         1 18.0- 7- 31- 5 =
0186 1930 Eng Nzl-112/10 A Allom M.J.C        1 19.0- 4- 38- 5 W
1354 1997 Eng Nzl-124/10 A Gough D            1 16.0- 6- 40- 5 W
0356 1952 Pak Ind-106/10 A Fazal Mahmood      1 24.1- 8- 52- 5 W

I had to separate the first, almost always opening day, performances into home and away since the criteria were different. For away performances, I have selected all innings in which the concerned bowler dismissed the opposition for a 125 or lower score. The most devastating was Glenn McGrath's 1997 Lord's spell when he ran through a strong English line-up for 77. Then comes the famous Curtly Ambrose blitz in Perth, including 7 for 1 (or was it 6 for 1), which dismissed a strong Australia for 119. Dwell on Chris Pringle's opening day effort in Faisalabad during 1990, which dismissed a tough Pakistani team for 102. That New Zealand lost should not detract anything from his effort. They ran into a gentleman called Waqar Younis, who captured 12 wickets. Of recent vintage is Peter Siddle's five-for at Headingley, although it must be said that Siddle captured the 7-11 wickets. More relevant is Dale Steyn's pre-lunch demolition of India. Makhaya Ntini played an equal part in this.

15. Bowling spells which dismissed teams for low scores in the first innings of match - Home

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

0205 1931 Aus Win- 99/10 H Ironmonger H       1 20.0- 7- 23- 7 W
1073 1987 Ind Pak-116/10 H Maninder Singh   S 1 18.2- 8- 27- 7 
0025 1887 Aus Eng- 45/10 H Turner C.T.B       1 12.0-11- 15- 6 
1516 2000 Aus Win- 82/10 H McGrath G.D        1 20.0-12- 17- 6 W
1811 2006 Eng Pak-119/10 H Harmison S.J       1 13.0- 7- 19- 6 W
0059 1899 Saf Eng- 92/10 H Sinclair J.H     S 1 10.0- 4- 26- 6 
1528 2001 Saf Slk- 95/10 H Pollock S.M        1 13.4- 6- 30- 6 W
0531 1962 Eng Pak-100/10 H Trueman F.S        1 17.4- 6- 31- 6 W
0430 1956 Pak Aus- 80/10 H Fazal Mahmood      1 27.0-11- 34- 6 W
0050 1896 Eng Aus- 53/10 H Richardson T       1  9.4- 3- 39- 6 W
0101 1909 Eng Aus- 74/10 H Blythe C         S 1 23.0- 6- 44- 6 W
0003 1879 Aus Eng-113/10 H Spofforth F.R      1 16.4- 9- 48- 6 W
0034 1890 Eng Aus- 92/10 H Martin F           1 22.3- 9- 50- 6 W
1072 1987 Nzl Win-100/10 H Hadlee R.J         1 12.3- 2- 50- 6 W
1471 1999 Saf Eng-122/10 H Donald A.A         1 15.0- 3- 53- 6 W
0216 1932 Aus Saf- 36/10 H Ironmonger H       1  7.2- 5-  6- 5 W
1561 2001 Slk Bng- 90/10 H Muralitharan M   S 1  9.4- 4- 13- 5 W
1495 2000 Eng Zim- 83/10 H Giddins E.S.H      1  7.0- 2- 15- 5 W
1837 2007 Slk Bng- 89/10 H Muralitharan M   S 1  7.3- 3- 15- 5 W
0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Foster F.R         1 13.1- 7- 16- 5 W
0456 1958 Eng Nzl- 67/10 H Laker J.C        S 1 22.0-11- 17- 5 W
0009 1882 Eng Aus- 63/10 H Barlow R.G         1 20.4-22- 19- 5 
0029 1888 Eng Aus- 80/10 H Briggs J         S 1 24.4-24- 25- 5 W
0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Barnes S.F         1 13.0- 3- 25- 5 W
0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Barnes S.F         1 21.0-10- 28- 5 W
0043 1895 Aus Eng- 75/10 H Turner C.T.B       1 20.0- 9- 32- 5 
0852 1979 Eng Ind- 96/10 H Botham I.T         1 19.0- 9- 35- 5 =
0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Woolley F.E      S 1 15.3- 1- 41- 5 W

At home, I set tougher criteria. All innings below 100 and innings between 100 and 125 where the bowlers captured 6 or more wickets. The interesting part about Bert Ironmonger is that he kept Clarrie Grimmett at bay, while capturing 7 wickets. Maninder Singh's effort was in Sunil Gavaskar's last Test and the famous all-time classic of 96. India lost narrowly but Maninder more than did his bit. West Indies found that McGrath was unplayable in Brisbane during 2000. As did Pakistan against Steve Harmison in Manchester, a few years later.

16. Bowling spells which dismissed teams for matching low totals in the second innings of match

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R F-Inns

0104 1909 Aus Eng-119/10 A Laver F            2 18.2- 7- 31- 8 =  147
0094 1907 Eng Saf-110/10 H Blythe C         S 2 15.5- 1- 59- 8 W   76
0066 1902 Aus Eng- 61/10 H Noble M.A        S 2  7.4- 2- 17- 7 W  112
0009 1882 Aus Eng-101/10 A Spofforth F.R      2 24.3-18- 46- 7 W   63
0800 1977 Aus Eng- 95/10 H Lillee D.K         2 17.5- 2- 26- 6 W  138
0471 1959 Pak Win- 76/10 A Fazal Mahmood      2 18.3- 9- 34- 6 W  145
0252 1936 Ind Eng-134/10 A Amar Singh L       2 25.1-11- 35- 6    147
0052 1896 Eng Aus-119/10 H Hearne J.T         2 21.5-10- 41- 6 W  145
1296 1995 Aus Win-136/10 A McGrath G.D        2 21.5-11- 47- 6    128
0390 1954 Pak Eng-130/10 A Fazal Mahmood      2 30.0-16- 53- 6 W  133
0343 1951 Aus Win-105/10 H Johnston W.A     S 2 16.0- 0- 62- 6    82
0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 12.4-13- 17- 5 W  113
0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Peel R           S 2 12.3- 9- 18- 5 W  113
0347 1952 Aus Win- 78/10 H Miller K.R         2 10.2- 1- 26- 5 W  116
0028 1888 Aus Eng- 53/10 A Turner C.T.B       2 16.4- 9- 27- 5 W  116
0101 1909 Aus Eng-121/10 A Armstrong W.W    S 2 15.3- 7- 27- 5     74
1633 2002 Ind Nzl- 94/10 A Zaheer Khan        2 13.2- 4- 29- 5     99
0031 1889 Saf Eng-148/10 H Rose-Innes A     S 2 12.0- 5- 43- 5     84
1220 1993 Win Pak-140/10 H Bishop I.R         2 15.5- 6- 43- 5 W  127
1073 1987 Pak Ind-145/10 A Iqbal Qasim      S 2 30.0-15- 48- 5 W  116
1073 1987 Pak Ind-145/10 A Tauseef Ahmed    S 2 27.0- 7- 54- 5 W  116
1080 1987 Ind Win-127/10 H Sharma C           2 13.1- 2- 55- 5     75
0043 1895 Eng Aus-123/10 A Richardson T       2 23.0- 6- 57- 5 W   75
0387 1954 Pak Eng-117/ 9 A Khan Mohammad      2 15.0- 3- 61- 5 =   87

These are the second (in the match) innings spells. It would be silly if I considered Jim Laker's nine for 37, backed by a huge score of 459. Hence I have selected only five-fors in matches where the teams had a cover of 150 runs or less. The best modern spell was Dennis Lillee's top-class effort in the Centenary Test at Melbourne. He had only an innings of 138 behind him and helped secure a lead of 43 which was very crucial since Australia finally won by 45 runs. McGrath did similarly against West Indies although the effort went in vain as did Amar Singh's 60 years earlier. The most recent spell has been Zaheer Khan's five-for while defending a low score of 99 at Hamilton. It can be seen that quite a few of these brave efforts have ended in vain.

17. Match-winning five-fors in third innings when in arrears of over 100 runs

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Arrears

0320 1950 Aus Saf- 99/10 A Johnson I.W      S 3 22.4- 2- 34- 5 W  236
2016 2011 Saf Aus- 47/10 H Philander V.D      3  7.0- 3- 15- 5 W  188
1876 2008 Eng Nzl-114/10 H Panesar M.S      S 3 17.0- 5- 37- 6 W  179
1677 2003 Pak Nzl-103/10 A Shoaib Akhtar      3 18.0- 3- 30- 6 W  170
1453 1999 Win Aus-146/10 H Walsh C.A          3 17.1- 3- 39- 5 W  161
0074 1902 Eng Aus-121/10 H Lockwood W.H       3 20.0- 6- 45- 5 W  141
1503 2000 Eng Win- 54/10 H Caddick A.R        3 13.0- 8- 16- 5 W  133
1796 2006 Pak Slk- 73/10 A Mohammad Asif      3 12.0- 6- 27- 5 W  109
1414 1998 Saf Slk-122/10 H Donald A.A         3 13.3- 2- 54- 5 W  103
1455 1999 Eng Nzl-107/10 H Caddick A.R        3 14.0- 3- 32- 5 W  100

Now we come to the third innings of the match. Since two innings have already been played this is the setting innings. Here it is essential that I look for performances which defined the results. Hence I have selected matches in which the third bowling team was in arrears by over 100 runs and went on to win the match.

Ian Johnson's performance set up an unlikely win orchestrated by Neil Harvey's all-time great innings of 151 not out. The most recent spell above is Vernon Philander's effort in his debut Test last month. South Africa were trailing by 188 runs and Philander captured 5 for 15 on that manic Thursday and paved the way for a South African win. Monty Panesar did similarly a few years back. However the most noteworthy spell was Shoaib Akhtar's in the Wellington Test during 2003. Pakistan narrowly avoided follow-on and then Shoaib ran through New Zealand for 103 to set a famous win, cemented by Mohammed Yousuf and Inzamam-ul-Haq. Andy Caddick appears twice with one effort dismissing West Indies for 54. Mohammad Asif's effort was away in Sri Lanka. Trailing by 109, Asif (and Abdul Razzaq) dismissed Sri Lanka for 73 and Pakistan won comfortably.

18. Five-fors in each innings & 14-plus wkts in match

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

 0428 1956 Eng Aus H Laker J.C        S  9 for  37 & 10 for  53 W
 0131 1913 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          8 for  56 &  9 for 103 W
 1089 1988 Ind Win H Hirwani N.D      S  8 for  61 &  8 for  75 W
 0699 1972 Aus Eng A Massie R.A.L        8 for  84 &  8 for  53 W
 1423 1998 Slk Eng A Muralitharan M   S  7 for 155 &  9 for  65 W
 0032 1889 Eng Saf A Briggs J         S  7 for  17 &  8 for  11 W
 0047 1896 Eng Saf A Lohmann G.A         7 for  38 &  8 for   7 W
 0094 1907 Eng Saf H Blythe C         S  8 for  59 &  7 for  40 W
 0234 1934 Eng Aus H Verity H         S  7 for  61 &  8 for  43 W
 1029 1985 Nzl Aus A Hadlee R.J          9 for  52 &  6 for  71 W
 0079 1904 Eng Aus A Rhodes W         S  7 for  56 &  8 for  68 W
 1539 2001 Ind Aus H Harbhajan Singh  S  7 for 133 &  8 for  84 W
 0009 1882 Aus Eng A Spofforth F.R       7 for  46 &  7 for  44 W
 0372 1953 Eng Aus H Bedser A.V          7 for  55 &  7 for  44 =
 0011 1883 Eng Aus A Bates W          S  7 for  28 &  7 for  74 W
 0927 1982 Pak Slk H Imran Khan          8 for  58 &  6 for  58 W
 0483 1959 Ind Aus H Patel J.M        S  9 for  69 &  5 for  55 W
 0133 1914 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          7 for  56 &  7 for  88 =
 0781 1976 Win Eng A Holding M.A         8 for  92 &  6 for  57 W
 1572 2001 Slk Win H Vaas WPUJC          7 for 120 &  7 for  71 W
 0215 1932 Aus Saf H Grimmett C.V     S  7 for 116 &  7 for  83 W

What does one say of Laker? The 400 might very well be beaten one day by an attacking batsman, ordinary attack, shorter boundaries and two+ day's time availability. The 952 for 7 might be beaten one day by a bloody-minded captain and equally bloody-minded batsmen. The 10-wicket capture might be equalled, as I have already prophesied, probably around 2050. Some one might take a double hat-trick in a match. An Indian may win Wimbledon. India might qualify for the football World Cup. Someone might do the Grand Slam in Tennis. Wigan Athletic might win the Premier Division title. Okay I will stop here.

But no one is going to capture all 20 wickets in a match. Everyone must co-operate. The other bowlers, the umpires and the opposing team's batsmen. No sir, not in a thousand years.

Narendra Hirwani's and Bob Massie's were on debut only for the two to fade away. Muralitharan's is probably the best bowling effort in a match over the past 13 years, after Richard Hadlee's efforts against Australia in 1985, which in turn was the best match effort for nine years, after Holding's 14-wicket effort at The Oval shirt-front. These three, and Massie's, are the defining bowling efforts during the past 35 years.

19. Two bowlers who got five-fors & ran through the batting team

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

1207 1993 Pak Nzl- 93/10 A Wasim Akram        4 22.0- 4- 45- 5 W
1207 1993 Pak Nzl- 93/10 A Waqar Younis       4 13.3- 4- 22- 5 W

0911 1981 Ind Eng-102/10 H Kapil Dev N        4 13.2- 0- 70- 5 W
0911 1981 Ind Eng-102/10 H Madan Lal S        4 12.0- 6- 23- 5 W

0760 1975 Aus Eng-101/10 A Walker M.H.N       2 17.3- 5- 48- 5 W
0760 1975 Aus Eng-101/10 A Lillee D.K         2 15.0- 8- 15- 5 W

0667 1969 Ind Aus-107/10 H Bedi B.S         S 3 23.0-11- 37- 5 W
0667 1969 Ind Aus-107/10 H Prasanna E.A.S   S 3 24.2-10- 42- 5 W

0354 1952 Eng Ind- 98/10 H Bedser A.V         2 14.5- 4- 41- 5 =
0354 1952 Eng Ind- 98/10 H Trueman F.S        2 16.0- 4- 48- 5 =

0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Woolley F.E      S 1 15.3- 1- 41- 5 W
0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Barnes S.F         1 21.0-10- 28- 5 W

0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Foster F.R         1 13.1- 7- 16- 5 W
0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Barnes S.F         1 13.0- 3- 25- 5 W

0068 1902 Aus Eng- 99/10 H Noble M.A        S 3 24.0- 7- 54- 5 W
0068 1902 Aus Eng- 99/10 H Saunders J.V     S 3 24.1- 8- 43- 5 W

0028 1888 Aus Eng- 62/10 A Turner C.T.B       4 16.0- 8- 36- 5 W
0028 1888 Aus Eng- 62/10 A Ferris J.J         4 15.2-11- 26- 5 W

0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Peel R           S 2 12.3- 9- 18- 5 W
0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 12.4-13- 17- 5 W

This has been reverse-chronologically listed. I have also taken only innings of 110 and fewer. Wasim Akram and Waqar did this double-act away against New Zealand. Kapil Dev and Madan Lal needed no one else, during 1981 at home. Max Walker and Lillee, in England, were too much for the home team. Wonderful to see the great spin combination of Bishen Bedi and Erapalli Prasanna over 40 years back, keeping Australia (and S Venkataraghavan) at bay. Alec Bedser's and Fred Trueman's combined effort is the only dual-performance which did not help their team win.

19a. Two bowlers who get 4/6 wkts & run through the batting team

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

1755 2005 Slk Win-113/10 H Muralitharan M   S 3 21.0- 8- 36- 6 W
1755 2005 Slk Win-113/10 H Vaas WPUJC         3 18.0- 9- 15- 4 W

1406 1998 Saf Pak-106/10 H Donald A.A         2 13.0- 3- 47- 4 W
1406 1998 Saf Pak-106/10 H de Villiers P.S    2 11.5- 5- 23- 6 W

1267 1994 Pak Slk- 71/10 A Waqar Younis       1 14.0- 4- 34- 6 W
1267 1994 Pak Slk- 71/10 A Wasim Akram        1 14.2- 4- 32- 4 W

1072 1987 Nzl Win-100/10 H Chatfield E.J      1 18.0- 8- 30- 4 W
1072 1987 Nzl Win-100/10 H Hadlee R.J         1 12.3- 2- 50- 6 W

1055 1986 Pak Win- 53/10 H Abdul Qadir      S 4  9.3- 1- 16- 6 W
1055 1986 Pak Win- 53/10 H Imran Khan         4 13.0- 5- 30- 4 W

0800 1977 Aus Eng- 95/10 H Walker M.H.N       2 20.0- 3- 54- 4 W
0800 1977 Aus Eng- 95/10 H Lillee D.K         2 17.5- 2- 26- 6 W

0430 1956 Pak Aus- 80/10 H Fazal Mahmood      1 27.0-11- 34- 6 W
0430 1956 Pak Aus- 80/10 H Khan Mohammad      1 26.1- 9- 43- 4 W

0153 1924 Eng Saf- 30/10 H Tate M.W           2  6.0- 1- 12- 4 W
0153 1924 Eng Saf- 30/10 H Gilligan A.E.R     2  6.3- 4-  7- 6 W

20. Five-fors in lost matches

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

0967 1983 Ind Win-201/10 H Kapil Dev N        3 30.3- 6- 83- 9 *
0683 1971 Win Ind-352/10 H Noreiga J.M      S 2 49.4-16- 95- 9 *
0461 1958 Ind Win-222/10 H Gupte S.P        S 1 34.3-11-102- 9 *
1398 1998 Eng Win-191/10 A Fraser A.R.C       2 16.1- 2- 53- 8 *
0036 1892 Eng Aus-145/10 A Lohmann G.A        1 43.2-18- 58- 8 *
1899 2008 Aus Saf-281/10 H Johnson M.G        2 24.0- 4- 61- 8 *
0074 1902 Aus Eng-183/10 A Trumble H        S 2 31.0-13- 65- 8 *
0703 1972 Ind Eng-200/10 H Chandrasekhar B. S 2 41.5-18- 79- 8 *
0082 1904 Eng Aus-247/10 A Braund L.C       S 1 29.1- 6- 81- 8 *
1027 1985 Slk Pak-259/10 A Ratnayeke J.R      2 23.2- 5- 83- 8 *
1444 1999 Ind Pak-316/10 H Srinath J          3 27.0- 6- 86- 8 *
1110 1988 Aus Win-349/ 9 H Hughes M.G         3 37.0- 9- 87- 8 *
0057 1898 Eng Aus-239/10 A Richardson T       2 36.1- 7- 94- 8 *
0990 1984 Eng Win-245/10 H Botham I.T         2 27.4- 6-103- 8 *
0323 1950 Win Eng-312/10 A Valentine A.L    S 1 50.0-14-104- 8 *
1077 1987 Eng Pak-353/10 H Foster N.A         2 46.2-15-107- 8 *
1510 2000 Zim Nzl-338/10 H Strang P.A       S 2 51.5-12-109- 8 *
1002 1984 Aus Win-356/10 H Lawson G.F         1 40.0- 7-112- 8 *
0755 1975 Aus Eng-529/10 H Walker M.H.N       2 56.2- 7-143- 8 *
1892 2008 Aus Ind-441/10 A Krejza J.J         1 43.5- 1-215- 8 *

Wonderful efforts, only captures of eight or more wickets included, but in a losing cause. I have mentioned in Part one about the three 9-wicket captures of Kapil, Jack Noreiga and Subhash Gupte which finished on the losing side. Now come the eight-wicket captures. The other notable bowling performance in this table is that of Javagal Srinath, whose eight wickets, with another five-for in the second innings had the best figures in a losing match, i-e., 13 for 132. However he was in good company, since three others, SF Barnes, Merv Hughes and Tom Richardson all captured 13 wickets and lost. During 2008, two Australian bowlers, Mitchell Johnson and Jason Krejza, captured eight wickets but lost the match.

21. Six or more Bowled dismissals in a five-for

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Bowled

0032 1889 Eng Saf- 43/10 A Briggs J         S 3  9.4- 5- 11- 8 W  8
0026 1887 Eng Aus- 84/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 16.4-12- 35- 8 W  7
0047 1896 Eng Saf- 93/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 13.1- 6- 38- 7 W  7
0020 1885 Aus Eng-269/10 H Giffen G         S 1 34.4-14-117- 7 W  6
0032 1889 Eng Saf- 47/10 A Briggs J         S 2 12.5-11- 17- 7 W  6
0050 1896 Eng Aus- 53/10 H Richardson T       1  9.4- 3- 39- 6 W  6
0226 1933 Eng Nzl-158/10 A Bowes W.E          1 19.0- 5- 34- 6 =  6
0662 1969 Pak Nzl-274/10 H Mohammad Nazir   S 2 30.1- 3- 99- 7 =  6
0781 1976 Win Eng-435/10 A Holding M.A        2 33.0- 9- 92- 8 W  6

This is easy. But Briggs deserves his own paragraph. He neither needed the umpire nor his fielders to capture his eight wickets. This was after the first innings in which Briggs bowled six of his seven victims, making a total of 14 in the match. And the 15th wicket, well he made the umpire raise his hand, to uphold a Lbw claim. And let me continue, all these 15 wickets were captured in one day, 26 March 1889.

Lohmann twice bowled seven of the hapless batsmen, once out of eight wickets he captured. That puts Holding's six bowled, out of eight, in the flat Oval track in perspective. One of only two occurrences during the last 80 years.

22. Five or more Lbw dismissals in a five-for

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Lbw

1143 1990 Win Eng-191/10 H Ambrose C.E.L      4 22.4-10- 45- 8 W  5
1342 1996 Pak Nzl-168/10 H Mohammad Zahid     3 20.0- 3- 66- 7 W  5
1647 2003 Eng Zim- 94/10 H Johnson R.L        2 12.0- 4- 33- 6 W  5
1831 2007 Eng Win-437/10 H Panesar M.S      S 2 36.1- 3-129- 6 =  5
1134 1990 Aus Pak-336/10 H Alderman T.M       4 33.5- 6-105- 5 W  5

These five Lbws in one innings occurrences are all modern, clearly indicating the drastic changes in Lbw law. Previously batsmen could stick their pad with immunity, not now. Alderman's Lbw exploits during the England tour are well known. Then Ambrose did it. The most recent occurrence is by Panesar (what happened to him - is his fielding so bad he is out of the frame).

23. Seven or more Bowled/Lbw dismissals in a five-for

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R B+L

0032 1889 Eng Saf- 43/10 A Briggs J         S 3  9.4- 5- 11- 8 W  8
0781 1976 Win Eng-435/10 A Holding M.A        2 33.0- 9- 92- 8 W  8
0026 1887 Eng Aus- 84/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 16.4-12- 35- 8 W  7
0047 1896 Eng Saf- 93/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 13.1- 6- 38- 7 W  7
0483 1959 Ind Aus-219/10 H Patel J.M        S 2 35.5-16- 69- 9 W  7
0583 1965 Ind Nzl-262/10 H Venkataraghavan  S 1 51.1-26- 72- 8 W  7
0032 1889 Eng Saf- 47/10 A Briggs J         S 2 12.5-11- 17- 7 W  7
0942 1982 Pak Ind-197/10 H Imran Khan         3 20.1- 4- 60- 8 W  7

Now the combination. On Briggs and Lohmann we have talked about enough. Holding, at Oval, got all his eight wickets unaided, two with Lbws. Venkataraghavan's was in his debut match.

24. Matches in which bowler captured 10 or more top-order wickets

MtId Year For Vs HA Bowler          BT  Inns1   Inns1  R  TopOrder
                                                          1  2 Mat

0428 1956 Eng Aus H Laker J.C        S  9/ 37 & 10/ 53 W  5  6  11
0131 1913 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          8/ 56 &  9/103 W  6  5  11
0133 1914 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          7/ 56 &  7/ 88 =  5  5  10
0009 1882 Aus Eng A Spofforth F.R       7/ 46 &  7/ 44 W  5  5  10
0754 1975 Eng Aus A Underwood D.L    S  7/113 &  4/102 *  6  4  10
... and quite a few 9 top order captures later
0910 1981 Aus Pak H Lillee D.K          5/ 81 &  4/ 51 W  5  4   9

This was asked for by Rameshkumar. This adds the top order wickets (1-6) of both innings and orders the table based on this measure. No surprise that Laker tops with 11 top order wickets. Jim Burke managed to get dismissed by Lock, the only non-Laker wicket in the match. The other bowler to capture 11 top order wickets was SF Barnes during 1913. Barnes dismissed 10 top order batsmen the next year, before the fighting took over. Spofforth had done this way back. The last one to capture 10 top order wickets was Underwood, during 1975. This seems to be a tough feat to achieve. So if I lowered the bar to 9 top order wickets, this would have allowed a few recent bowlers like Hirwani, Holding, Kumble, Hoggard, Waqar, Asif and Lillee to come in. But I am going to keep the bar high to preserve the sanctity of achievement. However look at Lillee's feat. All the 9 wickets he captured were top order ones.

Finally a summary of 5-wicket and 10-wicket captures. All these, and more, are available in StatsGuru of Cricinfo. I have just given a summary to round off the articles.

1. Muralitharan has captured five-fors in an innings 67 times. He has achieved this once in every 1.99 Tests. The only bowlers ahead of him are all from way back: Barnes - 1.12, CTB Turner - 1.55 and Grimmett - 1.76. At the other end, Abdul Razzaq has achieved this once in 46 Tests.

2. Muralitharan has captured 10 or more wickets in a match 22 times. Mind-blowing it is, this s one every six Tests. That is like scoring a double-century every six Tests.

3. SF Barnes has captured five-fors in six consecutive Tests. These were the last six Tests he played. CTB Turner also had a run of six Tests: this time, his first six Tests. The third bowler to do this in six consecutive Tests was Alec Bedser. Muralitharan and Waqar Younis have had runs of four Tests, on two separate occasions in their careers.

4. CTB Turner has captured five-fors in six consecutive innings. T Richardson has had a run of five consecutive innings in which he captured five or more wickets.. 10 other bowlers have had runs of four consecutive five-fors.

This has been one huge exercise and inarguably the most comprehensive analysis I have ever done on a single topic. Unfortunately the reader reaction is muted. Not surprising since batsmen get 75% of the attention.

Readers' selections:

Maximum of five per reader, to be given in the form (this is my selection)
Tayfield 9/113, Holding 14/149, Laker 10/53, Hadlee 9/52, Murali 9/65
Also short names, not "cricket-follower-from-pietermaritzburg" ???
Must be limited to a single line.
Can include innings or match performances.

Ranga: Murali 9/52, de Villiers 6/43, Ambrose 6/23, Saqlain 5/93, Steyn 5/23.
Navin: McGrath 7/27, Kumble 10/74, Srinath 5/21, Harbhajan 13/213, Srinath 13/132.
Pavan: Kumble 10/74, Saqlain's 10/xxx, Srinath 6/21, Steyns 8/xx (Nagpur) & Mcgrath 5/53
Boll: Marshall, Lillee, Warne, Ambrose, Hadlee.
Anand: Kumble 10/74, McGrath 8/77, Srinath 6/21, Pollock 5/37 and Steyn 5/23.
Iain: Ambrose 7/25, Devilliers 6/43, Warne 8/71, Hadlee 9/52, McGrath 8/38. 
Obelix: McGrath 10/27, Warne 11/77, Ambrose 9/97, Murali 11/110, Marshall 9/41.
Gerry: Warne 7/161, Qadir 6/16, Ambrose 6/74, Mathews 5/146, Davidson 6/87.
Ganesh: Ambrose 7/25, Kapil 9/83, Holding 8/62, Sarfraz 9/86, Wes Hall 5/63 
Aditya: Holding 14/149, Chandra 6/38, Hadlee 9/52, Lillee 8/29, Ambrose 7/25
Harsh: Holding 14-149,Imran 8-60,Willis 8-43,Lillee 11-164,Sarafraz 9-86.
OE: Holding 14-149; Ambrose 7-25; Marshall 5-21; Fazal Mahmood 12-99; Walsh 6-74.

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

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

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

Preliminary program work 

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

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

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

1. Hundreds which form a high proportion of completed innings

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

Ordered by innings %

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman              Score BP Runs  %TS

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

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

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

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

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs Balls SR

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

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

3. Hundreds in matches with low match RpW

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

Ordered by ratio of Runs and RpW

MtId Year For     Batsman             BP Runs MRpW Ratio  

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

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

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

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

4. Hundreds by batsmen carrying their bat through completed innings

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

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             Score BP Runs

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

5. Hundreds scored against top bowling attacks

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

Ordered by quality of bowling (increasing value of BQI)

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs  BQI

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

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

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

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

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

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman              Scores  3rdInns BP Runs  Res

0446 1958 Pak Win Hanif Mohammad      (579-106) 657/10  1 337  Draw
1162 1991 Nzl Slk Crowe M.D           (174-497) 671/10  4 299  Draw
0439 1957 Eng Win May P.B.H           (186-474) 583/10  4 285* Draw
1535 2001 Ind Aus Laxman V.V.S        (445-171) 657/10  3 281  Win
1269 1994 Pak Aus Saleem Malik        (521-260) 537/10  4 237  Draw
2009 2011 Slk Pak Sangakkara K.C      (197-511) 483/ 6  3 211  Draw
1562 2001 Zim Saf Flower A            (600-286) 391/10  5 199* Lost
1511 2000 Zim Nzl Whittall G.J        (465-166) 370/10  6 188* Lost
1162 1991 Nzl Slk Jones A.H           (174-497) 671/10  3 186  Draw
0078 1903 Aus Eng Trumper V.T         (285-577) 485/10  5 185* Lost
0352 1952 Ind Eng Mankad M.H          (235-537) 378/10  1 184  Lost
0299 1948 Eng Aus Compton D.C.S       (165-509) 441/10  4 184  Lost
0695 1972 Win Nzl Davis C.A           (133-422) 564/10  5 183  Draw
1535 2001 Ind Aus Dravid R            (445-171) 657/10  6 180  Win
0507 1961 Eng Aus Dexter E.R          (195-516) 401/ 9  3 180  Draw
0723 1973 Eng Nzl Fletcher K.W.R      (253-551) 463/ 9  4 178  Draw
0496 1960 Eng Saf Pullar G            (155-419) 479/10  1 175  Draw
0731 1974 Eng Win Amiss D.L           (131-392) 392/10  1 174  Lost
1481 2000 Ind Aus Laxman V.V.S        (150-552) 261/ 5  1 167  Lost
0801 1977 Pak Win Majid Khan          (194-448) 540/10  1 167  Draw
1420 1998 Eng Saf Stewart A.J         (552-183) 369/10  4 164  Draw
0285 1947 Eng Saf Compton D.C.S       (533-208) 551/10  4 163  Draw
And a special personal entry, one of the all-time great innings
0905 1981 Eng Aus Botham I.T          (401-174) 359/10 149 Win.
This time another wonderful innings as suggested by Alex
1716 2004 Slk Pak Jayasuriya     (243-264)  438/10 1 253 Win.

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

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

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

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

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

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman               Scores    4thInns BP Runs Res

0302 1948 Aus Eng Morris A.R          (496-458-365) 404/3  1 182  Win
0302 1948 Aus Eng Bradman D.G         (496-458-365) 404/3  3 173* Win
1453 1999 Win Aus Lara B.C            (490-329-146) 311/9  5 153* Win
1469 1999 Aus Pak Gilchrist A.C       (222-246-392) 369/6  7 149* Win
1658 2003 Pak Bng Inzamam-ul-Haq      (281-175-154) 262/9  4 138* Win
0178 1929 Eng Aus Sutcliffe H         (397-417-351) 332/7  1 135  Win
1469 1999 Aus Pak Langer J.L          (222-246-392) 369/6  3 127  Win
0822 1978 Aus Win Wood G.M            (205-286-439) 362/7  1 126  Win
0822 1978 Aus Win Serjeant C.S        (205-286-439) 362/7  5 124  Win
1812 2006 Slk Saf Jayawardene D.P.M.D (361-321-311) 352/9  4 123  Win
1797 2006 Aus Bng Ponting R.T         (427-269-148) 310/7  3 118* Win
1355 1997 Eng Nzl Atherton M.A        (346-228-186) 307/6  1 118  Win
1360 1997 Aus Saf Waugh M.E           (209-108-168) 271/8  4 116  Win
0775 1976 Ind Win Viswanath G.R       (359-228-271) 406/4  4 112  Win
1012 1985 Nzl Pak Coney J.V           (274-220-223) 278/8  6 111* Win
1899 2008 Saf Aus Smith G.C           (375-281-319) 414/4  1 108  Win
1899 2008 Saf Aus de Villiers A.B     (375-281-319) 414/4  5 106* Win
1645 2003 Win Aus Sarwan R.R          (240-240-417) 418/7  5 105  Win
0811 1977 Aus Ind Mann A.L            (402-394-330) 342/8  3 105  Win
1704 2004 Eng Nzl Thorpe G.P          (384-319-218) 284/6  5 104* Win
0074 1902 Eng Aus Jessop G.L          (324-183-121) 263/9  7 104  Win
1645 2003 Win Aus Chanderpaul S       (240-240-417) 418/7  6 104  Win
1898 2008 Ind Eng Tendulkar S.R       (316-241-311) 387/4  4 103* Win
0345 1952 Aus Win Hassett A.L         (272-216-203) 260/9  3 102  Win
0775 1976 Ind Win Gavaskar S.M        (359-228-271) 406/4  1 102  Win
1795 2006 Aus Saf Martyn D.R          (303-270-258) 294/8  4 101  Win
1593 2002 Aus Saf Ponting R.T         (239-382-473) 334/6  3 100* Win
And a few special entries, two of which have been suggested by readers
0990 1984 Win Eng Greenidge C.G       (286-245-300) 344/1  1 214* Win
0320 1950 Aus Saf Harvey R.N          (311-75-99)   336/5  5 151* Win
1883 2008 Saf Eng Smith G.C           (231-314-363) 283/5  1 154* Win

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

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

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

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman               Scores     4thInns BP Runs Res

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

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

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

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

if (fourthinns && matchdrawn && (runs>149 || (runs>=100 && wkts>=7))

Ordered by runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman               Scores     4thInns BP Runs Res

0193 1930 Win Eng Headley G.A         (849-286-272) 408/5  3 223  Draw
0854 1979 Ind Eng Gavaskar S.M        (305-202-334) 429/8  1 221  Draw
0271 1939 Eng Saf Edrich W.J          (530-316-481) 654/5  3 219  Draw
0289 1947 Saf Eng Mitchell B          (427-302-325) 423/7  1 189* Draw
0248 1935 Aus Saf McCabe S.J          (157-250-491) 274/2  3 189* Draw
1315 1995 Eng Saf Atherton M.A        (332-200-346) 351/5  1 185* Draw
1760 2005 Aus Eng Ponting R.T         (444-302-280) 371/9  3 156  Draw
1367 1997 Pak Slk Saleem Malik        (331-292-386) 285/5  4 155  Draw
0824 1978 Win Aus Kallicharran A.I    (343-280-305) 258/9  5 126  Draw
1025 1985 Slk Ind Mendis L.R.D        (249-198-325) 307/7  5 124  Draw
1350 1997 Saf Ind Cullinan D.J        (410-321-266) 228/8  4 122* Draw
0311 1949 Ind Win Hazare V.S          (286-193-267) 355/8  5 122  Draw
1261 1994 Eng Nzl Stewart A.J         (476-281-211) 254/8  1 119  Draw
1397 1998 Aus Saf Waugh M.E           (517-350-193) 227/7  4 115* Draw
1005 1984 Aus Win Hilditch A.M.J      (479-296-186) 198/8  1 113  Draw
1281 1995 Aus Eng Taylor M.A          (309-116-255) 344/7  1 113  Draw
0281 1947 Eng Aus Washbrook C         (365-351-536) 310/7  1 112  Draw
0373 1953 Eng Aus Watson W.           (346-372-368) 282/7  5 109  Draw
0796 1977 Nzl Aus Congdon B.E         (552-357-154) 293/8  3 107* Draw
1918 2009 Nzl Ind Taylor R.L          (379-197-434) 281/8  4 107  Draw
0654 1969 Eng Win Boycott G           (380-344-295) 295/7  1 106  Draw
1025 1985 Slk Ind Dias R.L            (249-198-325) 307/7  4 106  Draw
1908 2009 Win Eng Sarwan R.R          (566-285-221) 370/9  3 106  Draw
1672 2003 Eng Slk Vaughan M.P         (382-294-279) 285/7  1 105  Draw
1281 1995 Aus Eng Slater M.J          (309-116-255) 344/7  1 103  Draw
1096 1988 Pak Win Javed Miandad       (174-194-391) 341/9  4 102  Draw
1232 1993 Saf Slk Rhodes J.N          (331-267-300) 251/7  6 101* Draw
1392 1997 Saf Aus Kallis J.H          (309-186-257) 273/7  3 101  Draw
And a special reader entry: a 17-year old, playing away, saving a match for India,
1149 1990 Ind Eng (519-432-320) Tendulkar 343/6 119* 6 Draw

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

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

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

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

Ordered by Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs

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

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

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

11. Two hundreds scored in a match

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

Ordered by match Runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs1 Runs2 RunsMat

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

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

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

Ordered by Batting position and runs scored

MtId Year For Vs  Batsman             BP Runs

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

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

Readers' selections:

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

Dave Bollen: Botham 149, SR Waugh 200, Lara 277, Laxman 167.
Gaur: Lara 153*, Tendulkar 136, VVS 281, Sehwag 201*.
Yogesh: Tendulkar 136, Gilchrist 149*, Laxman 281, Damien Martyn 104.
Alok:  Lara 153*, Laxman 281, Tendulkar 103* and Botham 149.
Andrew: Lara 153*, Trescothick 180, Pietersen 158, S Waugh ???.
Ravi M: Bradman 103*, Hughes 100*, Border 100*, Walters 104*
Navin A: Laxman 281, Lara 153*, Gooch 154*, Dravid 270 (closest to my own).
Gerry: Gavaskar 121, Sobers 132, Fredericks 169, Azhar Mehmood 132 (Saf).
Ghose: Lara 153*, Atherton 185*, Hughes 100*, Laxman 281
Sandeep: Sehwag 201*, Laxman 281, Dravid 270, Sehwag 151
Rachit: Tendulkar 136, Gooch 154, Lara 213, Laxman 281
Rakesh: Laxman 281, Lara 153*, Sehwag 201, Tendulkar 136
Ashtung: Laxman 281, Lara 153*, Pietersen 158, Tendulkar 136
Rex: Laxman 281, Sehwag 201*, Tendulkar 103*, Gooch 154*
Sarath: Bradman's 103*, Laxman's 281, Lara's 153* and Sachin's 136.
Andrew: Jessop's 104, Sutcliffe's 135, McCabe's 232* and Harvey's 151*.
Zain: V.Sehwag's 293, Sehwag's 201, S.Anwar's 188 and Broad's 169.
Trevor: Gooch 154, Tendulkar 136, Fredericks 169, Laxman 281.
Aaditya: Laxman 281, Tendulkar 155, Lara 213, Slater 123.
Alex: Slater 123, Greenidge 134, Taylor 144, Jayasuriya 253.
Vivek: Tendulkar 155, Lara 153*, Tendulkar 155, Gilchrist 102.
James: Lara's 153*, Laxman's 281, Mark Taylor's 144, M Waugh's 116.
Karthik: Lara 153*, Laxman 281, Gilchrist 149* and Botham 149.
Jaytirth: Laxman 281, Lara 153, Sehwag 201, Anwar 188
Kothandaram:Lara 153*, Laxman 281, ME Waugh 115, Tendulkar 136.
AB: Lara 153, Gooch 154, Laxman 281 and Dravid 233.
Oshada: Lara 153*, Jayawardene 123, Sangakkara 192, Greenidge 214*
Iain: Bradman 334, Gilchrest 160, S Waugh 200, M.Waugh 116
Bull: Lara's 153, Laxman's 281, Bradman's 103*, Clarke's 151.
Raghav: Laxman 281, Lara 153, Botham 149, McCabe 187
Sudarshan: Laxman 281, Sachin 136, Inzamamul 138* and Sarwan 105
Aditya: Headley 270, Gavaskar 101, Pollock 125 and ???.
Deepak: Ganguly 144, Mudassar 114, McCabe 232 and ???.
Jayanth: Hanif Mohd's 337,Gavasker's 221, Laxman's 281, Lara's 153.
krishna  : lara 153, kapil 119, laxman 281, steve waugh 200
Harsh: Lara153,Gooch154,Mcabe232,Pollock125
Vinish: Lara 153*, Laxman 281, Gooch 154 and Lara 213 (Author's privilege to select one of 
three).
Obelix: S.Waugh 200, Border 98/100, Slater 106, Hilditch 70/113.

A few months back I had come out with an article on Test batsmen by bowling quality, in groups. This was one of the best received of all my articles since the analysis took Test batting into hitherto unchartered seas. Many new insights were drawn from the analysis. I think it is time I do a similar analysis for ODI batsmen also since the bowling quality varies considerably across teams and years. The average runs scored by batsmen in their careers is also quite high and an analysis like this will let us look at the batsmen with a new perspective.

]]> I have summarized below all relevant facts related to this analysis. First let me emphasize that this is not a ODI innings Ratings analysis. There are many other relevant factors which would have to be considered in such an analysis. I have not done so in this analysis which is centred on Bowler quality. I would appreciate if the readers do not keep on repeating again and again that other relevant factors such as Pitch type, Innings status at entry, Result, Match importance, Bowler recent form, Innings target et al, have not been included. That would be counter-productive.

1. The Bowling quality index (BQI) is based on Career-to-date values. This is the most dependable and accurate of the bowling measures. There is no situation where the Ctd figure is not the appropriate one. Coupled with the fine-tuned handling of established bowlers described later, this works very well. This takes into account the way a bowler's career shaped up.

2. The BQI is based on the Bowling average. In Test matches the bowling strike rate has greater relevance. However in ODIs, both strike rate and bowling accuracy (RpO) have equal importance and the Bowling Average is a perfect representation of this. Very good averages of say, 25.0, can be reached by a combination of 60 and 0.41 or 50 and 0.5 or 40 and 0.62. All these, patently different, bowlers are considered similar in this analysis. Individual match circumstances might require bowlers with varying attacking and accuracy-related skills, but, in general the average takes care of all conditions.

3. The BQI is based on the actual bowlers who bowled in the particular innings. This is very important. If Imran Khan played as a batsman, to that extent, the bowling attack would be less strong.

4. The BQI is determined using the modified reciprocal method suggested by Arjun Hemnani which irons out the imbalance created by weak fifth bowlers.

5. I have taken care of top bowlers during their initial Initial figures for bowlers with career haul of 100+ wickets. Whatever be the Ctd figures for these qualifying bowlers, their Ctd bowling average will be fixed at their career bowling average levels. This takes care of both situations: Walsh capturing 10 wickets at 50+, nearly 20 more than his career average and Mendis, at one point capturing 25 wickets at 9.83. Of course once any bowler crosses 50 wickets, their Ctd figures will apply.

For the bowlers who have not captured 100 career wickets, their Ctd bowling averages below 50 wickets is pegged at a minimum of 40.0. Makes eminent sense.

6. The computed BQI values will be used only for innings of 10 overs or more. For shorter innings the minimum BQI value is pegged at a minimum of 30.0. This is to prevent situations like Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis bowling 6 overs between them. The BQI would be a very low number.

7. The BQI is reduced by 5% for Home games and increased by 5% for away games. Reader should remember that the lower the BQI, the more potent the attack is. 5% either way is ample and provides some compensation for batsmen playing away. In general this concept is fine and works well in most cases.

It is possible that the visiting team has the right bowlers and can exploit the "away" bowling conditions. However there is no denying that, in most cases, the home bowlers would have the advantage of familiarity with and knowledge of local conditions. Great examples are the recent whitewashes in England and India and the way West Indies are struggling in Bangladesh.

8. No period-based adjustment is done. Such adjustment is relevant only for determining team strength values. If the period was a great one for the bowlers, as the 1971-84 was, it was a tough one for the batsmen and this is taken care of by leaving the relatively lower BQI values as they are. It is obvious that the runs scored during 1971-1984 were more valuable than the runs scored in more batting-friendly conditions later.

Finally the bowling attacks are classified into 5 groups, as described below. The fifth group was necessary to separate the really weak bowling attacks.

There have been 6302 qualifying innings until the fifth ODI between India and England which was played on October 25. The underlying idea is that the middle group should have about a third and the other groups symmetrically lower. In view of the profusion of weak bowling attacks, the first and the last would not necessarily have similar % shares. There may be a subjective element in this part of the exercise but that cannot be avoided. Around 28% for the first two groups means that at any time there are 2-3 really good bowling attacks makes eminent sense. The other cut-offs follow logically. The group cut-off details are given below.

Group     B Q I   # of Inns   % 

  1    21.30-27.99:   709  11.25 %  Very good bowling attack. 
  2    28.00-30.99:  1070  16.98 %  Good bowling attack.      
  3    32.00-35.99:  2104  33.38 %  Average bowling attack.   
  4    36.00-39.99:  1203  19.09 %  Passable bowling attack.   
  5    40.00-57.98:  1216  19.30 %  Poor bowling attack.  

Pakistan has a few bowling attacks around the 23 mark, as also West Indies of the 1980s and Australia of the 2000s.

The average BQI for this huge sample is 34.4 and the median is at 33.6. This indicates a fairly balanced distribution of values. The Standard Deviation is 5.87. I have explained the whole concept of determining the BQI with the following examples.

First is Match 1833 between Pakistan and New Zealand, played at Karachi during 2002. In the New Zealand innings, Wasim Akram (Ctd 456 @ 23.86) bowled 7.0 overs, Waqar Younis (Ctd 372 @ 23.54) bowled 6.0 overs, Abdul Razzaq (Ctd 136 @ 24.68 (but career 31.84!)) bowled 4.0 overs, Shoaib Akhtar (Ctd 99 @ 20.68) bowled 9.0 overs and Saqlain Mushtaq (Ctd 270 @ 20.90) bowled 4.0 overs. Through the reciprocal method, the the weighted BQI starts life at 22.44. This is multiplied by 0.95 (this being a home game for Pakistan). The final BQI value is 21.32 which places this attack as the best ever one. Any runs scored in this particular innings will get into the highest classification. Astle's 25 (out of 122) might not figure in anyone's list of the best ODI innings. However it was made against the best ever bowling attack which took the field.

The second is Match 132 between West Indies and Pakistan, played at Sydney. Holding (Ctd 41 @ 18.44, taken as career 21.37), Roberts (Ctd 55 @ 18.96), Marshall (14 @ 24.14, taken as career 26.96), Garner (Ctd 35 @ 25.31, taken as career 18.85) and Richards (Ctd 21 @ 37.57, taken as career 35.83) all bowled 10 overs each. The base BQI is 22.98. This is multiplied by 1.00 (this being a neutral ODI). The final BQI value is 22.98 which puts this attack into the top drawer. Any runs scored in this particular innings, say Imran's 62 will get into the top classification.

I have got into details here so as to give the readers a clear idea of the calculations. I have selected two of the best ever bowling combinations put on the field. I have also selected one in which all five bowlers had crossed 50 wickets and their Ctd values were impeccable and another attack in which four bowlers (three greats amongst them) had just started their careers. This will show that the great bowlers have always been given their due credit.

There is so much data available that even the organization of the article is getting into trouble. I can only present in the article a certain amount of data. The serious reader should download the complete files and read the same. I have given below what I would be presenting within the article.

1. Top 20 batsmen for group 1, the top one. Ordered by batting average.
2. Top 20 batsmen for group 2, the second best one. Ordered by batting average.
3. Top 20 batsmen for groups 1/2, the groups which matter. Ordered by batting average.
4. Top 20 batsmen for group 3, the middle and most-populated. Ordered by batting average.
5. Top 10 batsmen for groups 4. Ordered by batting average.
6. Top 10 batsmen for groups 5, the weakest one. Ordered by % of career runs scored.
7. For selected batsman, their group-wise distribution of runs scored and % of career.

Let us look at the tables. First the Group tables based on Batting average. The batsman should have scored a minimum of 750 for Group 1, 1000 for Group 2, 2000 for Group 3, 1000 for Group 4 and 1000 runs for Group 5 to be considered. I cannot use the same cut-offs across bowler groups since the population sizes vary considerably. For instance, taking 1000 as cut-off for the group 1 will let us have only 13 entries. It should also be noted that Runs scored should not be a criteria for ordering since that is a measure of longevity.

This analysis covers all matches upto ODI # 3210, the fifth ODI between India and England. While a few days have passed since the third ODI between Saf-Aus was played, it was too much of an effort to re-do all tables and article.

Batsman             Team BG CRuns  Inns Nos Runs   %     Avge

Richards I.V.A       Win  1  6721   19   3   870  12.9  54.38
Waugh S.R            Aus  1  7569   37  12  1330  17.6  53.20
Kirsten G            Saf  1  6798   30   7  1219  17.9  53.00
Pietersen K.P        Eng  1  3903   22   4   938  24.0  52.11
Ponting R.T          Aus  1 13675   34   3  1535  11.2  49.52
Bevan M.G            Aus  1  6912   25   7   891  12.9  49.50
Dhoni M.S            Ind  1  6497   23   6   799  12.3  47.00
Richardson R.B       Win  1  6248   33   7  1156  18.5  44.46
Imran Khan           Pak  1  3709   26   6   881  23.8  44.05
Rhodes J.N           Saf  1  5935   35  10  1094  18.4  43.76
Haynes D.L           Win  1  8648   28   4  1043  12.1  43.46
Cronje W.J           Saf  1  5565   25   5   868  15.6  43.40
Dravid R             Ind  1 10889   52   5  1992  18.3  42.38
Atapattu M.S         Slk  1  8529   50   5  1837  21.5  40.82
Ganguly S.C          Ind  1 11363   41   4  1502  13.2  40.59
Border A.R           Aus  1  6524   33   6  1053  16.1  39.00
McMillan C.D         Nzl  1  4707   39   4  1271  27.0  36.31
de Silva P.A         Slk  1  9284   52   6  1661  17.9  36.11
Hooper C.L           Win  1  5761   31   7   846  14.7  35.25
Tendulkar S.R        Ind  1 18111   71   7  2250  12.4  35.16

Richards suffers a little bit since the best bowling attacks during his time were from his part of the woods. He still has done very well and averaged 54.38 against the top group. The runs are low but that is an indication of the number of matches played. However it should be seen that he has scored 12.9% of his runs against the top group. Steve Waugh and Gary Kirsten have averaged over 50 and have also scored more than a sixth of their career runs against the top group. It helped that the other respective bowling attacks were very good.

Pietersen is a revelation. Nearly a quarter of his runs have been against the top attacks at an average of 52.11. This single fact is enough ammunition to show the futility of using Batting average as an omnipotent analysis factor. Pietersen has a batting average barely reaching 50 but his runs seem to have a much higher value. Ponting has a lower % but a near-50 average.

Imran Khan's 23.8% of his runs against the top group is nearly as much as that of Pietersen and that too at an average of 44.1. This deserves a special mention especially as he was not the leading batsman of Pakistan.

Dhoni has not scored many runs but he has scored 12.3% of his runs at a high average of 47 against the top bowlers. He is no doubt helped by a slew of not outs. Dravid clocks in with a very respectable 18.3% and average of 42.38. Ganguly has a similar average but lower %. The surprise is that Tendulkar has just about crossed the datum % of 11.25% but a reasonably low average of 35.16. This is possibly because of his opening the batting. However it must be remembered that Ganguly was also in a similar position.

Batsman             Team BG CRuns  Inns Nos Runs   %     Avge

Symonds A            Aus  2  5088   28   5  1188  23.3  51.65
Sangakkara K.C       Slk  2  9540   51  11  2001  21.0  50.02
Dhoni M.S            Ind  2  6497   35  10  1235  19.0  49.40
Bevan M.G            Aus  2  6912   38  12  1270  18.4  48.85
Hayden M.L           Aus  2  6133   33   4  1358  22.1  46.83
Tendulkar S.R        Ind  2 18111   91   5  3961  21.9  46.06
Sarwan R.R           Win  2  5644   33   4  1317  23.3  45.41
Marsh G.R            Aus  2  4357   31   3  1233  28.3  44.04
Kallis J.H           Saf  2 11318   54  11  1831  16.2  42.58
Chanderpaul S        Win  2  8778   46   5  1689  19.2  41.20
Jones D.M            Aus  2  6068   38   5  1348  22.2  40.85
Trescothick M.E      Eng  2  4335   28   2  1053  24.3  40.50
Ponting R.T          Aus  2 13675   65   5  2421  17.7  40.35
Lamb A.J             Eng  2  4010   33   4  1153  28.8  39.76
Haynes D.L           Win  2  8648   48   5  1701  19.7  39.56
Gayle C.H            Win  2  8087   49   3  1769  21.9  38.46
Inzamam-ul-Haq       Pak  2 11739   62   5  2178  18.6  38.21
Lara B.C             Win  2 10405   65   3  2351  22.6  37.92
Javed Miandad        Pak  2  7381   34   5  1095  14.8  37.76
Hooper C.L           Win  2  5761   47   9  1431  24.8  37.66

Symonds has scored 23.3% of his runs at a very high average, a late-order batting benefit, of 51.65. Sangakkara has done very well, scoring over 2000 runs, 21.0% of his runs, at a very creditable 50+ average. Dhoni also has a near-50 average, slightly below his career average. as does Bevan. Tendulkar has asserted his class against this strong bowling group, scoring nearly 4000 runs, 21.9% of his career runs at an average of 46.83, better than his career average.

Batsman             Team BG CRuns  Inns Nos Runs   %     Avge

Bevan M.G            Aus 1/2  6912   63  19  2161  31.3  49.11
Dhoni M.S            Ind 1/2  6497   58  16  2034  31.3  48.43
Ponting R.T          Aus 1/2 13675   99   8  3956  28.9  43.47
Kirsten G            Saf 1/2  6798   62   7  2286  33.6  41.56
Tendulkar S.R        Ind 1/2 18111  162  12  6211  34.3  41.41
Haynes D.L           Win 1/2  8648   76   9  2744  31.7  40.96
Rhodes J.N           Saf 1/2  5935   79  17  2401  40.5  38.73
Sangakkara K.C       Slk 1/2  9540   92  13  3024  31.7  38.28
Kallis J.H           Saf 1/2 11318   82  13  2592  22.9  37.57
Chanderpaul S        Win 1/2  8778   82   7  2790  31.8  37.20
Hooper C.L           Win 1/2  5761   78  16  2277  39.5  36.73
Dravid R             Ind 1/2 10889  135  15  4283  39.3  35.69
Lara B.C             Win 1/2 10405  114   8  3762  36.2  35.49
Atapattu M.S         Slk 1/2  8529   94   9  3016  35.4  35.48
Richardson R.B       Win 1/2  6248   78  11  2324  37.2  34.69
Gilchrist A.C        Aus 1/2  9619   92   5  3009  31.3  34.59
Fleming S.P          Nzl 1/2  8037  113  12  3459  43.0  34.25
Waugh S.R            Aus 1/2  7569  100  18  2803  37.0  34.18
Inzamam-ul-Haq       Pak 1/2 11739  103   9  3201  27.3  34.05
de Silva P.A         Slk 1/2  9284  111  12  3371  36.3  34.05

Now for a special table, the elite group table. In this I have considered the top two bowling groups and selected players who have crossed 2000 runs against the two groups together. This table is ordered by the batting average. As such it represents a table of quality batsmen against quality bowlers.

Bevan and Dhoni are in the top two positions. But they have been helped by a high number of not outs. Hence we should take Ponting as the real top batsman. He has scored near;y 4000 runs, which is 29% of his career runs at an average of 43.47. Truly outstanding batting. Gary Kirsten has averaged 41.56 and scored nearly a third of his career runs against this double group. Tendulkar makes up for his group 1 under-performance and clocks in with a creditable 41.41, while scoring over 6000 runs and just above a third of his career runs. This indicates that both Ponting and Tendulkar have done very creditably against top quality bowling. Haynes is the only other batsman to cross 40. Readers may wonder where Richards, who topped Group 1 is. The fact is that he does not meet the higher cut-off point of 2000 runs for Groups 1 & 2 combined.

Batsman             Team BG CRuns  Inns Nos Runs   %     Avge

Hussey M.E.K         Aus  3  4817   58  21  2183  45.3  59.00
Richards I.V.A       Win  3  6721   63  15  2720  40.5  56.67
Bevan M.G            Aus  3  6912   80  26  2979  43.1  55.17
Clarke M.J           Aus  3  6596   74  16  2926  44.4  50.45
Kallis J.H           Saf  3 11318  132  24  5243  46.3  48.55
Tendulkar S.R        Ind  3 18111  149  14  6292  34.7  46.61
Mohammad Yousuf      Pak  3  9720   94  16  3623  37.3  46.45
Dhoni M.S            Ind  3  6497   70  15  2525  38.9  45.91
Gayle C.H            Win  3  8087   67   3  2845  35.2  44.45
Kirsten G            Saf  3  6798   79   7  3031  44.6  42.10
Lara B.C             Win  3 10405   92  13  3308  31.8  41.87
Symonds A            Aus  3  5088   74  17  2358  46.3  41.37
Javed Miandad        Pak  3  7381   71  11  2467  33.4  41.12
Saeed Anwar          Pak  3  8824   85   6  3173  36.0  40.16
Chanderpaul S        Win  3  8778   86  13  2932  33.4  40.16
Shoaib Malik         Pak  3  5204   68  10  2315  44.5  39.91
Dilshan T.M          Slk  3  5616   62   9  2115  37.7  39.91
Gibbs H.H            Saf  3  8094   96   7  3471  42.9  39.00
Boon D.C             Aus  3  5964   62   5  2218  37.2  38.91
Hayden M.L           Aus  3  6133   55   3  2016  32.9  38.77

Hussey and Bevan, no doubt aided by a high number of not outs, are in the top three positions in this staple group. Richards averages 55+. Michael Clarke is the only other batsmen with a 50+ average. Note the very high % of career runs for all these players. Tendulkar's group 3 performance is almost identical to his groups 1/2 performances, at a higher average.

Batsman             Team BG CRuns  Inns Nos Runs   %     Avge

Dhoni M.S            Ind  4  6497   31  12  1382  21.3  72.74
de Villiers A.B      Saf  4  4523   29   6  1453  32.1  63.17
Ganguly S.C          Ind  4 11363   42   7  2138  18.8  61.09
Astle N.J            Nzl  4  7090   29   3  1541  21.7  59.27
Javed Miandad        Pak  4  7381   31   7  1267  17.2  52.79
Dravid R             Ind  4 10889   40   6  1791  16.4  52.68
Shakib Al Hasan      Bng  4  3340   30   6  1235  37.0  51.46
Clarke M.J           Aus  4  6596   49  12  1882  28.5  50.86
Hayden M.L           Aus  4  6133   33   4  1455  23.7  50.17
Tendulkar S.R        Ind  4 18111   68   9  2907  16.1  49.27
Lara B.C             Win  4 10405   39   6  1586  15.2  48.06
Chanderpaul S        Win  4  8778   40   7  1516  17.3  45.94
Kallis J.H           Saf  4 11318   61  10  2339  20.7  45.86
Mohammad Yousuf      Pak  4  9720   53  11  1921  19.8  45.74
Waugh M.E            Aus  4  8500   41   3  1727  20.3  45.45
Cronje W.J           Saf  4  5565   29   5  1076  19.3  44.83
Tharanga W.U         Slk  4  4064   36   2  1516  37.3  44.59
Richardson R.B       Win  4  6248   31   5  1146  18.3  44.08
Gambhir G            Ind  4  4286   26   3  1010  23.6  43.91
Ponting R.T          Aus  4 13675   74   6  2976  21.8  43.76

Now we get into the weaker bowling groups. Note the number of 50+ averages. Many modern batsmen have feasted on these below-average bowling attacks.

Batsman             Team BG CRuns  Inns Nos Runs   %     Avge

Otieno K.O           Ken  5  2016   33   1  1094  54.3  34.19
Shahriar Nafees      Bng  5  2162   29   4  1129  52.2  45.16
Tikolo S.O           Ken  5  3421   60   8  1722  50.3  33.12
Odoyo T.M            Ken  5  2418   50   9  1133  46.9  27.63
Zaheer Abbas         Pak  5  2572   22   2  1098  42.7  54.90
Tamim Iqbal          Bng  5  3111   43   1  1300  41.8  30.95
Shakib Al Hasan      Bng  5  3340   46   9  1362  40.8  36.81
Wright J.G           Nzl  5  3891   47   0  1536  39.5  32.68
Jones A.H            Nzl  5  2784   27   2  1085  39.0  43.40
Mohammad Ashraful    Bng  5  3397   58   7  1306  38.4  25.61
Srikkanth K          Ind  5  4091   40   1  1368  33.4  35.08
Taylor B.R.M         Zim  5  3985   28   4  1316  33.0  54.83
Crowe M.D            Nzl  5  4704   42   5  1528  32.5  41.30
Sidhu N.S            Ind  5  4413   32   3  1234  28.0  42.55
Ijaz Ahmed           Pak  5  6564   45  13  1678  25.6  52.44
Jones D.M            Aus  5  6068   28  10  1500  24.7  83.33
...
Dravid R             Ind  5 10889   44  11  1549  14.2  46.94
Jayasuriya S.T       Slk  5 13430   51   3  1799  13.4  37.48
Atapattu M.S         Slk  5  8529   29   7  1135  13.3  51.59
de Silva P.A         Slk  5  9284   23   3  1104  11.9  55.20
Kallis J.H           Saf  5 11318   27   6  1145  10.1  54.52

The last group is the buffet-lunch group. I have ordered this in a different sequence, the % of career runs. This figure is essential to see how much the batsmen got against the really weak bowling attacks.

As could be expected the top of the table is dominated by players from weaker countries who almost always play against weaker attacks. The top three players have got more than 50% of their runs against very weak attacks. The real surprise is Zaheer Abbas, whose high batting average is now on shaky ground, he having scored 42% of his runs against the lowest group. Same with Srikkanth, whose bubble is blown a little, with over a third of his runs against the buffet-lunch bowlers. And Sidhu and Martin Crowe and Ijaz and Dean Jones.

At the other end, raise your hat for Dravid who has scored only 14% of his runs in this group. The three Sri Lankan stalwarts have got sub-14%. But let us all raise the hat and toast Kallis whose % here is the lowest amongst all established batsmen, a mere 10%. This should put to bed all theories on his scoring against minnows.

In terms of averages, Dean Jones has really feasted with an average of 80+. The average table is led by three Australians of the previous generation. Ganguly has not done his averages any damage by clocking in 60+ here. Tendulkar, with an average of 47 does not seem to have benefited much against these weaker bowling attacks. Lara does not even appear in the top-20 of the averages table.

Now for the group-wise runs and % of career runs for selected 25+ batsmen. The complete file is available for downloading.

Batsman    Team CRuns G1-Runs-%  G2-Runs-%  G3-Runs-%  G4-Runs-%  G5-Runs-%

Tendulkar   Ind 18111 2250(12.4) 3961(21.9) 6292(34.7) 2907(16.1) 2701(14.9)***
Ponting     Aus 13675 1535(11.2) 2421(17.7) 4706(34.4) 2976(21.8) 2036(14.9)
Jayasuriya  Slk 13430 1759(13.1) 1944(14.5) 4493(33.5) 3435(25.6) 1799(13.4)
Inzamam     Pak 11739 1023( 8.7) 2178(18.6) 4211(35.9) 2265(19.3) 2062(17.6)
Ganguly     Ind 11363 1502(13.2) 1875(16.5) 3289(28.9) 2138(18.8) 2559(22.5)
Kallis      Saf 11318  761( 6.7) 1831(16.2) 5243(46.3) 2339(20.7) 1145(10.1)
Dravid      Ind 10889 1992(18.3) 2291(21.0) 3266(30.0) 1791(16.4) 1549(14.2)
Lara        Win 10405 1411(13.6) 2351(22.6) 3308(31.8) 1586(15.2) 1750(16.8)
Jayawardene Slk  9913 1307(13.2) 1535(15.5) 3084(31.1) 2456(24.8) 1531(15.4)
Mohd Yousuf Pak  9720  818( 8.4) 1608(16.5) 3623(37.3) 1921(19.8) 1751(18.0)
Gilchrist   Aus  9619 1289(13.4) 1720(17.9) 3837(39.9) 1375(14.3) 1398(14.5)
Sangakkara  Slk  9540 1023(10.7) 2001(21.0) 2950(30.9) 2141(22.4) 1425(14.9)
Azharuddin  Ind  9378  928( 9.9) 1818(19.4) 3462(36.9) 1573(16.8) 1597(17.0)
de Silva    Slk  9284 1661(17.9) 1710(18.4) 2858(30.8) 1951(21.0) 1104(11.9)
Saeed Anwar Pak  8824  512( 5.8) 1231(14.0) 3567(40.4) 1939(22.0) 1574(17.8)
Waugh M.E   Aus  8500  891(10.5)  876(10.3) 3555(41.8) 1727(20.3) 1451(17.1)
Sehwag      Ind  7760  876(11.3) 1393(18.0) 3209(41.4) 1151(14.8) 1131(14.6)
Waugh S.R   Aus  7569 1330(17.6) 1473(19.5) 2761(36.5) 1257(16.6)  748( 9.9)
J Miandad   Pak  7381  840(11.4) 1095(14.8) 2467(33.4) 1267(17.2) 1712(23.2)
Bevan       Aus  6912  891(12.9) 1270(18.4) 2979(43.1)  894(12.9)  880(12.7)
Flower A    Zim  6786  565( 8.3) 1183(17.4) 2086(30.7) 1577(23.2) 1374(20.2)
Richards    Win  6721  870(12.9)  861(12.8) 2720(40.5) 1334(19.8)  936(13.9)
Dhoni       Ind  6497  799(12.3) 1235(19.0) 2525(38.9) 1382(21.3)  556( 8.6)
Hayden      Aus  6133  588( 9.6) 1358(22.1) 2016(32.9) 1455(23.7)  715(11.7)
Hussey      Aus  4817  215( 4.5)  947(19.7) 2183(45.3) 1129(23.4)  343( 7.1)
Crowe M.D   Nzl  4704  219( 4.7)  775(16.5) 1554(33.0)  628(13.4) 1528(32.5)
Gooch G.A   Eng  4290  502(11.7)  827(19.3) 1796(41.9)  727(16.9)  438(10.2)
Shakb AlHsn Bng  3340  206( 6.2)  115( 3.4)  422(12.6) 1235(37.0) 1362(40.8)

Tendulkar seems to have mirrored the overall % pattern, as has Ponting. Note Inzamam's figures. Possibly because the best bowling attack in the world was his team's, he has a lop-sided bottom-heavy distribution. Kallis has scored lower % both against the best and worst attacks and he has a centre-heavy distribution. Dravid has scored fair bit against top attacks while Lara's follows Tendulkar's pattern. Surprisingly, as has Richards. Intriguingly, Hussey's figures against top bowling attacks has been quite below-average. Flower and Shakib-Al-Hasan have low numbers against top attacks since they, Shakib especially, play quite often against weak sides.

This is not an analysis from which the analyst could make finite conclusions. The readers should read and understand the methodology and tables and then come with their views. To view/down-load the complete Team Strength related tables, please click on links given below.

Group tables - by Batting average: please click/right-click here.
Group tables - by Runs scored: please click/right-click here.
Batsman table - by Group (for all 2000+ batsmen): please click/right-click here.
BQI table - ordered by Group/BQI (for all 6302 innings): please click/right-click here.
Batsman-Bqi average across career: as required by Arjun (for all 2000+ batsmen): please click/right-click here. These are in fact the Test tables.
This time the ODI tables. Batsman-Bqi average across career: as required by Arjun/Mahendran (for all 2500+ batsmen): please click/right-click here.

]]> tag:blogs.espncricinfo.com,2011:/itfigures//123.25734 2011-10-18T09:47:02Z 2012-02-04T06:34:19Z

Adam Gilchrist and several others like him have ensured that quick-scoring has become the norm in ODIs over the last decade © Getty Images
The last 12 articles have all been on Test cricket and I think it is time I moved over to the ODI space. The first is a re-visit of an earlier article. I will follow this with a look at the ODI batsmen's performance against bowlers, strength of whom is ordered by groups, a la Test cricket. That work will borrow freely from the findings in this article.

I had looked at a summary analysis of ODI matches about three years back. Since then over 400 matches have been played, ODI rules have been changed, more T20 matches have been played introducing new techniques, 5 types of slower deliveries have been invented, slow bowlers are opening and finishing the innings et al. Hence I have re-constructed the periods to be able to look at the current millennium more closely. Out of the 7 periods, 3 are allocated to these 12 years. The last period is 2008-2011 and is really the post-T20 era and the previous one, 2004-2007 is the transition period. It is possible that a minor adjustment here and there will bring major rule changes in sync with the periods. However that would leave the number of matches unbalanced.

I have retained, but brought up-to-date, most of the previous analyses since many current readers might not have viewed the previous article. I have kept my comments to a minimum since I want some lively discussions among the readers.]]> Let us get into the analysis of the tables. These tables are current upto ODI # 3200, the second ODI between Bangladesh and West Indies.

1. Match analysis (Runs/Wkts per match, RpO, RpW)

Period    Mats  R/M  W/M  RpO  RpW

1971-1984  281  352 14.0 3.88 25.2
1985-1989  317  368 13.7 4.11 26.9
1990-1994  369  366 13.6 4.06 26.8
1995-1999  564  394 14.5 4.36 27.2
2000-2003  543  390 14.1 4.40 27.6
2004-2007  586  400 14.3 4.60 27.9
2008-2011  540  407 14.4 4.72 28.2

All ODIs  3200  387 14.2 4.37 27.3

The Wickets per match figures seem to be reasonably steady over the years. There is a 10% increase over the past few years in the Runs per match figures. However the major change is in the RpO figure which has shown a 20% increase over the years. The current RpO figure is about 9% over the all-time average. The RpW figure has increased steadily over the past 25 years. There must be very little doubt that the RpO figure has shown an increase primarily due to the change in treatment of the opening overs and Powerplays.

In fact Sriram has made a pertinent observation that the RpW increase is steady because of the finite number of wickets available to be captured, while making the dramatic speculation that the RpO figure might hit the ceiling because there is no upper limit, barring the number of overs. This did not strike me earlier and makes eminent sense.

2. Match/Inns Analysis (Low & High inns scores)

Period    %I<100  %I-AO %I>300 %M>300x2

1971-1984   7.05  28.11   2.34   0.00
1985-1989   5.59  22.73   0.64   0.00
1990-1994   5.35  25.51   1.91   0.27
1995-1999   1.63  32.86   5.09   1.42
2000-2003   5.44  32.37   6.49   1.66
2004-2007   6.50  31.89  10.46   3.75
2008-2011   3.16  35.61  10.78   3.33

All ODIs    4.61  30.79   6.22   1.81

The % of (all out) innings below 100 seems to have followed a peculiar pattern. The initial years had a very high 1-in-14 occurrence of such 2-digit totals. This then dropped to a very low 1-in-50 during the batting dominated 1990s. However it went up to a high 1-in-16 during the middle-2000s period. Then lo and behold! it drops to just over 3% over the past four years. Why this sudden halving within 8 years. I am unable to explain this 3% figure.

I have also added an analysis on the % of all-out innings, again, as suggested by Sriram. This has grown steadily from 28.1% to 31.9% over 47 years and then a significant jump to 35.6% over the last four years. Again a reflection of the weaker teams and possibly the increase in wicket-taking overs.

The > 300 figure, after being virtually non-existent during the 1980s, has now moved to over 10%. In other words, more than one in every 10 innings is a 300+ innings. The batsmen never had it so good and spare a thought for the bowlers, shackled in every which way. Also of significance is the last column. Once in 30 matches, both teams top 300 in the same match. So the bowlers from both sides suffer.

I am intrigued when I look at the period 2004-2007. A very high <100 figure and an extraordinarily high >300 figure. Maybe it indicates a number of weak teams and a few very strong teams. Possibly the two World Cups, held during 2003 and 2007, might have contributed.

The first match in which both teams exceeded 300 runs occurred during 1992 in the match between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. Since then it has occurred quite frequently, as already mentioned, once in 30 matches.

3. Opening partnerships analysis

Period  OpenAvg OP100+ OPSub10

1971-1984  34.1   6.3%   25.2% 
1985-1989  35.6   6.8%   27.5% 
1990-1994  36.3   7.8%   26.7% 
1995-1999  35.2   6.5%   27.1% 
2000-2003  35.2   8.4%   30.2% 
2004-2007  33.1   6.7%   31.9% 
2008-2011  36.0   7.5%   29.5% 

All ODIs   35.0   7.2%   28.8% 

Amazingly, the opening partnerships have averaged around 35 over the years with very little variations. Similarly there have been 7% occurrence of 100+ opening partnerships right through the years. It is only in the failed opening partnerships that there has been a significant 20-25% increase during the current decade. This may again be a reflection of the weaker teams.

4. Extras Analysis - per 300 balls (Extras/Byes/Leg Byes/No Balls/Wides)

Period    E/3b B/3b L/3b N/3b W/3b

1971-1984 15.5  1.9  8.2  2.7  2.8
1985-1989 16.8  1.7  8.4  2.4  4.3
1990-1994 17.0  1.1  7.2  2.7  6.0
1995-1999 17.4  0.9  6.2  2.8  7.5
2000-2003 17.8  1.1  5.4  3.5  7.7
2004-2007 18.1  0.9  5.2  3.0  8.9
2008-2011 15.2  1.1  4.6  1.1  8.4

All ODIs  16.9  1.2  6.1  2.6  7.0

This time I have computed the Extra calculations per 300 balls, being a normal completed innings. The Extras per 300 balls, over the years, has remained fairly static. The byes figure has dropped significantly after the first two periods and then remained static. This, despite the keeper standing up to a number of medium pacers. Similarly the Leg byes per match was quite high during the first two periods and then dropped off. One possible reason could be the deployment of more spinners after the initial two periods.

The number of wides per 300 balls has increased drastically over the years certainly because of very strict interpretation of wides by the umpires. It is true that the number of off-side wides has increased significantly over the past few years. Virtually no allowance is also being given for any leg side deviation. The bowlers continue to be hit by the change of rules over the years.

Now we come to No balls. Very interesting indeed. The last four years has seen a drastic drop in No balls per match, from 3 to 1.1 per completed innings. This is not because the bowlers have suddenly become more attentive to where they land. This is primarily caused by the free-hit rule which penalises the bowlers to a great extent. While not accepting that this is necessarily a correct law change, since it penalises an already-beleaguered bowler more, there is no denying that the bowlers are now a lot more careful.

The recent rule changes also means that there are more transgressions covered for declaring No balls, such as short deliveries and deliberate high full tosses. This should have also contributed to a slight increase in No balls.

5. Results Analysis - (Types of wins)

Period    FbtW SbtW OthW NoRes

1971-1984 46.6 48.4  0.4  4.6 
1985-1989 43.2 53.6  0.6  2.5 
1990-1994 50.1 45.0  0.0  4.9 
1995-1999 48.0 47.5  0.2  4.3 
2000-2003 49.0 47.5  0.2  3.3 
2004-2007 45.7 49.7  0.0  4.6 
2008-2011 45.7 49.6  0.0  4.6 

All ODIs  47.0 48.7  0.2  4.2 

First a summary of the "Other wins" matches. Rounds off the article in case the readers are not aware of these matches.

ODI #   56: Conceded by India against Pakistan as a gesture of protest.
ODI #  435: India defeated Pakistan on the basis of losing fewer wickets.
ODI #  522: Pakistan defeated Australia on the basis of losing fewer wickets.
ODI # 1081: Sri Lanka won by default against India because of Calcutta crowd
 disturbances.
ODI # 1724: Conceded by England against Pakistan as a sporting gesture.

During three of the periods (90s and early 2000s) the first batting teams won more matches than teams chasing. During the other five periods, more teams have won chasing than defending. Overall also there seems to be an edge to the team batting second. This difference seems to be more pronounced during the past few years. Possibly because of the flexibility in chasing using Power Plays. Currently There is a 4% differential between teams winning batting second and first. Note the huge 10% differential during late-1980s. The number of "No results" has also increased significantly, probably caused by the obsession to play matches during all 12 months, irrespective of weather conditions.

1. Batting average - All positions (Right & Left)

Period    R-Avg L-Avg T-Avg

1971-1984 24.86 26.83 25.29
1985-1989 27.42 24.86 26.96
1990-1994 26.46 27.99 26.85
1995-1999 25.55 31.41 27.22
2000-2003 25.90 31.65 27.64
2004-2007 27.08 30.15 27.91
2008-2011 27.32 31.30 28.20

All ODIs  26.43 30.03 27.35

1. Batting average - Only first 7 (Right & Left)

Period    R-Avg L-Avg T-Avg

1971-1984 28.29 28.34 28.30
1985-1989 30.50 27.34 29.93
1990-1994 30.46 29.73 30.25
1995-1999 29.35 33.55 30.67
2000-2003 29.56 33.98 31.00
2004-2007 30.69 32.59 31.23
2008-2011 31.18 34.28 31.91

All ODIs  30.11 32.32 30.71

For Batting average, I have taken the top 7 batting positions only. This is to minimize the impact of the low averages of the late order batsmen. Barring the first period, the batting average seems to have settled into a value of around of 30. The left handers seem to have an increased average (by a margin of 7.5%), barring the first 24 years. Note also the very high left hander average during the most recent period. I remember a lively debate on this interesting phenomenon three years back. Let us get some new insights now. Incidentally this follows a similar trend for Test matches.

2. Batting strike rate (Right & Left)

All
Period    R-SR L-SR T-SR

1971-1984 63.8 64.0 63.9
1985-1989 68.3 64.4 67.7
1990-1994 66.8 67.1 66.9
1995-1999 70.9 73.5 71.7
2000-2003 71.3 75.2 72.6
2004-2007 75.9 75.7 75.9
2008-2011 78.0 80.0 78.5

All ODIs  71.6 73.2 72.0

1-7
Period    R-SR L-SR T-SR

1971-1984 64.3 64.0 64.2
1985-1989 68.2 63.9 67.4
1990-1994 66.8 67.3 66.9
1995-1999 71.5 73.5 72.1
2000-2003 72.0 75.5 73.2
2004-2007 76.3 75.8 76.1
2008-2011 78.6 80.1 79.0

All ODIs  71.9 73.2 72.3

The Batting strike rate shows almost no change whether we take 7 batsmen or all 11. The late order seem to swing the bat as well, just that they get out more often. The scoring rate was quite low during the first three periods and has now picked up to be around the 76 mark. There is a significant variation of around 20% over the years. Look at the last four years. The strike rate has shown a significant jump of about 5%. Maybe due to the influence of T20s or the laws which keep on favouring batsmen or shorter boundaries. Barring one period, the left handers seem to be scoring slightly faster than the right handers.

3. Bowling average (Pace & Spin)

Period    P-Avg S-Avg T-Avg

1971-1984 27.62 33.60 28.66
1985-1989 30.88 35.47 32.09
1990-1994 30.84 36.23 32.23
1995-1999 31.45 35.01 32.67
2000-2003 30.92 35.61 32.24
2004-2007 31.61 35.20 32.47
2008-2011 31.77 33.14 32.24

All ODIs  30.94 34.83 32.03

The bowling average follows the same pattern as batting strike rate. Quite low during the first period and then plateauing around 31 during the next five periods.

As expected the pace bowler averages are lower by just over 10% as compared to the spin bowler averages. The last period, however, has seen a narrowing of this gap. The trend of depending on spinners has also picked up as teams like Bangladesh, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe et al seem to have spin-centric attacks.

4. Bowling strike rate (Pace & Spin)

Period    P-SR S-SR T-SR

1971-1984 43.1 49.1 44.2
1985-1989 43.9 49.7 45.4
1990-1994 44.1 50.1 45.6
1995-1999 41.4 46.1 43.0
2000-2003 39.8 47.0 41.8
2004-2007 38.6 45.6 40.3
2008-2011 38.0 41.9 39.3

All ODIs  40.7 46.2 42.3

Surprisingly there seems to be a distinct improvement of bowler strike rates during the past few years. Again one cannot but point to the number of weak teams playing one-day cricket. The pace strike rates seem to be about 15% better than the spin strike rates. Recently the spinners seem to be striking better. No doubt aided by Ajantha Mendis taking 48 wickets in his first 17 matches at a strike rate of 16 balls (yes, you read it right, 16).

5. Bowling RPO (Pace & Spin)

Period    PRpo SRpo TRpo %Pce %Spn

1971-1984 3.84 4.10 3.89 80.6 19.4
1985-1989 4.22 4.29 4.24 71.1 28.9
1990-1994 4.20 4.34 4.24 71.7 28.3
1995-1999 4.56 4.56 4.56 63.3 36.7
2000-2003 4.67 4.54 4.63 68.3 31.7
2004-2007 4.91 4.63 4.83 72.7 27.3
2008-2011 5.01 4.74 4.92 63.6 36.4

All ODIs  4.56 4.53 4.55 69.2 30.8

The RpO seems to have increased by about 5% during the recent years. Not a very big change. The surprise is that the all-matches RpO figures for the pace bowlers and spinners are almost the same.

S Rajesh has suggested that I add the % of overs bowled by pace bowlers and spinners also. An excellent suggestion and I have hastened to do so. During the initial few years over 80% of the overs were bowled by pace bowlers. This % has come down over the years and now the pace bowler % stands at 63.6, well below two-third. A very significant change indeed.

6. Bowling analysis (Maidens - Pace & Spin)

Period    PMdns SMdns TMdns

1971-1984 10.82  7.08 10.10
1985-1989  7.97  4.99  7.11
1990-1994  7.82  3.74  6.66
1995-1999  6.34  3.55  5.32
2000-2003  6.88  4.07  5.99
2004-2007  6.77  3.77  5.95
2008-2011  5.53  4.31  5.09

All ODIs   7.21  4.18  6.28

In the early years the maidens % was around 10, say 5 in each innings. It has now dropped to half that figure. Perfectly understandable in view of the reluctance of batsmen to allow 6 consecutive dot balls. The surprise is the increase in % for spinners over the past 4 years. That they exercise better control now, while opening the bowling and bowling at the death, is indeed commendable.

To download the complete tables including actual values, please right-click here and save the file. This link may be experiencing some temporary problems. ]]> tag:blogs.espncricinfo.com,2011:/itfigures//123.25510 2011-10-01T06:26:18Z 2012-02-04T06:34:31Z

A graphical analysis of teams' Test-series record over the years

Anantha Narayanan Australia: incredible Test record between 1999 and 2007 © Getty Images

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.

]]> 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.

Australia's Test-series record over the years
© Anantha Narayanan

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' Test-series record over the years © Anantha Narayanan

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's Test-series record over the years © Anantha Narayanan

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's Test-series record over the years © Anantha Narayanan

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's Test-series record over the years © Anantha Narayanan

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's Test-series record over the years © Anantha Narayanan

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's Test-series record over the years © Anantha Narayanan

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.

Sri Lanka's Test-series record over the years © Anantha Narayanan

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.

Test-series record of top four teams © Anantha Narayanan

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. ]]> tag:blogs.espncricinfo.com,2011:/itfigures//123.25268 2011-09-14T06:53:54Z 2012-02-04T06:34:43Z

A stats analysis of the greatest Test-series performances by allrounders

Anantha Narayanan Garry Sobers: 722 runs and 20 wickets in a five-match series © PA Photos

Last month I had embarked on a major project. This had been triggered by a few comments on performance of allrounders in series. Finally after covering the batsmen, bowlers and teams, I have covered the allrounders in Test series, the idea I started with. This concludes the current series of articles but there are some very good follow-up ideas, especially relating to the teams analysis which will be done later.

]]>

The weight basis is the same as has been done in the batting and bowling analyses. The relevant factors considered is given below in summary form. I do not want to repeat the details here.

Batting - Runs scored
1. Where the series was played
2. Series situation
3. Quality of bowling
4. Pitch type
5. Support provided / % of score

Bowling - Wickets captured
1. Where the series was played
2. Series situation
3. Quality of wickets captured
4. Pitch type
5. Bowler's average vs Teams' series average

The key to the all-rounder analysis is in setting the criteria for selection as an all-round performance. Independent bars have to be set up for batting and bowling. These bars cannot be too high: Very few performances would come in. These bars cannot be too close to the ground: Batsmen who can bowl and bowlers who can bat would sneak in. I have arrived at the following criteria after a few trials.

No of Tests  Minimum runs  Minimum wickets
    3             200            10
    4             250            12
    5             300            14
    6             350            16	  

This stiff set of criteria let in only 60 series-level performances making this quite an exclusive and privileged group. That is the purpose behind the exercise also.

Acknowledging the importance of wicketkeepers in a side and the prevailing conviction that wicket-keepers are allrounders, I have done a set of tables for wicketkeepers at the end.

Since we need to consider runs and wickets captured together, I have used 30 runs per wicket as a rough conversion factor to work out a common Run index. The overall 135-year average is just short of 30.0. I debated using the series RpW figure. However this figure has already been used in determining the Pitch type and I did not want double counting of this. Already steps have been taken to see that, if the RpW was high, the runs would discounted and wickets inflated and vice versa. So I have used a standard measure for conversion across. This conversion is necessary to determine the average contribution per match, of players across the series. One table is drawn based on this.

Readers would note that this average is not used in setting up the criteria for selection. These are two different factors. The criteria have been set using ball-park figures and my judgement while the equalization methodology of determining the Run index requires a more objective basis.

This time I have used the actual number of Tests played while determining the average performances. Only series which a player has played a minimum of 3 Tests have been included in this analysis. Also, the three Triangular tournaments, the 1912 one and the two Asian Championships are not included. This is because these are not bi-lateral series.

The tables are shown for 6, 5, 4 and 3 test series. These are ordered on the base information, which is the Run index.

Ser Year Hme-Awy Player          For  #-P RunIdx  Avge   R  W  Wt-R  Wt-W 

232 1981 ENG-Aus Botham I.T     (Eng) 6-6 1397.0 232.8 399 34 457.2 31.33
234 1981 IND-Eng Botham I.T     (Eng) 6-6 1081.4 180.2 440 17 503.7 19.26
190 1974 AUS-Eng Greig A.W      (Eng) 6-6 1063.3 177.2 446 17 532.3 17.70
...
152 1966 ENG-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 5-5 1474.0 294.8 722 20 840.2 21.13
 18 1894 AUS-Eng Giffen G       (Aus) 5-5 1454.6 290.9 475 34 541.3 30.44
185 1974 WIN-Eng Greig A.W      (Eng) 5-5 1319.2 263.8 430 24 476.5 28.09
 33 1910 SAF-Eng Faulkner G.A   (Saf) 5-5 1317.7 263.5 545 29 552.5 25.51
113 1957 SAF-Aus Benaud R       (Aus) 5-5 1268.2 253.6 329 30 408.9 28.64
526 2005 ENG-Aus Flintoff A     (Eng) 5-5 1178.1 235.6 402 24 421.1 25.23
103 1955 WIN-Aus Miller K.R     (Aus) 5-5 1175.8 235.2 439 20 469.6 23.54
161 1968 AUS-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 5-5 1169.7 233.9 497 18 551.9 20.59
 38 1920 AUS-Eng Gregory J.M    (Aus) 5-5 1142.4 228.5 442 23 415.6 24.23
131 1962 WIN-Ind Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 5-5 1084.7 216.9 424 23 412.3 22.41
135 1963 ENG-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 5-5 1073.5 214.7 322 20 379.4 23.14
126 1960 AUS-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 5-5 1071.8 214.4 430 15 525.4 18.21
...
 76 1947 ENG-Saf Edrich W.J     (Eng) 5-4  994.5 248.6 552 16 501.8 16.42
248 1983 ENG-Nzl Hadlee R.J     (Nzl) 4-4  993.4 248.4 301 21 367.5 20.86
157 1967 AUS-Ind Surti R.F      (Ind) 4-4  885.1 221.3 367 15 377.5 16.92
157 1967 AUS-Ind Cowper R.M     (Aus) 4-4  866.6 216.7 485 13 479.2 12.92
106 1955 IND-Nzl Mankad M.H     (Ind) 5-4  858.1 214.5 526 12 506.5 11.72
443 2001 WIN-Saf Pollock S.M    (Saf) 4-4  849.8 212.4 285 19 313.7 17.87
507 2004 ENG-Win Flintoff A     (Eng) 4-4  802.2 200.6 387 14 384.6 13.92
...
240 1982 ENG-Pak Imran Khan     (Pak) 3-3  912.7 304.2 212 21 250.3 22.08
582 2009 SAF-Aus Johnson M.G    (Aus) 3-3  829.2 276.4 255 16 295.0 17.80
153 1966 IND-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 3-3  797.5 265.8 342 14 370.6 14.23
208 1978 NZL-Eng Botham I.T     (Eng) 3-3  734.8 244.9 212 17 239.8 16.50
 40 1921 SAF-Aus Gregory J.M    (Aus) 3-3  718.9 239.6 205 15 229.0 16.33
181 1973 PAK-Eng Mushtaq Mohd   (Pak) 3-3  713.2 237.7 327 12 341.6 12.39
156 1967 ENG-Pak Asif Iqbal     (Pak) 3-3  705.5 235.2 267 11 313.8 13.06
181 1973 PAK-Eng Intikhab Alam  (Pak) 3-3  704.0 234.7 202 15 200.5 16.78

Botham leads the 6-Test series. In the 5-test series, Sobers' once-in-a-100-years performance of 722 runs and 20 wickets leads the way. Giffen, with 475 runs and 34 wickets, is just behind. Look at the number of times Sobers has appeared in the 5-test table.

Bill Edrich, with 552 runs and 16 wickets is a surprise leader in the 4-test group. However look at the performance of Imran Khan in the series against England. 212 runs and 21 wickets. Johnson is a surprise presence here, however, 255 runs and 16 wickets indicating a real allrounder. It is also interesting to note that 4 out of the 8 players in the 3-Test category are Pakistani players.

Now for the second table, a completely performance-based one. This is ordered on the average Run index per match. In other words, consider as approximately equivalent to the number of runs scored per match. To understand the significance a Run index average of 200 indicates 1000 runs in a series, a figure not yet reached.

Ser Year Hme-Awy Player          For  #-P RunIdx  Avge   R  W  Wt-R  Wt-W 

240 1982 ENG-Pak Imran Khan     (Pak) 3-3  912.7 304.2 212 21 250.3 22.08
152 1966 ENG-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 5-5 1474.0 294.8 722 20 840.2 21.13
 18 1894 AUS-Eng Giffen G       (Aus) 5-5 1454.6 290.9 475 34 541.3 30.44
582 2009 SAF-Aus Johnson M.G    (Aus) 3-3  829.2 276.4 255 16 295.0 17.80
153 1966 IND-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 3-3  797.5 265.8 342 14 370.6 14.23
185 1974 WIN-Eng Greig A.W      (Eng) 5-5 1319.2 263.8 430 24 476.5 28.09
 33 1910 SAF-Eng Faulkner G.A   (Saf) 5-5 1317.7 263.5 545 29 552.5 25.51
113 1957 SAF-Aus Benaud R       (Aus) 5-5 1268.2 253.6 329 30 408.9 28.64
 76 1947 ENG-Saf Edrich W.J     (Eng) 5-4  994.5 248.6 552 16 501.8 16.42
248 1983 ENG-Nzl Hadlee R.J     (Nzl) 4-4  993.4 248.4 301 21 367.5 20.86
208 1978 NZL-Eng Botham I.T     (Eng) 3-3  734.8 244.9 212 17 239.8 16.50
 40 1921 SAF-Aus Gregory J.M    (Aus) 3-3  718.9 239.6 205 15 229.0 16.33
181 1973 PAK-Eng Mushtaq Mohd   (Pak) 3-3  713.2 237.7 327 12 341.6 12.39
526 2005 ENG-Aus Flintoff A     (Eng) 5-5 1178.1 235.6 402 24 421.1 25.23
103 1955 WIN-Aus Miller K.R     (Aus) 5-5 1175.8 235.2 439 20 469.6 23.54
156 1967 ENG-Pak Asif Iqbal     (Pak) 3-3  705.5 235.2 267 11 313.8 13.06
181 1973 PAK-Eng Intikhab Alam  (Pak) 3-3  704.0 234.7 202 15 200.5 16.78
161 1968 AUS-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 5-5 1169.7 233.9 497 18 551.9 20.59
232 1981 ENG-Aus Botham I.T     (Eng) 6-6 1397.0 232.8 399 34 457.2 31.33
537 2006 IND-Eng Flintoff A     (Eng) 3-3  693.6 231.2 264 11 302.3 13.04

Imran Khan, with a Run index value of 304, stop for a moment to digest this figure, 300+ runs per Test, leads this performance-oriented table. Sobers' stupendous series during 1966 follows closely with a near-300 figure. Giffen has also got a Run index value exceeding 290. How about Johnson going through a 3-test series averaging 276 runs per test.

Just to complete the Series bowling analysis, I have given below the table of allrounders who have met the tough criteria set. This is a clear indication of the quality of allrounders. Very few would be surprised at the results. Sobers leads with 6 such performances, indicating that he is the supreme allrounder. Botham, five times, Miller and Flintoff, possibly unexpectedly, four times each, confirm their claim to greatness. Surprises, Kapil Dev just once and the presence of Johnson and Harbhajan Singh.

Sobers:     6
Botham:     5
Miller:     4
Flintoff:   4   
         on 2, plenty (J.M.Gregory, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Greig, Kallis).

On this strong evidence, there is very little doubt that Sobers is the supreme allrounder. Botham has also performed the all-round feats in series quite often. Miller, not surprisingly, and Flintoff, quite surprisingly, have reached the lofted heights four times each.

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

Now for the allrounders hall of fame (or more correctly, shame). While I sympathise with these players, I like this part of the exercise since it throws a challenge to me to identify such performances. The only criteria I have set is that the concerned player should have captured 100 Test wickets and scored 2000 Test runs. This is to ensure that the list contains only regular allrounders.

Ser Year Hme-Awy Player          For  #-P RunIdx  Avge   R  W  

302 1990 WIN-Eng Hooper C.L     (Win) 4-3   67.1  16.8  71  0
 96 1953 ENG-Aus Benaud R       (Aus) 5-3   89.9  18.0  15  2
 99 1954 ENG-Pak Bailey T.E     (Eng) 4-3  106.0  26.5  81  1
296 1989 ENG-Aus Botham I.T     (Eng) 6-3  163.3  27.2  62  3
322 1992 SAF-Ind Shastri R.J    (Ind) 4-3  124.0  31.0  59  2
107 1956 NZL-Win Sobers G.St.A  (Win) 4-4  138.9  34.7  81  2

Sobers and Botham are arguably the top two allrounders ever. However they had nightmare series. The above players scored less than 30 runs per Test and captured fewer than one wicket per Test. Their average Run index was less than 35, in eminently forgettable series for all. However, let us not forget that Sobers and Botham are the top two allrounders in the performance table.

The minimum number of wicket-keeper dismissals has been set at a slightly higher level than the wickets (12/14/16/18). The wicket-keeping allrounder table is ordered on the Run index, which is determined by assigning a value of 20 runs per dismissal. This has been done with some basis. 26 is the highest number of dismissals in this group and 600 runs. Hence the number 20 has been chosen. In case you think that this is arbitrarily done, it is true. However do not forget that it is the same for all wicket-keepers and we are not comparing outside the wicket-keeper domain.

Ser Year Hme-Awy Player          For  #-P RunIdx  Avge   R  D  Wt-R  

463 2002 SAF-Aus Gilchrist A.C  (Aus) 3-3  829.7 276.6 473 14 549.7
418 1999 ZIM-Slk Flower A       (Zim) 3-3  679.5 226.5 388 13 419.5
154 1966 SAF-Aus Lindsay D.T    (Saf) 5-5 1083.9 216.8 606 24 603.9
377 1997 NZL-Eng Stewart A.J    (Eng) 3-3  605.9 202.0 257 16 285.9
350 1994 SAF-Nzl Richardson D.J (Saf) 3-3  571.8 190.6 247 16 251.8
399 1998 ENG-Saf Stewart A.J    (Eng) 5-5  943.7 188.7 465 23 483.7
591 2009 NZL-Pak Kamran Akmal   (Pak) 3-3  561.3 187.1 257 13 301.3
447 2001 ENG-Aus Gilchrist A.C  (Aus) 5-5  924.1 184.8 340 26 404.1
416 1999 AUS-Pak Gilchrist A.C  (Aus) 3-3  537.4 179.1 264 13 277.4
499 2004 SLK-Aus Gilchrist A.C  (Aus) 3-3  527.7 175.9 201 14 247.7
126 1960 AUS-Win Alexander F.C.M(Win) 5-5  877.4 175.5 484 16 557.4
443 2001 WIN-Saf Jacobs R.D     (Win) 4-4  698.4 174.6 299 17 358.4
178 1972 AUS-Pak Marsh R.W      (Aus) 3-3  517.3 172.4 210 16 197.3
515 2004 AUS-Pak Gilchrist A.C  (Aus) 3-3  505.6 168.5 230 14 225.6
475 2002 AUS-Eng Gilchrist A.C  (Aus) 5-5  830.3 166.1 333 25 330.3
565 2008 NZL-Eng McCullum B.B   (Nzl) 3-3  495.1 165.0 212 14 215.1
593 2009 SAF-Eng Boucher M.V    (Saf) 4-4  655.1 163.8 341 16 335.1
439 2001 SLK-Eng Sangakkara K.C (Slk) 3-3  484.9 161.6 215 13 224.9
592 2009 AUS-Win Haddin B.J     (Aus) 3-3  479.1 159.7 225 14 199.1
259 1984 AUS-Win Dujon P.J.L    (Win) 5-5  781.9 156.4 341 19 401.9
615 2011 ENG-Ind Prior M.J      (Eng) 4-4  610.9 152.7 271 17 270.9
404 1998 SAF-Win Jacobs R.D     (Win) 5-5  763.0 152.6 317 19 383.0
190 1974 AUS-Eng Knott A.P.E    (Eng) 6-6  908.0 151.3 364 23 448.0
289 1988 ENG-Win Dujon P.J.L    (Win) 5-5  749.2 149.8 305 20 349.2
587 2009 ENG-Aus Haddin B.J     (Aus) 5-4  598.9 149.7 278 15 298.9
481 2003 WIN-Aus Gilchrist A.C  (Aus) 4-4  583.2 145.8 282 15 283.2

Look at Gilchrist's 2002 series against South Africa. In 3 Tests, Gilchrist scored 473 runs (this is a performance Bradman would have been proud of) being weighted into 549 runs, away against top quality bowling. He dismissed 14 batsmen, this working out to 280 runs. The total is 829 equivalent runs, averaging 276 runs per Test. One would be at a loss of words to describe this performance.

Andy Flower was equally impressive against Sri Lanka. Playing for a weaker team, he scored just a few runs fewer and almost the same number of dismissals. An average Run index of 226 is ample proof of Andy Flower's contribution in a decent series for Zimbabwe.

Dennis Lindsay's performance in the South African series against Australia has been discussed quite a lot during the Series Batting analysis discussions. 606 runs and 24 dismissals must rank amongst the most impressive all-round performances ever, bowling or wicket-keeping type.

No Indian wicket-keeper has met the criteria set indicating the lack of wicket-keeper-batsmen amongst the Indian players.

Now for the wicket-keepers who have cleared the bar a number of times.

Gilchrist:    7
Stewart:      2
Dujon:        2
Jacobs:       2
Haddin:       2
              1 (10 keepers have reached this once each).

The above table tells a story, loud and clear. Gilchrist has achieved the selected landmarks in seven series. Four other keepers, twice. For those who compare Dhoni and Gilchrist, I would like to point out that Dhoni has not reached the set target even once. At least Prior, Akmal, McCullum, Boucher, Haddin, Sangakkara amongst modern keepers have got at least one successful jump over the bar.

I would conclude saying that, as wicket-keeper allrounders go, Gilchrist is as far ahead of the rest of the field as Bradman was, of the next batsmen.

The Readers' list

This is not a merit list since I have not come out with my list. This is just a list of all-rounders who missed the cut. Please check the downloaded file before sending an entry. Also please send the complete series figures for me to consider inclusion.

1. Warne's 249 runs and 40 wickets during 2005 vs England, away (Boll/Raghav).
2. Davidson's 212 runs and 33 wickets during 1960 vs West Indies (Waspsting).
3. Marshall's 244 runs and 33 wickets during 1983 vs India, away (Ravi).
4. Botham's 187 runs and 19 wkts in 3 tests during 1979 vs Aus away (Gerry).
5. Kapil's 278 runs and 32 wkts vs Pak during 1979 (Ganesh).
6. Noble's 417 runs and 16 wkts vs Eng during 1903 (Boll).
7. Healy's 356 runs and 15 dismissals vs Win in 1996-97 (Boll).
8. Marsh's 297 runs and 17 dismissals vs Win in 1972-73, away (Boll).
9. Procter's 209 runs and 28 wickets, in 4 Tests, vs Aus during 1970 (Blakeley).

]]>