ODIs November 12, 2010

ODI Outliers: Innings which were way out

A look at ODI batting performances which have dominated the team and opposition innings
67

Sanath Jayasuriya: surpassed aggregate of team and opposition
Sanath Jayasuriya: surpassed aggregate of team and opposition © Getty Images

Little would Abhishek have realized what he unleashed when he made the comment on Jayasuriya's 189 being more than 50% of the combined team scores. A simple statement. However it opened up a chain reaction of multiple analysis of outlying performances.

I decided to first do the work related to what Abhishek suggested. This is really a player's performance compared with the other 21 players. Then I did some analysis of the player against the 11 players of the other team. Finally there is one analysis of the player compared to the other 10 members of his team. A few very interesting facts have come to light.

First the share of a batsman's score in the aggregate score of the two teams. For this share to be higher than 50%, quite a few factors have to come through. Barring an outrageous scoreline of "Team1: 75 a.o., Team 2: 80 for x (Player1 78)" this can only happen in matches won by the teams batting first. Even there the player has to outscore his own team-mates by a mile, enough to offset the other team score.

So much so, there is only one case of a player scoring over 50% of the combined match aggregate. That is Jayasuriya, whose 189 formed 53.5% of the total of 353 (299 + 54). Jayasuriya scored 63.2% of his team score and the very low score of India made sure the overall figure remained above 50%. As I have already said, there is necessity for a specific pattern of scores in this analysis. A batsman dominating his own team's innings AND a very low score by the opposing team.

I kept the cut-off at 33.33% and created the table. The table is given below.

SNo MtId Year For Batsman           Runs   Vs  Total  Score   Share%

1.1652 2000 Slk Jayasuriya S.T 189 vs Ind 353 (299+ 54) 53.54% 2.0264 1984 Win Richards I.V.A 189 vs Eng 440 (272+168) 42.95% 3.2660@2007 Nzl McCullum B.B 80 vs Bng 188 ( 95+ 93) 42.55% 4.1049 1996 Saf Kirsten G 188 vs Uae 473 (321+152) 39.75% 5.0020 1975 Nzl Turner G.M 171 vs Eaf 437 (309+128) 39.13% 6.1943 2003 Zim Wishart C.B 172 vs Nam 444 (340+104) 38.74% 7.0322 1985 Win Haynes D.L 145 vs Nzl 388 (259+129) 37.37% 8.0323@1985 Win Haynes D.L 85 vs Nzl 233 (117+116) 36.48% 9.0405 1986 Win Richardson R.B 109 vs Slk 303 (248+ 55) 35.97% 10.0747@1992 Pak Rameez Raja 119 vs Nzl 333 (167+166) 35.74% 11.2547 2007 Pak Imran Nazir 160 vs Zim 448 (349+ 99) 35.71% 12.2803 2009 Slk Dilshan T.M 137 vs Pak 384 (309+ 75) 35.68% 13.2299@2005 Saf Smith G.C 134 vs Ind 377 (189+188) 35.54% 14.1890 2002 Saf Gibbs H.H 153 vs Bng 434 (301+133) 35.25% 15.2447 2006 Saf Kallis J.H 119 vs Ind 339 (248+ 91) 35.10% 16.0216 1983 Ind Kapil Dev N 175 vs Zim 501 (266+235) 34.93% 17.0441@1987 Win Greenidge C.G 133 vs Nzl 383 (192+191) 34.73% 18.1736 2001 Nzl Astle N.J 117 vs Ind 338 (211+127) 34.62% 19.1832 2002 Pak Mohammad Yousuf 129 vs Slk 373 (295+ 78) 34.58% 20.0015@1974 Pak Zaheer Abbas 57 vs Eng 165 ( 84+ 81) 34.55% 21.2912 2009 Zim Masakadza H 178 vs Ken 516 (329+187) 34.50% 22.1964 2003 Ind Tendulkar S.R 152 vs Nam 441 (311+130) 34.47% 23.2088 2004 Saf Kallis J.H 109 vs Win 317 (263+ 54) 34.38% 24.0457 1987 Win Richards I.V.A 181 vs Slk 529 (360+169) 34.22% 25.2828@2009 Win Gayle C.H 80 vs Eng 234 (117+117) 34.19% 26.0549 1989 Aus Marsh G.R 125 vs Pak 366 (258+108) 34.15% 27.2427 2006 Bng Shahriar Nafees 123 vs Zim 361 (231+130) 34.07% 28.1981 2003 Win Gayle C.H 119 vs Ken 350 (246+104) 34.00% 29.1837@2002 Win Gayle C.H 84 vs Ind 247 (124+123) 34.01% 30.0638 1990 Pak Rameez Raja 114 vs Nzl 341 (223+118) 33.43% Note: @ indicates second innings.

Next to Jayasuriya's 189 is the other 189, almost certainly the greatest ODI innings played. By Viv Richards, whose 189 (out of 272+168) formed 42.95% of the aggregate. However the most breath-taking of the chasing innings of all, McCullum's 80 (out of 93+95) formed 42.55% of the aggregate. This bizarre (real-life) scoreline is almost close to the outrageous scoreline I had earlier talked about. For a near-100 target to be chased by a team and one batsman scoring over 84% is unreal. No other innings exceeds 40% of the aggregate. The next chasing innings is Haynes's 85 (out of 116+117) working out to 36.5%.

It is not surprising that 9 West Indian batsmen figure in this list. Gayle is the leading batsman with 3 such dominating performances. In general the top three batsmen dominate the table. It is surprising that there is a single Australian entry (that too from Geoff Marsh) and nothing from England.

The next set of outlier innings are the ones where a batsman has outscored the other team by a wide margin. Note the clear distinction. In the first one we looked at the share of the batsman out of the aggregate. Here we look at the factor by which he outscored the opponents. Let us look at the table.

SNo MtId Year For Batsman            Runs  Vs    Score Ratio

1.1652 2000 Slk Jayasuriya S.T 189 vs Ind 54/10 3.50 2.2088 2004 Saf Kallis J.H 109 vs Win 54/10 2.02 3.0405 1986 Win Richardson R.B 109 vs Slk 55/10 1.98 4.1970 2003 Aus Hayden M.L 88 vs Nam 45/10 1.96 5.2803 2009 Slk Dilshan T.M 137 vs Pak 75/10 1.83 6.1943 2003 Zim Wishart C.B 172 vs Nam 104/ 5 1.65 7.1832 2002 Pak Mohammad Yousuf 129 vs Slk 78/10 1.65 8.2547 2007 Pak Imran Nazir 160 vs Zim 99/10 1.62 9.2727 2008 Nzl McCullum B.B 166 vs Ire 112/10 1.48 10.2727 2008 Nzl Marshall J.A.H 161 vs Ire 112/10 1.44 11.1868 2002 Aus Hayden M.L 146 vs Pak 108/10 1.35 12.2001 2003 Ind Yuvraj Singh 102 vs Bng 76/10 1.34 13.0020 1975 Nzl Turner G.M 171 vs Eaf 128/ 8 1.34 14.1970 2003 Aus Symonds A 59 vs Nam 45/10 1.31 15.2447 2006 Saf Kallis J.H 119 vs Ind 91/10 1.31 16.0297 1985 Aus Border A.R 118 vs Slk 91/10 1.30 17.1049 1996 Saf Kirsten G 188 vs Uae 152/ 8 1.24 18.0405 1986 Win Greenidge C.G 67 vs Slk 55/10 1.22 19.0777 1992 Win Haynes D.L 96 vs Pak 81/10 1.19 20.1964 2003 Ind Tendulkar S.R 152 vs Nam 130/10 1.17


Here also Jayasuriya's 189 rules the roost. This innings was 3.5 times the Indian score of 54. Then, after a mile or two, comes Kallis's 109 against the West Indian score of 54, a factor of 2.02. These are the only two innings with a factor above 2.0. That puts the Jayasuriya innings in perspective. Readers can note how quickly the factor drops off. Needless to say that all these innings are when the team batting first wins.

In general the weaker teams have been at the receiving end. It is of interest that Sri Lanka has figured prominently at either end. For the few matches Namibia has played (6), they have been the victims 5 times (by two batsmen in a single match).

Now for the third analysis. This time against the batsman's own team mates. Taking the runs only would be quite silly since many a batsman has out-scored his team mates. Hence I have taken the scoring rate as the basis. I determined the following ratio and then ranked the players on that ratio.

Batsman's own scoring rate
Batsman outlier ratio = -------------------------------
Rest of the team's scoring rate

In order to avoid getting in a batsman scoring 10 in 2 balls and "outscoring" the rest of his team by a wide margin, I selected only innings of 50 and above. Also I have excluded the team extras from the rest of the team runs to be completely correct. Now for the table.

No MtId Year For Batsman            Vs  Score   S/R   Others  S/R Ratio

1.1093 1996 Slk Jayasuriya S.T Pak 76( 28) 2.71 81(169) 0.48 5.66 2.0182 1983 Nzl Cairns B.L Aus 52( 25) 2.08 92(214) 0.43 4.84 3.0657 1990 Slk Ranatunga A Ind 58( 27) 2.15 135(267) 0.51 4.25 4.0152 1982 Ind Kapil Dev N Eng 60( 37) 1.62 115(293) 0.39 4.13 5.3039 2010 Nzl Mills K.D Ind 52( 35) 1.49 53(146) 0.36 4.09 6.0225 1983 Ind Patil S.M Pak 51( 28) 1.82 106(216) 0.49 3.71 7.0053 1978 Nzl Cairns B.L Eng 60( 43) 1.40 79(205) 0.39 3.62 8.0216 1983 Ind Kapil Dev N Zim 175(138) 1.27 79(222) 0.36 3.56 9.0576 1989 Aus Border A.R Eng 84( 44) 1.91 140(256) 0.55 3.49 10.2365 2006 Aus Gilchrist A.C Bng 76( 46) 1.65 103(218) 0.47 3.50 11.1901 2002 Zim Ervine S.M Pak 61( 41) 1.49 67(157) 0.43 3.49 12.0608 1990 Pak Wasim Akram Aus 86( 76) 1.13 69(211) 0.33 3.46 13.1660 2000 Ind Agarkar A.B Zim 67( 25) 2.68 213(275) 0.77 3.46 14.2239 2005 Pak Shahid Afridi Ind 102( 46) 2.22 134(207) 0.65 3.43 15.2687 2008 Aus Gilchrist A.C Slk 83( 50) 1.66 116(239) 0.49 3.42 16.2252 2005 Bng Mohammad Ashraful Eng 94( 52) 1.81 117(220) 0.53 3.40 17.0015 1974 Pak Zaheer Abbas Eng 57( 61) 0.93 13( 47) 0.28 3.38 18.1963 2003 Can Davison J.M Win 111( 76) 1.46 79(181) 0.44 3.35 19.2638 2007 Ber Cann L.O.B Ken 52( 32) 1.62 106(216) 0.49 3.31 20.0245 1984 Win Holding M.A Aus 64( 39) 1.64 110(222) 0.50 3.31 21.2660 2007 Nzl McCullum B.B Bng 80( 28) 2.86 7( 8) 0.88 3.27 22.2875 2009 Can Rizwan Cheema Ken 76( 38) 2.00 37( 60) 0.62 3.24 23.0547 1989 Pak Imran Khan Win 67( 41) 1.63 132(259) 0.51 3.21 24.2752 2008 Can Rizwan Cheema Win 61( 45) 1.36 102(236) 0.43 3.14 25.0481 1987 Ind Kapil Dev N Win 87( 64) 1.36 89(204) 0.44 3.12 26.1864 2002 Pak Shahid Afridi Saf 62( 40) 1.55 125(251) 0.50 3.11 27.2059 2003 Eng Flintoff A Bng 70( 47) 1.49 57(119) 0.48 3.11 28.0221 1983 Ind Patil S.M Eng 51( 32) 1.59 152(296) 0.51 3.11 29.2828 2009 Win Gayle C.H Eng 80( 43) 1.86 27( 45) 0.60 3.11 30.0622 1990 Aus Jones D.M Nzl 102( 91) 1.12 52(144) 0.36 3.11 31.2980 2010 Win Sammy D.J.G Saf 58( 24) 2.42 206(265) 0.78 3.11 32.0344 1985 Win Richards I.V.A Pak 66( 39) 1.69 111(201) 0.55 3.06 33.1814 2002 Zim Marillier D.A Ind 56( 24) 2.33 209(274) 0.76 3.06 34.2735 2008 Ind Sehwag V Slk 60( 36) 1.67 110(201) 0.55 3.05 35.2584 2007 Pak Shahid Afridi Slk 73( 34) 2.15 156(218) 0.72 3.00


Ah! how can you get this guy off the top. This is the third time, out of three, in this article that the "Matara marauder" has been at the top. At least it is for a different innings. His 76 in 28 balls against Pakistan had a scoring rate of 2.71 and the rest of his team scored at 0.48, giving this innings the stupendous ratio of 5.66. Then comes "father" Cairns whose 52 in 25 balls was scored 4.84 times faster than his team mates. Ranatunga's 58 in 27 balls gives this innings a ratio of 4.25. The century with the highest ratio is for Kapil Dev's 175 which scores 3.56. Anything said about this gem is an under-statement Afridi's 102 comes in next, clocking in at 3.43.

Holding deserves a special mention. His 64 off 39 balls compared to his team total of 197 in 43.3 overs is one of only two instances of a bowler in this exalted company. It is all the more commendable since the other teams included the greats and the bowling was Lawson/Alderman/Hogg/Rackemann. Kyle's 52 also deserves equal credit. Also spare a thought for L'O.B Cann, playing for unfancied Bermuda.

Overall it can be said that Sri Lanka and West Indies have often been at either end of the spectrum. English batsmen have rarely figured in such dominating innings. Also, with Gilchrist at the top, Australia has not appeared that frequently as expected.

This only shows the influence Jayasuriya had on the game. He outscored 21 other players, outscored 11 of his opposite team players by a factor of 3.50 and scored at a rate 5.66 times that of his 10 team-mates. He comes through on top on all three measures. Also note the daylight which exists between Jayasuriya and the second placed innings in the first two tables. When we talk of the greatest ODI players we almost always talk of Tendulkar and Richards. I think Jayasuriya needs to be included in this company.

It should be noted that these differ from the "PIF" based on the "Alex Factor" quite a lot although the third one comes near that analysis.

My thanks to Abhishek for providing the spark.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • gruzoperevozki on May 8, 2011, 3:14 GMT

    Интересная статейка, но как по мне, можно было бы и глубже капнуть..)

  • saadjarral on December 5, 2010, 17:15 GMT

    jaysuria was very agressive opner and sirilankan cricket is still waiting for his replacement

  • Alex on November 20, 2010, 16:01 GMT

    Ananth - I agree with Unni on the glorification of the 4th. Not that I am attacking you - the innings-wise analysis is quite revealing. However, since a test often comprises 2 innings, an additional column for the same metric applied to the total # runs scored in both innings would be even better.

    E.g., consider SRT's runs in the match (across both innings) at Mohali vs Aus '10 and at Chennai vs Eng '08. But VVS bagged the glory at Mohali and Sehwag got the honors at Chennai. (Mind you, I am all for VVS & Viru, and they both did play amazing innings.) [[ My only point is not to have a fixed antipathy towards a certain class of things. Judge each innings separately. All these will be taken care of in the MVP analysis, sometime in the future. Ananth: ]]

  • unni on November 20, 2010, 15:16 GMT

    Regarding your last statement, irrespective of the index discussion, I very much agree. It was always my opinion that the guys who lay the foundations by playing size-able first innings are the true value-adds to the team. I always feel dejected on the 4th innings glories and glorification of 'come-back-from-behind' sagas... Why did they risk it to the last moment? [[ Unni I must defer. It is mostly because the so-called match-winners in the first innings fail that there is need to play the coming-from-behind innings. Why have strong negative feelings towars a type of innings. Judge each innings on its merit. Ananth: ]]

  • unni on November 20, 2010, 15:10 GMT

    @Abhi : I think there is some misunderstanding. I didn't propose to divide considering opposite team's batsman's average. So, still it is only w.r.t own batsman's against opposition bowlers. So, I'm not sure if the 'peer analysis' suggestion holds with that understanding.

    As regarding your other comment on '% of runs', as Ananth mentioned, it is not very much different.

    However, (incidently) this is very much related to Alex's comment below. Whatever Alex felt missed is the weightage factor. When somebody reduces a continuous quantity like runs(let us assume it is continuous due to the sheer size of the numbers) to discrete indices, large information will be lost. Then as you commented, whether we need only the skeleton or full flesh is not easy to decide. Anyway, my point was that it is precisely the difference between % calculation and an index calculation. [[ Unni My preliminary calculations show that the Inns Index is more robust that the % of TS, which is easy to determine, however. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 20, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    Ananth - Unni's metric will weigh a strong performance in one innings more than a strong performance in a match. E.g. consider the following:

    Scenario 1: Batsman scores 100 while all his team-mates score 90. Thus, Unni's Index=10. In the second innings, he scores zero while others average 20. Thus, Unni's index = 0. Combined Index in the match =(10+0)/2=5.

    Scenario 2: Batsman scores 50 while all his team-mates score 90. Thus, Unni's Index = 5. In the second innings, though, he scores 50 while others average 20. Thus, Unni's index = 2.5. Combined index in the match = (5+2.5)/2=3.75.

    In both cases, the batman scored 100 runs in the match. However, Unni's index rates him higher in the first scenario. Is that acceptable? Well, that is a matter of opinion. Something similar happened at Mohali vs Aus this year. I guess VVS' contribution in that match (1 & 74*) will rate higher than SRT's (98 & 38) on this metric but, IMO, SRT's 136 runs in that match laid the basis for the win.

  • Abhi on November 20, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    Ananth, Just another thought. The average ,like all stats , though not a perfect metric is at least a direct measure of "batsman vs. opposition bowlers" ...It doesn't include performance of "opposition" batting and bowling or "own" team bowling etc.

    However, again average is best when used as a "peer ratio" since peers would face more or less similar bowling/pitches/conditions etc.

    So,perhaps doing some sort of a "peer" analysis of "unni's metric" may be better? [[ Abhi Let us get this going before doing a Peer analysis. I would include the batsman's career years in the table so that people can do their own rough peer analysis. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on November 20, 2010, 4:01 GMT

    Unni, I feel there is a slight flaw when you say that we are analysing 'the contribution of a batsman in the matches'... This bit has previously been adequately covered in "% of own team runs scored". [[ From what I can see there is a strong correlation between % of Team runs and the (Unni) Innings index. Ananth: ]]

    What happens here is when the "opposition" team average is included you are not only including the batting quality of "opposition" team but effectively also including an "own" bowling vs "opposition" bowling factor.

  • Abhi on November 20, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    Ananth,Unni Right ho. I think Hayden does well because the bulk of his run with the Aussie team was for most part when they were both right at their peak- especially the bowling.

    Hayden played just a handful of matches in the '90s when Aus were'nt yet totally dominant- Just 7 matches to be precise in the '90s where he fared poorly, averaging 21.8.

    Then a whopping 85 matches from 2000-07 (arguably the Aussie peak), where he averaged 55.7.

    Then 11 matches avg. 32.7 from 2008 to retirement… Must say a well timed retirement before it really started hurting his stats.

    So, the great bulk of his career with him and Aus at their peaks would have resulted in simultaneously for the most part having the additional effect of the peak Aussie bowling lineup beating up on the opposition- thereby effectively reducing the averaging of opposition batsmen. Also being an opener- he had the additional "luxury" of getting full "play" in his innings.

    As rgds.Lara,Flower, Chanders etc. generally obvious. Lara carried the WI batting in the 2000s, Flower in the 90s and Chanders has always been "robin" to everyone – First Lara and now seemingly Gayle.

  • unni on November 19, 2010, 17:16 GMT

    @Abhi : Your point is valid. However, we have to be clear with what aspect we are analyzing. Here it is only 'the contribution of a batsman in the matches'. Hence if a batsman was in a poor team definitely he will have higher number. Definitely this cannot be used to compare 'how good a batsman is' (whatever it is ;-) ). [[ Unni is right. Also the minute I open the door to Other batsmen quality, we have to listen to others who would want Result, Home/Away, BowlingQuality etc. Ultimately any such add-on table should be used to derive additional insights, not to say that "my batsman is superior to your batsman". I will make sure that the necessary toning down of conclusions is done. Ananth: ]]

  • gruzoperevozki on May 8, 2011, 3:14 GMT

    Интересная статейка, но как по мне, можно было бы и глубже капнуть..)

  • saadjarral on December 5, 2010, 17:15 GMT

    jaysuria was very agressive opner and sirilankan cricket is still waiting for his replacement

  • Alex on November 20, 2010, 16:01 GMT

    Ananth - I agree with Unni on the glorification of the 4th. Not that I am attacking you - the innings-wise analysis is quite revealing. However, since a test often comprises 2 innings, an additional column for the same metric applied to the total # runs scored in both innings would be even better.

    E.g., consider SRT's runs in the match (across both innings) at Mohali vs Aus '10 and at Chennai vs Eng '08. But VVS bagged the glory at Mohali and Sehwag got the honors at Chennai. (Mind you, I am all for VVS & Viru, and they both did play amazing innings.) [[ My only point is not to have a fixed antipathy towards a certain class of things. Judge each innings separately. All these will be taken care of in the MVP analysis, sometime in the future. Ananth: ]]

  • unni on November 20, 2010, 15:16 GMT

    Regarding your last statement, irrespective of the index discussion, I very much agree. It was always my opinion that the guys who lay the foundations by playing size-able first innings are the true value-adds to the team. I always feel dejected on the 4th innings glories and glorification of 'come-back-from-behind' sagas... Why did they risk it to the last moment? [[ Unni I must defer. It is mostly because the so-called match-winners in the first innings fail that there is need to play the coming-from-behind innings. Why have strong negative feelings towars a type of innings. Judge each innings on its merit. Ananth: ]]

  • unni on November 20, 2010, 15:10 GMT

    @Abhi : I think there is some misunderstanding. I didn't propose to divide considering opposite team's batsman's average. So, still it is only w.r.t own batsman's against opposition bowlers. So, I'm not sure if the 'peer analysis' suggestion holds with that understanding.

    As regarding your other comment on '% of runs', as Ananth mentioned, it is not very much different.

    However, (incidently) this is very much related to Alex's comment below. Whatever Alex felt missed is the weightage factor. When somebody reduces a continuous quantity like runs(let us assume it is continuous due to the sheer size of the numbers) to discrete indices, large information will be lost. Then as you commented, whether we need only the skeleton or full flesh is not easy to decide. Anyway, my point was that it is precisely the difference between % calculation and an index calculation. [[ Unni My preliminary calculations show that the Inns Index is more robust that the % of TS, which is easy to determine, however. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 20, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    Ananth - Unni's metric will weigh a strong performance in one innings more than a strong performance in a match. E.g. consider the following:

    Scenario 1: Batsman scores 100 while all his team-mates score 90. Thus, Unni's Index=10. In the second innings, he scores zero while others average 20. Thus, Unni's index = 0. Combined Index in the match =(10+0)/2=5.

    Scenario 2: Batsman scores 50 while all his team-mates score 90. Thus, Unni's Index = 5. In the second innings, though, he scores 50 while others average 20. Thus, Unni's index = 2.5. Combined index in the match = (5+2.5)/2=3.75.

    In both cases, the batman scored 100 runs in the match. However, Unni's index rates him higher in the first scenario. Is that acceptable? Well, that is a matter of opinion. Something similar happened at Mohali vs Aus this year. I guess VVS' contribution in that match (1 & 74*) will rate higher than SRT's (98 & 38) on this metric but, IMO, SRT's 136 runs in that match laid the basis for the win.

  • Abhi on November 20, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    Ananth, Just another thought. The average ,like all stats , though not a perfect metric is at least a direct measure of "batsman vs. opposition bowlers" ...It doesn't include performance of "opposition" batting and bowling or "own" team bowling etc.

    However, again average is best when used as a "peer ratio" since peers would face more or less similar bowling/pitches/conditions etc.

    So,perhaps doing some sort of a "peer" analysis of "unni's metric" may be better? [[ Abhi Let us get this going before doing a Peer analysis. I would include the batsman's career years in the table so that people can do their own rough peer analysis. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on November 20, 2010, 4:01 GMT

    Unni, I feel there is a slight flaw when you say that we are analysing 'the contribution of a batsman in the matches'... This bit has previously been adequately covered in "% of own team runs scored". [[ From what I can see there is a strong correlation between % of Team runs and the (Unni) Innings index. Ananth: ]]

    What happens here is when the "opposition" team average is included you are not only including the batting quality of "opposition" team but effectively also including an "own" bowling vs "opposition" bowling factor.

  • Abhi on November 20, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    Ananth,Unni Right ho. I think Hayden does well because the bulk of his run with the Aussie team was for most part when they were both right at their peak- especially the bowling.

    Hayden played just a handful of matches in the '90s when Aus were'nt yet totally dominant- Just 7 matches to be precise in the '90s where he fared poorly, averaging 21.8.

    Then a whopping 85 matches from 2000-07 (arguably the Aussie peak), where he averaged 55.7.

    Then 11 matches avg. 32.7 from 2008 to retirement… Must say a well timed retirement before it really started hurting his stats.

    So, the great bulk of his career with him and Aus at their peaks would have resulted in simultaneously for the most part having the additional effect of the peak Aussie bowling lineup beating up on the opposition- thereby effectively reducing the averaging of opposition batsmen. Also being an opener- he had the additional "luxury" of getting full "play" in his innings.

    As rgds.Lara,Flower, Chanders etc. generally obvious. Lara carried the WI batting in the 2000s, Flower in the 90s and Chanders has always been "robin" to everyone – First Lara and now seemingly Gayle.

  • unni on November 19, 2010, 17:16 GMT

    @Abhi : Your point is valid. However, we have to be clear with what aspect we are analyzing. Here it is only 'the contribution of a batsman in the matches'. Hence if a batsman was in a poor team definitely he will have higher number. Definitely this cannot be used to compare 'how good a batsman is' (whatever it is ;-) ). [[ Unni is right. Also the minute I open the door to Other batsmen quality, we have to listen to others who would want Result, Home/Away, BowlingQuality etc. Ultimately any such add-on table should be used to derive additional insights, not to say that "my batsman is superior to your batsman". I will make sure that the necessary toning down of conclusions is done. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on November 19, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    To continue... Perhaps a more refined way of going about it would be a version of the previously calculated "% team runs scored"...but somehow incorporating the "batting quality" of batsmen who actually batted. This would take out pitch/bowling quality etc to a greater extent though not completely since pitch quality would also change depending on the Day (perhaps applicable only prior to the 2000s)

    So, if we can somehow calculate "batting quality" of batsmen in own team who actually batted and THEN factor this to the "% team runs scored"...it may be more accurate. [[ Even before your comment I had made a first run of Unni's Innings Index concept. The results are more or less on the lines expected. Bradman is so good that it did not matter that he was also in a strong team. Batsmen like Andy flower and Lara benefit. Batsmen like Tendulkar do not. Although surprisingly Hayden does well. I understand the tweaking with the rest of the team batting strength. I feel it is a bit contrived. We are ready to accept the batting average, irrespective of when, where and against who the runs were scored. This is also a basic measure like batting average. It should be taken as it is. Overcomplicating it with other factors will make it lose its simplicity. However I will also try and do and present this tweak at least to see what is the impact. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on November 19, 2010, 12:59 GMT

    Unni's suggestion on the surface is good , but again applies only to more or less equal teams in both batting and bowling departments.

    We will otherwise again end up with the same old "circular logic " conundrum of batsmen who play in poor batting /good bowling units having better figures on this metric than batsmen in good batting /poor bowling teams....

    This would be in general of course, since though it may "take the pitch" out of the equation it doesn't account for inept batsmen or poor/good bowling.

  • Aalok - Aa on November 19, 2010, 8:38 GMT

    @Unni, I had also given it some thought. I like the idea of using balls/runs remaining along with resources at hand. To further determine 'lack of support while batsman was at crease', number of wickets that fell when he was batting can be used. I don't think the runs scored by others while he was not at the crease can be ignored. After all, those runs have contributed towards reaching/setting target. As we don't have this data, avg. score and strike rate of others can give good indication of player contribution. [[ All things considered Unni's initial suggestion of an Innings Index which is determined by dividing the Batsman score by the Average score of the other batsmen who batted, is outstanding. The preliminary work I have done for Tests indicates how robust this simple suggestion is. It is almost as good as Batting average. For that matter it brings out more insight. For ODIs the additional Index metric will be the Scoring rate ratio for which complete data is available. Ananth: ]]

  • somnath gore on November 19, 2010, 7:39 GMT

    nice work ananta. keep it up. tribute to sanath. sachin, viv, sanath, ricky, beven, inzy, and .... are great odi players but i really dont know why people compare sanath with srt and viv and are reluctunt to give deserved respect to sanath. come out men i dont have any doubt and anybody shouldnt have that depending upon pure performance with bat, ball and fielding jaya is the greatest odi allrounder ever. he virtually dominated mid 90ty decate with his explosive batting and his command over bowlers.

  • Sancho on November 17, 2010, 17:40 GMT

    "Ananth - perhaps a better way to quantify lack of support is(i) value1 = batsman's score divided by average # of runs scored by others _while_ he was at the crease, and (ii) value2 = batsman's SR divided by the average SR of others _while_ he was at the crease. Thus, Viv's 189* when others scored (26,12*,8,2,3,etc.) will have more value1 score than him scoring 189* while others scored (26,26,26,26,26). [[ Akex The problem, again, is the non-availability of data for the earlier matches of whose wicket fell. We have bland 1-12, 2-35, 3-52, etc. Ananth: ]]"

    Ananth - simply take average of all other players in the innings - it doesn't matter whether they played with the batsman in question or not. If a no 4 comes in after 1 & 2have added a 100, that supports the no 4, even if he may not have batted with the openers. Also, the next highest score, which you suggest, could, in theory, not have played with the player in question. SO, even in that case this issue would be the same. [[ Sancho That is what was initially suggested by Unni. I only tried to add another factor which is the support received. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 17, 2010, 17:01 GMT

    Ananth - I suggest you include extras too in the other batsmen's contribution ... after all, every little bit helps. That will also make your job much easier --- you simply need to look at the score when the batsman got in and the score when either he got out or the match ended. You already have the # wkts fallen during his stay. So, the now modified metric can be implemented easily.

    Maybe my pen-name should be changed to "Valex" lest some misguided soul think you be a schizophreniac! [[ If I do not make a big issue of the batsman getting out score, this can be implemented quite easily. Anyhow let us see. Poor Aalok has now been pushed into this group through unpublished mail. I have already suggested to Aalok what name he could use henceforth. Oh! what a tangled web weave and how low can people go. Ananth: ]]

  • unni on November 17, 2010, 16:40 GMT

    both are fine methods depending upon (a) what do you mean by 'support' (support while the main guy at crease or support indirectly by scoring at some other position) (b) what type of data we have.

    '(lack of) support' factor is intended for only selected index, right? I mean, it is not intended to be summed up and averaged across matches. [[ Unni I personally feel that a single next support score can be used. It indicates clearly the extent of support. Of course the scores of batsmen who batted earlier is a factor. Also we do not need 100.0% accuracy. 95+% will do. I had done some type of extrapolation earlier to determine the duration of a batsman's innings. Was not too comfortable. Not foolproof. This anyhow applies only to about 1000 ODI matches and Test matches. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 17, 2010, 8:44 GMT

    Ananth - if you have access to the batsman's batting position, this problem is solved: a batsman at position X, where X>2, will bat after the fall of (X-2)th wicket. Of course, the other batsmen (i.e., those at positions X=1 & X=2) will bat after the fall of 0-th wicket. [[ Alex, no problems in determining when the batsman came in. It is when he got out which is a problem for about 1000+ ODI matches. And that too only for dismissed batsmen. So we have part information. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 17, 2010, 4:07 GMT

    @Unni - I had requested Ananth to incorporate this info to fine tune the IPF (or PIF) metric. However, turned out that he didn't have it in an accessible form.

    Ananth - perhaps a better way to quantify the lack of support is to compute (i) value1 = batsman's score divided by the average # of runs scored by others _while_ he was at the crease, and (ii) value2 = batsman's SR divided by the average SR of others _while_ he was at the crease. Thus, Viv scoring 189* when others scored (26,12*,8,2,3,etc.) will have more value1 score than him scoring 189* while others scored (26,26,26,26,26). [[ Akex The problem, again, is the non-availability of data for the earlier matches of whose wicket fell. We have bland 1-12, 2-35, 3-52, etc. Ananth: ]]

    Unfortunately on this metric a batsman gets bonus points for being surrounded by mediocrity. E.g., IMO, Gambhir's match-winning 150* vs SL is on equal footing with SRT's 175 but will have much less value1 score ... a batsman has done his job 100% if all needed runs were scored while he was at the crease.

  • unni on November 16, 2010, 15:53 GMT

    @Aalok : The 'opportunity' factor is not a new problem. In a way it is present for the normal 'average' calculations as well(even with the benefit of notouts). What if the guy didn't get a chance at all to bat? I think that is solved to some extend with the index of multiplying the runs with the strike-rate. However, solving that problem would be another exercise. I had thought about it sometime back without any concrete solutions. Some idea was to consider the runs/balls remaining when the guy came to crease and use it in denominator since for such an index, amount of available resources should have been inversely proportional. Then I think I got a hint that such data is not available (did Ananth mention that?) [[ Yes, Unni, it is not available in public domain. Cricinfo, of course, has it, in spades. But I would not even dream of taking taht information since our database methodology is diametrically opposite. Ananth: ]]

  • Ananth on November 16, 2010, 12:01 GMT

    Unni: I have been thinking about your suggestion. One other within-innings measure could be the player's score divided by the next highest score. This will let us pinpoint the support factor. Two examples, both 189, explain this. Richards: 189/26=7.29 Jayasuriya: 189/52=3.63. This clearly indicates the lack of support given to Richards.

  • craigmnz on November 16, 2010, 0:30 GMT

    Ananth

    I have a question. You singled out Michael Holding and Kyle Mills for special mention as the only bowlers in your third chart. Does this mean you considered Lance Cairns an all-rounder?

    Over here we thought of him as a bowler who on his day could hit a ball a very long way. His son was the all-rounder. He was pretty useful bowler too - I still remember Lance bowling Gavaskar and Vishwanath in the same over at Wellington in 1981 (from memory). [[ Yes, Craig, I considered Lance as an all-rounder. And at a batting average of 17 and a strike rate of 100 he is somewhere in between an all-rounder and a bowler who could tonk. Ananth: ]]

  • Aalok on November 15, 2010, 17:59 GMT

    In ODI case, lets take an example which is not an extreme one: X opens and scores 100 in 120 balls. Y comes at 5 and scores 60 in 40 balls. Team scores 300. Have X and Y contributed equally? X had 50 overs to bat, however faced new ball and his role was to get team to a good start. Y had just 10 overs to bat. In my opinion, both have performed well in their allocated roles. X batted for most of the innings which allowed Y to have a go at bowling towards end of the innings.

    I am not sure of this, but would it add any value if we use variables like 'wickets in hand' and 'overs remaining' while finding out player contribution? [[ Zalok This is an analysis bereft of any tweaks. It is also not about player contribution. For that the Alex Factor is more than useful. Ananth: ]]

  • Aalok on November 15, 2010, 17:22 GMT

    Completely agree with Abhi. I have been off the blog for past 6-7 months(work/travel/relocation/more work/more travel/again relocation!) and have spent last week going through some of the articles posted during last 6 months. It's been 'Attack of the Brainless Maniacs'! I am more disturbed by the tone, the manner in which these people have chosen to express their opinions. It is not “what” you say, but “how” you say it.

    Unni, I was also thinking on the same lines. It takes care of lot of issues like changing pitch conditions and a good measure of 'player contribution' in a given innings. [[ Unni's suggestion can very well open up a treasure-house of opportunities. Ananth: ]]

    I am not sure if 'Opportunity to score' should be in-cooperated as well. It reminds me of a discussion we had regarding batting position in Tests. 'Is XYZ a great player because he bats at 3 or he bats at 3 because he is a great player'. [[ Aalok It is unfortunate that you and a few others have names starting with "A". It has been reported that I have created imaginary people with names starting with "A" to send supporting mails. You should probably change the name to Zapak Johar or Yash Johar. Ananth: ]]

  • Ram Narayan on November 15, 2010, 15:54 GMT

    Great work sir!! appreciate the effort taken.. Just to extend it, beyond just 1 match, to an entire career? as in, is it possible to come up with figures of total percentage of runs a player has contributed to the team total in all the matches throught his career?? I am pretty sure the corresponding figure for test wickets will rveal how highly murali must be treasured in sri lanka! [[ Ram That is a simple % which has already been done. A more important share related work would be what Unni has suggested. Ananth: ]]

  • unni on November 15, 2010, 14:16 GMT

    Yes, scoring rate is another option where this can be applied. But, my proposal is to use this generally for any parameter. It could be used for even number of wickets, economy rate (either test or onedays). Also, it could be used for the combined parameters like average * scoring rate. [[ Yes, Unni, I get the drift. Virtually any playing measure can be measured against the team's average performance in each match, summed and averaged. Almost all the objections related to playing conditions will disppear. Leave it with me. I have couple of other interesting articles to be completed first. Ananth: ]]

  • unni on November 15, 2010, 13:36 GMT

    Relieved to see a couple of pure statistical analysis here (ok, more than a couple :-)). I was thinking of a similar idea for sometime. Especially w.r.t the third analysis. Instead of considering the scoring rate, why not consider the ratio of each batsman's score with the average batsman score? i.e, if player A's score is 72 and if the team score is 240/8, team's average score is (240/(8+2)) = 24 (totally 10 batsmen batted; ignore the not-outs etc. to start with). Now, batsman's weighted score for the innings is 72/24 = 3. I think this can be used instead of batting averages to reflect the batsman's true contribution in each matches. In fact, it is nothing more than the peer analysis extended to individual innings. Hence all the advantages of the peer analysis such as cancelling out the playing conditions, bowling strength etc, are equally applicable here. Please check if you can prepare a career score for some of the top batsmen (maybe both in ODI and tests). [[ Unni That is a intriguing suggestion. Only thing I am concerned is that it gives up the scoring rate. Why would we not look at summing and averaging the third table value, at least for ODIs. Test could be your suggestion. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on November 15, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    Ananth, Is this blog starting to attract more and more brainless maniacs? Or is it just something i am imagining? Passion is fine (in fact required)- but it seems to be getting to an almost paranoid level in various ways. [[ You should see some of the comments which were trashed. Now I am supposed to be in the business of pushing Sri Lankan players up after doing that earlier for Pakistani players. If I were not a bloody-minded son of a gun, I might have given up. Ananth: ]]

  • Ashoka on November 14, 2010, 23:50 GMT

    Is this analysis or psychoanalysis :0 ? Nothing makes sense. It is like you pick and choose whatever variable you want without any consideration to why those variables are important. For example, why percentage of run scored by a player is important? I can think of dozen other variables that would be more appropriate for the value of the innings. [[ The factor compared to the opposite teams' total or for that matter own teams' numbers gives an indication of the domination exercised by the player, that is all. I agree we could think of many other variables. Each analysis will give us a fresh insight. That is the purpose of this blog. No point in seeing aggregate runs or batting average week after week. In fact you are welcome to suggest other variables for analysis as many a reader has done. Ananth: ]]

  • Ananth on November 14, 2010, 17:03 GMT

    I have mantioned for the nth time (n exceeding 10) that this is not a list of best ODI innings. This does not seem to be getting through. Hence no comment, which keeps on repeating that xyz innings is not included or better than some innings mentioned here, will be published. That is a waste of time and space. By all means find fault with the analysis but please do not keep repeating the same thing again and again like a broken gramaphone record.

  • Ram Narayan on November 14, 2010, 16:23 GMT

    Great work sir!! appreciate the effort taken.. Just to extend it, beyond just 1 match, to an entire career? as in, is it possible to come up with figures of total percentage of runs a player has contributed to the team total in all the matches throught his career?? I am pretty sure the corresponding figure for test wickets will rveal how highly murali must be treasured in sri lanka!

  • Vinish Garg on November 14, 2010, 16:20 GMT

    I just want to raise my hand in the crowd saying that ... I too am tired of Tendulkarization of cricket! Thanks Ananth for this space!

  • LakmalPhysics on November 14, 2010, 15:49 GMT

    I see some people worrying about SRT's 200. You guys need to understand that SRT made 200 after introducing two Powerplays and free hits into the game. Therefore, Jayasooriya's 189 is ahead of SRT's best score. [[ But you must understand that SRT's 200 was like Lara's 400 or climbing of Everest by Hilary/Tensing or Laker's 10 wkts or Don Budge's Grand slam or so many other achievements which scaled completely uncharted heights. Ananth: ]]

  • Mohseen on November 14, 2010, 15:18 GMT

    Good stuff ananth. IMO There should be a cut-off with the amount of balls faced, as macullums innings was too short to be counted. Vivs innings is obviosly the most dominating, all considered. The best ever odi innings is Gibbs 175, underpressure chasing 435. He wasnt playing for him self and the 200, as he very well could have gotten 250 if he did...unlike someone we know lol... btw da best ting bout ur blog ananth is the reader feedback...i love it wen someone takes a dig at u n u get so emotional n shoot him down with your reply...top stuff ananth :P [[ Only when I see criticism for the sake of criticism, utterly frivolous statements, or a show-off attempt. I can assure you that Gibbs' masterpiece will be right there jostling for a top-10 place in the best ODI innings analysis. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 14, 2010, 11:18 GMT

    Ananth - Viv Richards' 39-ball 80* is missing in Table 3 (Match #342) ... its index value is about 3.3. [[ Alex It is 40th in the table, just outside the 3.00 cut-off. The Index value is 2.93 = (80/39)/(122/174) = 2.05/0.70. I am not sure how you got 3.3. Ananth: ]]

    Sanath's 189 is taking unfair beating from a few readers who extol Viv's 138*, Ponting's 140*, etc. On any sensible metric, the 189 is a behemoth --- and only 3 players scored more than 9 in that match (viz., 11, 15, 52). I admit the bowling quality was tame but that was so in 138* and 140* as well. BTW, the 138* was the turning point in ODI's (and, hence, unfortunately in tests) for Viv but the real killer was the 66-ball 88 of Collis King in that match.

  • Black Eyed Panda on November 14, 2010, 9:22 GMT

    So if your team plays well no matter how well you do, your innings is not worth it but if your team sucks then you are the champion. What a faulty logic to judge the value of an inning! Hence all the great innings including first double hundred in ODI is not included even if it was scored while chasing and India fell short by only a few runs. I guess they should have lost by 150 runs for that inning to count. Thats why Ricky Pontings classic in WC final, Viv Richards century in WC final are all somehow less important then innings played by flat track bullies against the like of Prasad and Agarkar on a wicket resembling grand trunk road. How do you justify it to even yourself? [[ There are two reasons why you will ignore the fact that I had told many a time that "THIS IS NOT A LIST OF THE GREATEST ODI INNINGS PLAYED". One is that you are dense which, I feel you are not. The other is is to, come what may, find fault. This is one aspect of the batsman's game which I have brought to light. That is the word "domination". Finally it is not necessary that the 200 or 400 has to figure in every list of ODI or Test innings. If you have made the Sharjah track resemble the Grand Trunk Road, then pray what does one make of the Indian batsmen who scored 54 on the same Grand Trunk Road or in the course of 1 hour did it change to Agra-Khiraoli road. Ananth: ]]

  • Aditya on November 14, 2010, 8:48 GMT

    Great work Ananth!!Loved every bit of it!!And to the guy called Kesavan,"Buddy!Read n comprehend...n acquire the skill if u don't have it yet!!Coz the way i see it,the estimation of the dominance of a batsman in his era by the times he was wrongly given out would be rather erroneous!!"

  • Abhi on November 14, 2010, 8:48 GMT

    Ananth, Brilliant bit about the "zero-sum game".

    Alex, The comment re. VVS wasn't mine- it's just that it reflects certain perceptions ppl may have- which in this case almost certainly does not apply to VVS . It's just that when the average fan puts together his "mental" list of greats he is subconsciously accounting for a myriad subjective factors which don't lend themselves to statistical analysis. I rem. reading a Richard Evans bio on Mcenroe. There was a dead rubber of a davis cup in Paris which went to the third set.Mac stuck in till some 1 in the morning to grind out the win. This particular match will never ,ever figure in any statistical analysis which measures player "greatness". But do you think the grateful fans who stuck around ever forgot it? For all his pathetic on court behaviour did you ever see Mac throw a tennis match? Never.

    So, just one of those things which I too feel is highly underrated when considering greatness.And the likes of Jayasuriya should be given full credit for maintaining top intensity regardless. A lot of other batsmen have played weaker teams- why couldn’t they replicate his feats?

  • Kesavan on November 14, 2010, 7:16 GMT

    Ananth's stats do not serve any purpose and he should not be wasting time over such frivolous topics. He should be better utilized by his manager in coming out with numbers which help improve perception. How abt - how many times SRT was wrongly given out LBW by umpires world over. Rememember the leg before in Australia shouldering a Mcgrath delivery ? Or How many times Miandad was not given out by Umpires in Pakistan :)

    Jayasuriya will never be held in the same breath as SRT and Sir Viv, no matter what stat you producce. [[ That is your view and you are entitled to it. Incidentally I decide on what is to be done and no one else. And I suggest you do not waste everybody's time with such frivolous and worthless comments. Ananth: ]]

  • Gurjot Singh Ahluwalia on November 14, 2010, 7:04 GMT

    Very nice analysis! I was just scanning through the last list and searching for a certain name of Virender Sehwag who surprisingly figures right at the tail end. I'm sure he would figure a lot more if you did the same analysis for test matches. [[ Yes, Gurjot, if balls played information is incorporated. Ananth: ]]

  • Shubham on November 14, 2010, 3:08 GMT

    Really great analysis. And Jayasuriya is one of my fav Sri Lankan players, its always a joy to watch him bat which we sadly dont get to see anymore. Though, reading the comments and people going on about SRT and Viv and that Jayasuriya's innings is not the best I think what got to a lot of people and why they were going on and on about the innings instead of analysis was your comment

    "When we talk of the greatest ODI players we almost always talk of Tendulkar and Richards. I think Jayasuriya needs to be included in this company."

    What they probably dont realize is that you are not discrediting SRT or viv, but crediting Jayasuriya.

    [[ The point which is forgotten, Shubham, is that this is not a zero-sum game. There is no limit to the quantum of accolades. It is possible to praise Jayasuriya without in any way discrediting the others. The problem is the inability, by some people, to accept that another player could be considered equal to one's favourite. Ananth: ]]

  • Deepanjan Datta on November 14, 2010, 1:29 GMT

    Hmm .. nice one here. True, the stats might not be as clear for Test matches - though one instance which immediately pops to mind is Hayden's century in 50'c+ in Sharjah - which pretty much has Pakistan wilt for a grand total of about 100 odd [[ Yes, Deep, when we delve into the numbers, we are likely to come up with gems. That was probably Hayden's best test innings ever. I will do this for Tests also. When ??? Ananth: ]]

  • Anand on November 13, 2010, 17:30 GMT

    Ananth: I agree with you. A single batsman analysisw has larger impact. Just out of curiosity. Do you thnk the total number of wickets lost in the match plays a role here? I mean in Mc Cullums 80 vs Ban NZL did not lose any wicket. Howver in Viv's 189 WI lost 9 wkts and England lost 10 so in 440 for 19 wickets (something like 23 runs per wicket) his 189 seems more mammoth. I am not taking any credit away from Mc Cullum but his innings was a case of a single batsman dominating a partnership. But in Viv or Kapil's case both teams had a ppor runs per wicket but for their individual score. I am not sure if it is a worthwhile exercise, but does your list look different if that factor gets included? [[ Anand The keyword here is domination. Jayasuriya, Richards, Kapil and McCullum all dominated their matches. However when I do an analysis of the best ODI innings, all these and other factors, viz., pitch type, support received, innings status when batsman came in, runs added with late order, scoring rate, team scoring rate, target, bowling quality, result, match importance et al would come in. Then Richards' and Kapil's innings will get credit for all these factors. However that is a major task. I had earlier done it but now would refine my parameters based on lots on insights received. Ananth: ]]

  • Vyas on November 13, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    Ananth,

    Great Analysis. I'm aways amazed at the wonderful stats that you put up here at cricinfo.

    I have a request. Could you include links to the matches when you provide the stats. I know that I could go search every match one by one but I'm lazy here and there would be others like me.

    Thanks [[ Vyas I have explained already that the links are not under my control and Cricinfo has to provide the same. Ananth: ]]

  • Anand Nair on November 13, 2010, 15:39 GMT

    Nice Statistics Ananth. But wouldn't Tendulkars 200*come among this statistic. Secondly what about the 194 by Pakistani Batsman! Wasn't it more than the average runs scored by the whole team? Just a question.

    Thanks for this information though. [[ Since no one is ready to do the work, let me complete it. Tendulkar 200*(401) vs 248 Table 1: 200/(649) = 30.8% Table 2: 200/248 = 0.81 Table 3: (200/147)/(192/153) = 1.08 Saeed Anwar 194(327) vs 292 Table 1: 194/(629) = 31.8% Table 2: 194/292 = 0.66 Table 3: (194/146)/(121/154) = 1.69 As can be seen clearly all these values are below the cut-off values. Ananth: ]]

  • fazayal on November 13, 2010, 11:28 GMT

    very nice analysis Ananth. you never cease to amaze me.

    Can we see a similiar list in which a particular player has dominated the whole match i.e by giving points for batting, bowling and fielding. Eg. every run scored in a match could be given as 1 point. every wicket taken as 25 points, every catch as 10 points, every catch/stumping by wicket keeper as 15 points (as they wont have chance to take wickets), runouts as 5 points, maiden over as 5 points. (or you can give a better points system if you feel there could be one). Then we can make a ratio of that player's points with that of the whole match. This will show about instances of a single player dominating a match totally!

    I would love to see if anyone can replace Jaysuriyas 189 even by this method. (I highly doubt it) [[ Fazayat I have already planned an MVP analysis similar to what you have suggested. Ananth: ]]

  • Rajat on November 13, 2010, 6:57 GMT

    Nice stats ...

    On the third one, I am personally little against taking the cutoff of 50 runs ... An innings of 49 is as important as 50 and gets missed ... I would have liked to see any score which is say at least 15% or 20% of teams score 100 or more, extras excluded ... This will ensure all the scores in your current list still stay as candidate, but include scores of whirlwind 40 out of 200 in the list ... I believe someone scored 37 in 11 balls and that is some innings in the context of the match ... At one extreme it might include 20 In 4 balls in a chase of 100, but 20 in 4 balls is some effort, on other extreme, it might push a score of 75 out of 400 out of your list, but if a team can score 400 (extra excluded), a particular batsman had the advantage of having played a bowling side of less energy ....

    My thoughts only, have all the respect for your effort and criteria ... [[ Since I have not got the context or any other relevent factor in, I had to have a cut-off. Ananth: ]]

  • LakmalPhysics on November 13, 2010, 6:09 GMT

    Great job Ananth. This is a great Analysis to prove the effectiveness of Jayasooriya's batting. This analysis clearly explains how & why Jayasooriya must be ranked as the top ODI player. Don't forget that Jayasooriya has picked up more than 300 ODI wickets also. @ Alex: Don't forget that Jayasooriya has made centuries in Australia & in England both in tests & ODI's.

  • Alex on November 13, 2010, 5:26 GMT

    Ananth - re Ajay Banerji's comment, I had earlier requested a similar analysis for a batsman across the _entire_ test series (with separate tables for a 3-test series, a 4-test series, etc.). That will facilitate a better quantitative appreciation of Bradman's '30 vs Eng, Hammond's '28 vs Aus, Viv's '76 vs Eng, Lara's '01 vs SL, etc. Pl see if you can do that. [[ Alex I can do that now with no problems since I have perfected the series classification. Ananth: ]]

    Also, Abhi's jest is open to misinterpretations --- VVS doesn't deliver only when the stakes are high. The batting position has cost this legend several 100's. His average surpasses SRT's over the last 3 years. And no one ever mastered the 3rd innings better, save the Don and Compton. I sometimes feel VVS is one of the Top 3 batsmen ever produced by India (ahead of SMG, Dravid, Merchant, and Hazare).

  • Abhishek Mukherjee on November 13, 2010, 3:44 GMT

    You took me seriously! And wrote an entire article based on that!! I'm floored, honestly!!! [[ Abhishek and added a few other things. But the spark was yours. Ananth: ]]

  • Waspsting on November 13, 2010, 3:20 GMT

    I've only watched the highlights of Viv's 189 - and the shots he plays are out of this world. Figure in that he was way ahead of his time in improvisation and fast scoring, and you have the perfect ODI player. I remember Sanath's fastest fifty. the first wicket fell at 70 - Kaluwitharana, no slow poke - and he scored a duck! Astonishing, but I think Jayasuria broke every record in history in that tournament - fastest 100, fastest 50, most runs in an over.

    Ananth, I think it would be a good idea to have an 'extra section' where you specially put out the figures for particular innings, such as Tendulkar's 200, Anwar's 194 and others you deem worthy. It'd save a lot of commenters inevitable questions. The best ODI innings I've seen is probably Gibbs 175 odd - if a batsman had placed singles as fluently as he hit boundaries through the offside, it'd still be a classic. Obvisouly, in such a high scoring match, that knock probably didn't match up, these stats [[ Yes I would do that. However I think it is a good idea for the readers also to do that work. Anyone for that matter. Ananth: ]]

  • Aalok on November 13, 2010, 1:33 GMT

    Contd. A good example of this is Kapil featuring thrice in 'Batsman outlier ratio' list. His own s.r. is 1.62,1.36 and 1.27. Compare this with Gilchrist's s.r. of 1.66 and 1.65. Kapil gets into the list because his team mates scored at .36, .39 and .44. This usually does not happen with 'consistent and methodical' teams like Australia and South Africa. Both teams rarely miss a single and in general have had batsmen who are very good with running between the wickets.I don't see a single SA batsman in the list. With likes of Hayden, Symonds, Bevan and Ponting in the team, its highly unlikely that rest of the team would be scoring at less than .5-.6 s.r. If rest of the team scores at .6, batsman has to score at-least 50 runs at 1.8 to make the cut, which is not easy even in T20.

    Thanks Anantha for bringing up these outliers! [[ Aalok Thanks for the comments. You have enhanced the conclusions. That is the purpose of these articles. Not to say that one innings is the best. But to get additional insights. Ananth: ]]

  • Aalok on November 13, 2010, 0:15 GMT

    Thanks for this wonderful analysis.I have spent a lot of my time today going through so many of Jayasuriya's innings against India.Depressing to say the least! He did have a special liking for Indian bowlers,though I remember him saying once that Srinath was the toughest bowler he faced.At his peak,(1996-2001) his average against India is phenomenal 53.22 (30 ODIs, 1437 runs).Prasad and Prabhakar might still be having nightmares about Jayasuriya hammering the ball through point and cover or using his forearms to scoop/pull(!?!)it over leg side.

    Reg. your observation that in-spite of Gilchrist being at top, Aus has not featured enough in the list.The only way to get into this list is if one batsman scores at a very high s.r. AND rest of the batsmen have less than average s.r. Aus being the top ODI team,with likes of Hayden and Symonds,its hard for rest of the team to score slowly.:)

  • Aalok on November 12, 2010, 21:51 GMT

    I can never forget that innings by Jayasuriya. He was so dominant and completely destroyed Prasad (and morale of Indian fans too). Prasad's bowling figures of 7-0-74-0 (RPO 10.57) were the second most expensive by a bowler bowling at least seven overs in a match at that time.Who was the first? Ravi Shastri who conceded 77 runs in his 7 overs (RPO 11.00) against West Indies at Jamshedpur. Someone called Viv Richards took a liking to the gentle left arm orthodox spin and hit 149 from 99 balls, taking WI to 333 in 45 overs! (all this in 1983, if you can believe that!). If that onslaught from Jayasuriya was not enough, Chaminda Vaas decimated Indian top order (Ganguly, Sachin, Kambli and Yuvraj) and ended up with figures of 5 for 14! It erased whatever confidence we poor Indian fans had gained from Ganguly and Dravid's brilliant innings at the World Cup, after years of Lankan dominance.I know I am a bit off the track but that innings evokes mixed feelings, both admiration and frustration!

  • Faraz on November 12, 2010, 20:50 GMT

    I believe that though the analysis is quite comprehensive, it lacks one attribute. Every innings should be weighed in its context as well. Naturally a guy coming in as an opener against a Namibian Bowling attack would do quite well compared to someone who lifts his side up from dire straits. Viv did that as WI were 60 odd for 8 and yet mustered 200 runs with the last two wickets almost single handedly and against a strong opposition. Runs alone should not count. Similarly Kapil's innings should be considered when he lifted India from a miserable 17 for 5 to finish at around 260 odd in a WC ( an important event) [[ I think Chinmoy is eminently correct. The readers DO NOT take the trouble of reading the article before commenting. Ananth: ]]

  • Anand on November 12, 2010, 17:50 GMT

    Ananth: You never cease to amaze with your analysis. I am actually not surprised at the absence of Aussies in the list. This is because Australia and SAF and two teams where almost always EVERYONE contributes. While they may outscore opponents (like Hayden & Symonds vs Nam), I dont think many Australians would score more than 50% of their team's score. Also they all play fast so chances of someone being 4-5 times faster than other team mates is also low. Border's 84 off 44 against England-isnt it surprising that despite such an innings Australia failed to make 250?? Jones and March batted Australia out of the game there :-).

    For ODIs atleast can you make an analysis of two batsmen forming the bulk of the team's score (of course, you can add criterion like variance in amount of balls faced to exclude cases like Ganguly and Tendulkar scoring 100's each and India scorinf 260 or 300). Here I suspect we will see lot of matches Involving India in the 80s and 90s. [[ I think, Anand, a single batsman analysis has more impact. Ananth: ]]

  • Altamash on November 12, 2010, 16:43 GMT

    After seeing this list of dominant performances in ODI by batsman, I really wish to see a similar lists for bowling performances. We won't have to look far to find the first candidate performance. In the same series in which Jaysuriya scored 189, Murlitharan took 7/30, i.e, 7 out of 15 wickets (46.67 %) to fall in a match.

    Some other performances Glen McGrath 7 out of 16 (43.75%) ODI# 1970 Waqar Younis 7 out of 14 (50.0%) ODI# 1724 Chaminda Vass 8 out of 11 (72.73%) ODI# 1776 [[ The methodology of this type of innings analysis cannot really be applied to bowling. Ananth: ]]

  • Manasvi on November 12, 2010, 16:23 GMT

    While I am a BIG fan of Sanath, I'd still hesitate about putting him right up with SRT and Viv. The funny thing is that all of these three guys were competent bowlers in varying degrees. SRT was a useful part-timer, Viv was a almost-batting allrounder and Sanath a batting allrounder. If I had to pick 5 batsmen in ODIs, they would be: 1) Sir Viv 2) Tendulkar 3) Bevan 4) Amla All of these guys scored tons of runs, they scored at a fast rate, and they were capable of both defence, accumulation and attack. Everyone will say these are early days for Amla but the man is the ideal ODI player - someone who never takes risks, never gets out and always gets a significant score. [[ Manasvi No one is selecting a ODi team here. Ananth: ]]

  • Chinmoy Lad on November 12, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    Do THAT many people really have trouble READING? I went through the article - thanks for taking up that painstaking job - over to the comments section, only to find people asking why certain innings weren't included in "The Greatest Innings List". [[ The problem, Chinmoy, is that when people see a list they automatically connect it to their own list of the best innings. It is alright by me as long as they do not get abusive. In fact it might be a good idea for someone to take the trouble of working out the numbers for the innings they mention. They are sure to get some new insight. Ananth: ]]

  • saad on November 12, 2010, 14:38 GMT

    why tendulkar's 200 and saeed anwar's 194 missing from the list? [[ I suggest you work out the numbers yourself to see why these two innings are not there. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on November 12, 2010, 13:38 GMT

    Udayan,Ananth, Fair comment by Udayan. But the thing is each analysis needs to be looked at on the parameters it is based on. I saw an interesting comment on the live commentary the other day on the NZ-India match- the person commented something to the effect that "VVS never plays a fine innings unless he knows he is going to get a lot of praise for it"!! Ha! Brilliant- there are some players who tend to languish and turn up mostly for the "big occasion" So, I think we should actually celebrate the likes of Jayasuriya who do their best each and every time,irrespective of the situation-Give the sports fan his money's worth every time. I think that is partly the reason Jayasuriya is so popular not just with Sri Lankan fans but also with Indian and other fans. He will always give his Best. [[ Abhi When we talk about his batting we tend to overlook the 322 wickets. He was the only one in the trinity who could have played as a bowler and could have bowled 10 overs in each match he played. Ananth: ]]

  • CricketPissek on November 12, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    Sanath Jayasuriya, MP, is underrated as an ODI great for sure. As far as his record abroad, 3 centuries against England in England @ 45 cannot be considered weak at all! There have always been aggressive players and I don't think Sanath would claim it was his original idea! His 189 is the greatest ODI innings I've seen (was too young to have seen Viv's one!) and he (along with Murali and Aravinda) always carried the hopes of a tiny nation that has always felt victimised while trying to become a serious contender! All he needs to do now is retired :-D [[ The other 189 takes the lead only because of the situation and the recovery. As does the 175. But I would not blame anyone for taking SJ's 189. I saw every ball of the match and can vouch for the utter domination. Unfortunately SJ does not know when to quit. He should have auit an year back. Ananth: ]]

  • Udayan on November 12, 2010, 11:25 GMT

    The idea to include the opposition's score may seem a good one in theory, but is that not to the credit of the bowling of the batsman's team. (Look at all the sub-100 scores that show up in the first list.) The second table similarly seems a bit uninteresting, especially considering all the minnows that show up.

    The third seems the most relevant.

    As you say, Richards and Tendulkar don't appear much in the list, and that should have raised the red flag.

    Tendulkar's 175 last year and the 143 in Sharjah: two great innings of ODI cricket are missing from your list.

    In terms of impact, some things are immeasurable: such as Steve Waugh's 120 against SA in the '99 WC and Ponting's 140 odd in the 2003 WC Final; Gibbs in that magical chase.

    No Australian other than Geoff Marsh: RED FLAG! :) [[ I have never said this is a list of the greatest of ODI innings. The idea of one batsman scoring over three times the opposing team score or over 40% of the combined taem scores are measures to show the type of dominance, nothing more. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 12, 2010, 9:30 GMT

    Ananth - thanks. I think Sanath is not awarded the real elite status of Viv/SRT since he was not equally destructive in Aus-Eng-SA. That is a fair knock against him. Also, Greatbatch (WC '92) was the first to treat the first 15 as the slog overs. Still, Sanath's WC '96 campaign fundamentally changed the approach to the first 15 and even McGrath named him as the most important 11 players of his era.

    I remember Patil's 51 vs Pak @Jaipur in '83 after being dropped from the team for the 3rd test due to poor form (I thought it was from 32 balls though). He was immediately flown in Nagpur amidst much hoopla for the 3rd test but flopped badly again ... a spiritual father of Rohit Sharma! [[ I think Rohit Sharma has added too many kgs around his waist and millions to his bank balance too soon. He has almost missed the bus. Pujara. Vijay and Raina are the ones who are still putting in the hard yards. Ananth: ]]

  • jay on November 12, 2010, 9:10 GMT

    Which innings come in all three tables??? that should be the best, i think.... perhaps kapil's 175??? [[ I think it is better to say that the 189*, 189* and 175* are there as top-3 amongst equals. Ananth: ]]

  • Mohan on November 12, 2010, 8:44 GMT

    Agree Jayasuriya a very remarkable batsman.

  • Ajai Banerji on November 12, 2010, 8:18 GMT

    Great analysis by Ananth as usual. Perhaps Test matches can be analyzed as well. [[ Ajai Very good iea. However the dynamics of Test innings is quite different and not as cut and dried as ODis. Still an idea worth pursuing. Ananth: ]]

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Ajai Banerji on November 12, 2010, 8:18 GMT

    Great analysis by Ananth as usual. Perhaps Test matches can be analyzed as well. [[ Ajai Very good iea. However the dynamics of Test innings is quite different and not as cut and dried as ODis. Still an idea worth pursuing. Ananth: ]]

  • Mohan on November 12, 2010, 8:44 GMT

    Agree Jayasuriya a very remarkable batsman.

  • jay on November 12, 2010, 9:10 GMT

    Which innings come in all three tables??? that should be the best, i think.... perhaps kapil's 175??? [[ I think it is better to say that the 189*, 189* and 175* are there as top-3 amongst equals. Ananth: ]]

  • Alex on November 12, 2010, 9:30 GMT

    Ananth - thanks. I think Sanath is not awarded the real elite status of Viv/SRT since he was not equally destructive in Aus-Eng-SA. That is a fair knock against him. Also, Greatbatch (WC '92) was the first to treat the first 15 as the slog overs. Still, Sanath's WC '96 campaign fundamentally changed the approach to the first 15 and even McGrath named him as the most important 11 players of his era.

    I remember Patil's 51 vs Pak @Jaipur in '83 after being dropped from the team for the 3rd test due to poor form (I thought it was from 32 balls though). He was immediately flown in Nagpur amidst much hoopla for the 3rd test but flopped badly again ... a spiritual father of Rohit Sharma! [[ I think Rohit Sharma has added too many kgs around his waist and millions to his bank balance too soon. He has almost missed the bus. Pujara. Vijay and Raina are the ones who are still putting in the hard yards. Ananth: ]]

  • Udayan on November 12, 2010, 11:25 GMT

    The idea to include the opposition's score may seem a good one in theory, but is that not to the credit of the bowling of the batsman's team. (Look at all the sub-100 scores that show up in the first list.) The second table similarly seems a bit uninteresting, especially considering all the minnows that show up.

    The third seems the most relevant.

    As you say, Richards and Tendulkar don't appear much in the list, and that should have raised the red flag.

    Tendulkar's 175 last year and the 143 in Sharjah: two great innings of ODI cricket are missing from your list.

    In terms of impact, some things are immeasurable: such as Steve Waugh's 120 against SA in the '99 WC and Ponting's 140 odd in the 2003 WC Final; Gibbs in that magical chase.

    No Australian other than Geoff Marsh: RED FLAG! :) [[ I have never said this is a list of the greatest of ODI innings. The idea of one batsman scoring over three times the opposing team score or over 40% of the combined taem scores are measures to show the type of dominance, nothing more. Ananth: ]]

  • CricketPissek on November 12, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    Sanath Jayasuriya, MP, is underrated as an ODI great for sure. As far as his record abroad, 3 centuries against England in England @ 45 cannot be considered weak at all! There have always been aggressive players and I don't think Sanath would claim it was his original idea! His 189 is the greatest ODI innings I've seen (was too young to have seen Viv's one!) and he (along with Murali and Aravinda) always carried the hopes of a tiny nation that has always felt victimised while trying to become a serious contender! All he needs to do now is retired :-D [[ The other 189 takes the lead only because of the situation and the recovery. As does the 175. But I would not blame anyone for taking SJ's 189. I saw every ball of the match and can vouch for the utter domination. Unfortunately SJ does not know when to quit. He should have auit an year back. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhi on November 12, 2010, 13:38 GMT

    Udayan,Ananth, Fair comment by Udayan. But the thing is each analysis needs to be looked at on the parameters it is based on. I saw an interesting comment on the live commentary the other day on the NZ-India match- the person commented something to the effect that "VVS never plays a fine innings unless he knows he is going to get a lot of praise for it"!! Ha! Brilliant- there are some players who tend to languish and turn up mostly for the "big occasion" So, I think we should actually celebrate the likes of Jayasuriya who do their best each and every time,irrespective of the situation-Give the sports fan his money's worth every time. I think that is partly the reason Jayasuriya is so popular not just with Sri Lankan fans but also with Indian and other fans. He will always give his Best. [[ Abhi When we talk about his batting we tend to overlook the 322 wickets. He was the only one in the trinity who could have played as a bowler and could have bowled 10 overs in each match he played. Ananth: ]]

  • saad on November 12, 2010, 14:38 GMT

    why tendulkar's 200 and saeed anwar's 194 missing from the list? [[ I suggest you work out the numbers yourself to see why these two innings are not there. Ananth: ]]

  • Chinmoy Lad on November 12, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    Do THAT many people really have trouble READING? I went through the article - thanks for taking up that painstaking job - over to the comments section, only to find people asking why certain innings weren't included in "The Greatest Innings List". [[ The problem, Chinmoy, is that when people see a list they automatically connect it to their own list of the best innings. It is alright by me as long as they do not get abusive. In fact it might be a good idea for someone to take the trouble of working out the numbers for the innings they mention. They are sure to get some new insight. Ananth: ]]

  • Manasvi on November 12, 2010, 16:23 GMT

    While I am a BIG fan of Sanath, I'd still hesitate about putting him right up with SRT and Viv. The funny thing is that all of these three guys were competent bowlers in varying degrees. SRT was a useful part-timer, Viv was a almost-batting allrounder and Sanath a batting allrounder. If I had to pick 5 batsmen in ODIs, they would be: 1) Sir Viv 2) Tendulkar 3) Bevan 4) Amla All of these guys scored tons of runs, they scored at a fast rate, and they were capable of both defence, accumulation and attack. Everyone will say these are early days for Amla but the man is the ideal ODI player - someone who never takes risks, never gets out and always gets a significant score. [[ Manasvi No one is selecting a ODi team here. Ananth: ]]