Series  Countries  Live Scores  Fixtures  Results  News 
Features

Photos  Video & Audio  Blogs  Statistics  Archive  Fantasy  Mobile 
I write three types of articles. The first, and the most often done, are the hardcore analysis, often sailing on uncharted seas. Examples are the Bowling quality and Series analysis. Then there are anecdotal articles which are normally my selections, with facility for readers to come out with their own. Examples are the the Test opening day performances and the innings bowling efforts. The third type of articles are rare. I take a single facet of the game and analyze it in depth but in a narrow manner, bringing out almost every aspect of that. Examples are the articles on Bradman and Muralitharan. The current article is one such analysis. The subject is Test hundreds. I would be very surprised if, after reading this article, the reader reverts with a possible analysis on Test hundreds I have missed.
1. Number of Test hundreds scored
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s1.Tendulkar S.R 1989 Ind 182 51 2.Kallis J.H 1995 Saf 145 40 3.Ponting R.T 1995 Aus 154 39 4.Dravid R 1996 Ind 158 35 5.Lara B.C 1990 Win 131 34 6.Gavaskar S.M 1971 Ind 125 34 7.Waugh S.R 1985 Aus 168 32 8.Hayden M.L 1994 Aus 103 30 9.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 10.Jayawardene M 1997 Slk 125 29
As anyone and their neighbour's cat are aware of, Tendulkar stands headandshoulders above all others with 51 Test hundreds, 99 in all. This might be 52 by the time this article is published. Kallis and Ponting would have to play about 50 Tests more to overhaul Tendulkar and it is very unlikely that this would happen. The modern greats are all there, along with the incomparable Bradman, who has 29.
2. Average value of hundreds
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s Avge1.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 186.0 2.Zaheer Abbas 1969 Pak 78 12 179.8 3.Sehwag V 2001 Ind 90 22 176.3 4.Lara B.C 1990 Win 131 34 173.2 5.Amiss D.L 1966 Eng 50 11 170.8 6.Jayasuriya S.T 1991 Slk 110 14 168.3 7.Hammond W.R 1927 Eng 85 22 167.5 8.Gayle C.H 2000 Win 91 13 166.8 9.Sangakkara K.C 2000 Slk 103 27 165.3 10.Simpson R.B 1957 Aus 62 10 164.6 ... ... 108.Kallicharran A.I 1972 Win 66 12 122.2 109.Waugh M.E 1991 Aus 128 20 120.6 110.Katich S.M 2001 Aus 56 10 118.2 111.Lamb A.J 1982 Eng 79 14 117.3 112.Amarnath M 1969 Ind 69 11 113.8
Now for the average value of the hundreds made. This is an excellent measure to determine how big the hundreds were and have a handle on the propensity of the batsman concerned to "take a fresh guard", so to speak. Bradman, having the cushion of two triple and ten double in his 29, stands quite clear of the next with an average hundred score of 186. Zaheer Abbas, four of whose 12 hundreds were doubles, has a very high average hundred value of 179.8. Then come Sehwag and Lara. Both have two triplehundreds, Lara has seven other doubles and Sehwag, four other doubles. Both of them also had the ability to go past 150 often. Their average hundred value is around 170+, as is Amiss's value. In the later half of the topten group, we have two Sri Lankans. There is also Gayle, would he ever play for West Indies again ?
The topfour century makers, Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting and Dravid all have average hundred values around 145. Jayawardene, in line with the other Sri Lankan batsmen, has an average hundred value of 160.
The other end is interesting. Amarnath and Lamb did not exceed 150 at all. Katich and Mark Waugh, just once. This leads to an average hundred value of around 120.
3. Frequency of hundreds  Inns/hundred
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s I/H1.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 2.8 2.Headley G.A 1930 Win 22 10 4.0 3.Walcott C.L 1948 Win 44 15 4.9 4.Sutcliffe H 1924 Eng 54 16 5.2 5.EdeC Weekes 1948 Win 48 15 5.4 6.Tendulkar S.R 1989 Ind 182 51 5.9 7.Hayden M.L 1994 Aus 103 30 6.1 8.Kallis J.H 1995 Saf 145 40 6.2 9.Sobers G.St.A 1954 Win 93 26 6.2 10.Chappell G.S 1970 Aus 87 24 6.3 ... ... 108.Hooper C.L 1987 Win 102 13 13.3 109.Laxman V.V.S 1996 Ind 128 16 13.4 110.Jayasuriya S.T 1991 Slk 110 14 13.4 111.Gatting M.W 1978 Eng 79 10 13.8 112.Stewart A.J 1990 Eng 133 15 15.7
Now for the frequency of hundreds. I have taken innings per hundred rather than matches per hundreds to avoid penalising the batsmen in stronger teams. Bradman scored a hundred every 2,8 innings, quite difficult to even visualize this type of frequency. Expressed another way, a hundred in less than every two Tests. Headley and Walcott are below 5.0. Sutcliffe and Weekes, just above 5.
Then comes Tendulkar. It is necessary to take this number of 5.9 in perspective. We should not forget that this has been achieved over nearly 300 innings. It is consistency of the highest order. Based on this measure, Tendulkar is currently going through a slump, 11 innings have gone by since his last hundred. But that might change soon and he might score two in two. Kallis has the same frequency as the great Sobers.
AT the other end, the surprise is Laxman whose frequency is a fairly high 13.4. But it must be said that many of his recent 50s have been matchwinning and mean more than many a hundred. He makes his runs in difficult situations and does not necessarily gets as many hundreds as his compatriots do. His value will be known only when he retires.
Now a compilation of the hundreds total as % of the team runs for the concerned innings.
4. Hundred total as % of team total runs
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s %TtR1.Hanif Mohammad 1952 Pak 55 12 44.4 2.Headley G.A 1930 Win 22 10 42.3 3.Gooch G.A 1975 Eng 118 20 41.9 4.Lara B.C 1990 Win 131 34 40.5 5.Amiss D.L 1966 Eng 50 11 40.0 6.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 38.8 7.Sehwag V 2001 Ind 90 22 38.3 8.Gayle C.H 2000 Win 91 13 37.8 9.Flower A 1992 Zim 63 12 37.7 10.Hammond W.R 1927 Eng 85 22 37.3 ... ... 108.Gilchrist A.C 1999 Aus 96 17 26.9 109.Ganguly S.C 1996 Ind 113 16 26.8 110.Martyn D.R 1992 Aus 67 13 26.6 111.Bell I.R 2004 Eng 69 16 26.5 112.Clarke M.J 2004 Aus 72 15 26.3
How much Hanif Mohammad, Gooch and Lara meant to their somewhat weak teams is shown by this number. When they scored hundreds, these batsmen scored over 40% of their team score. Bradman and surprisingly Sehwag are there. And Flower is not a surprise. Hammond's hundreds were huge.
Three Australian modern greats are at the end of the table, their hundreds forming only around 25%, they probably taking off a few percentage points off each other. I must hasten to add that these tables were formed before the conclusion of the dramatic South Africa  Australia Test which ended just now. Clarke's % would have gone up and he might very well be off the bottom. Unfortunately the table formation for this particular article is such a major effort that I cannot repeat the same.
Now to recognize the hundreds made away from home.
5. % of hundreds scored away
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s Hm Aw %Away1.Amarnath M 1969 Ind 69 11 2 9 81.8 2.Saeed Anwar 1990 Pak 55 11 3 8 72.7 3.Asif Iqbal 1964 Pak 58 11 3 8 72.7 4.Barrington K.F 1955 Eng 82 20 6 14 70.0 5.Katich S.M 2001 Aus 56 10 3 7 70.0 6.Martyn D.R 1992 Aus 67 13 4 9 69.2 7.Hobbs J.B 1908 Eng 61 15 5 10 66.7 8.Hanif Mohammad 1952 Pak 55 12 4 8 66.7 9.Amiss D.L 1966 Eng 50 11 4 7 63.6 10.Shastri R.J 1981 Ind 80 11 4 7 63.6 ... ... 108.Vengsarkar D.B 1976 Ind 116 17 13 4 23.5 109.Compton D.C.S 1937 Eng 78 17 13 4 23.5 110.Lamb A.J 1982 Eng 79 14 11 3 21.4 111.Mudassar Nazar 1976 Pak 76 10 8 2 20.0 112.Wright J.G 1978 Nzl 82 12 10 2 16.7
The forgotten toughie of Indian Cricket, Mohinder Amarnath leads the table, with a stupendous % of 81.8, nine out of eleven hundreds having been scored away from home. He is nearly 10 percentage points ahead of the next batsman. And let us not forget that most of these were against tough Pakistani and West Indian attacks. A number of Pakistani batsmen, led by Saeed Anwar appear in the top10. The only modern batsmen to get in here are the two Australians, Martyn and Katich. Their roles in the strong Australian lineups has often been overlooked.
At the other end, Vengsarkar is a real surprise. He has only scored four outside, three at Lord's and one famous classic at Headingley.
The three Indian batsmen in the top10 in the table of hundreds scored, Tendulkar, Dravid and Gavaskar have all scored more hundreds away. Lara has scored exactly half his tally away. Bradman has scored just over a third of his hundreds away. Kallis and Ponting, less than half.
6. Hundreds analysis based on Results
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s W D L WinF1.Slater M.J 1993 Aus 74 14 11 3 0 0.89 2.Gilchrist A.C 1999 Aus 96 17 14 2 1 0.88 3.Greenidge C.G 1974 Win 108 19 14 5 0 0.87 4.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 23 4 2 0.86 5.Hayden M.L 1994 Aus 103 30 23 5 2 0.85 6.Waugh M.E 1991 Aus 128 20 15 4 1 0.85 7.Hassett A.L 1938 Aus 43 10 7 3 0 0.85 8.Martyn D.R 1992 Aus 67 13 10 2 1 0.85 9.Smith G.C 2002 Saf 91 22 15 7 0 0.84 10.Bell I.R 2004 Eng 69 16 11 5 0 0.84 11.Ponting R.T 1995 Aus 154 39 28 7 4 0.81 12.Waugh S.R 1985 Aus 168 32 25 2 5 0.81 13.Langer J.L 1993 Aus 105 23 15 7 1 0.80 14.InzamamulHaq 1992 Pak 120 25 17 6 2 0.80 15.Hussey M.E.K 2005 Aus 62 15 10 4 1 0.80 ... ... 108.Collingwood P.D 2003 Eng 68 10 2 5 3 0.45 109.Shastri R.J 1981 Ind 80 11 1 8 2 0.45 110.Lamb A.J 1982 Eng 79 14 4 4 6 0.43 111.Lara B.C 1990 Win 131 34 8 12 14 0.41 112.Flower A 1992 Zim 63 12 2 3 7 0.29
Using the 210 base, I have determined the Win Factor for batsmen when they scored hundreds. Slater has an enviable 11 wins3 draws in the 14 occasions he made hundreds. Gilchrist is almost there, with just a single loss. Greenidge is equally impressive. The table is stuffed with Australians, ten out of 15. Tendulkar has a Win Factor of 0.59 and Dravid, 0.64.
Spare a thought for poor Lara. 14 of his hundreds have been in a losing cause, almost always for no fault of his. A reflection of the lack of support from his team mates.
Now to the table which separates the hundreds into men and boys. This looks at the hundreds scored against the two top two bowling groups (BQI below 35.00). This is based on the article on Test bowling groups which I had done a few months back.
7. Hundreds against top two bowling groups
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s BQ5 BQ4 %TopGrp1.Amiss D.L 1966 Eng 50 11 1 9 1 0 0 90.9 2.Martyn D.R 1992 Aus 67 13 8 3 2 0 0 84.6 3.Richards I.V.A 1974 Win 121 24 7 13 2 2 0 83.3 4.Kallicharran A.I 1972 Win 66 12 3 7 2 0 0 83.3 5.Atherton M.A 1989 Eng 115 16 4 9 1 1 1 81.2 6.Hussain N 1990 Eng 96 14 5 6 3 0 0 78.6 7.Chappell I.M 1964 Aus 75 14 4 7 1 1 1 78.6 8.Edrich J.H 1963 Eng 77 12 2 7 2 1 0 75.0 9.Umrigar P.R 1948 Ind 59 12 4 5 2 0 1 75.0 10.Thorpe G.P 1993 Eng 100 16 4 8 4 0 0 75.0 ... ... 108.Bell I.R 2004 Eng 69 16 2 2 4 5 3 25.0 109.Mudassar Nazar 1976 Pak 76 10 2 0 5 2 1 20.0 110.Hammond W.R 1927 Eng 85 22 1 3 3 8 7 18.2 111.Samaraweera T.T 2001 Slk 68 12 0 2 5 3 2 16.7 112.Morris A.R 1946 Aus 46 12 1 0 9 2 0 8.3
Amiss, having faced top class bowling attacks, throughout his career, leads with 90.9, ten of his 11 hundreds having been scored against top quality bowling attacks. Damien Martyn, the unsung Australian batsmen, in addition to scoring most of his hundreds away, has scored 11 of his 13 hundreds against top quality bowling attacks. And the incomparable Richards, although not having to face his own team's pace bowlers, has scored 20 of his 24 hundreds against the top groups. As did Kallicharran.
Tendulkar and Lara have scored upwards of 55% of their hundreds against the top two groups. Kallis, Dravid and Hayden have scored below 50% of their hundreds against similar attacks.
The other end is led by Hammond who feasted on substandard bowling attacks to the tune of 15 out 22 hundreds. Bell and Samaraweera are the modern batsmen who have done so. It is a clear pointer to the fact that Samaraweera's 50plus Batting average is not really as valuable as it looks.
7addl. Weighted average of BQI for 100s
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat Ins 100s AveBQI1.Martyn D.R 1992 Aus 67 109 13 30.1 2.Asif Iqbal 1964 Pak 58 99 11 31.0 3.Hussain N 1990 Eng 96 171 14 31.5 4.Richards I.V.A 1974 Win 121 182 24 31.5 5.Kallicharran A.I 1972 Win 66 109 12 31.6 6.Botham I.T 1977 Eng 102 161 14 32.1 7.Thorpe G.P 1993 Eng 100 179 16 32.2 8.Lloyd C.H 1966 Win 110 175 19 32.2 9.Chappell G.S 1970 Aus 87 151 24 32.2 10.Chappell I.M 1964 Aus 75 136 14 32.4
This is based on the average BQI (Bowling quality index) faced by the batsman during his innings of 100 or more. This table draws from Boll's suggestion. The table also vindicates the enhanced stature of Martyn, whose averege BQi was 30.1, almost wholly Group 5. Asif Iqbal is a surprise Pakistani batsman in the second position. Hussain and Richards follow next. The top10 group includes quite a few English batsmen of the 1990s, facing up to West indies and Australian attacks. Both the Chappells are there.
Tendulkar's average BQI is a very respectable 34.2, which puts him clearly in the Bowling group 4. Over 51 Tests that is very good. Ponting, Sewhag and Laxman are just below the 34 mark.
The other end is populated by five Englishmen, greats of 19201950s and ending with Ian Bell. The downloadable table has since been modifuied with this table. Samaraweers is just ahead of Bell.
8. Conversion of 50s to hundreds
SNo Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s 50s %Con1.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 42 69.0 2.Headley G.A 1930 Win 22 10 15 66.7 3.Prince A.G 2002 Saf 62 11 21 52.4 4.Walcott C.L 1948 Win 44 15 29 51.7 5.Azharuddin M 1985 Ind 99 22 43 51.2 6.Hayden M.L 1994 Aus 103 30 59 50.8 7.Amiss D.L 1966 Eng 50 11 22 50.0 8.Ijaz Ahmed 1987 Pak 60 12 24 50.0 9.Vaughan M.P 1999 Eng 82 18 36 50.0 10.Morris A.R 1946 Aus 46 12 24 50.0 ... ... 108.Gayle C.H 2000 Win 91 13 46 28.3 109.Simpson R.B 1957 Aus 62 10 37 27.0 110.Atherton M.A 1989 Eng 115 16 62 25.8 111.Stewart A.J 1990 Eng 133 15 60 25.0 112.Laxman V.V.S 1996 Ind 128 16 71 22.5
When Bradman reached a 50, there was a 69% chance of having that converted into a hundred. Headley also has a high conversion rate. The top 10 batsmen all have conversion rates of 50 or higher. In other words their number of hundreds was at least equal to the number of fifties.
The conversion rates of almost all top batsmen in the hundreds table are between 40 and 50 with the exception of Dravid whose conversion rate is only 36%. A real surprise is Laxman at the end, with a conversion rate of less than one in four. Quite difficult to explain either of these.
Now we come to a series of tables which are not performanceoriented. As such these are ordered by the standard sequence of hundreds scored. The first is the one by innings.
9. Hundreds by Innings
SNo.Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s 1 2 3 41.Tendulkar S.R 1989 Ind 182 51 20 18 10 3 2.Kallis J.H 1995 Saf 145 40 18 12 9 1 3.Ponting R.T 1995 Aus 154 39 20 13 2 4 4.Dravid R 1996 Ind 158 35 14 15 5 1 5.Lara B.C 1990 Win 131 34 12 13 7 2 6.Gavaskar S.M 1971 Ind 125 34 11 12 7 4 7.Waugh S.R 1985 Aus 168 32 17 13 2 0 8.Hayden M.L 1994 Aus 103 30 10 9 10 1 9.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 9 10 7 3 10.Jayawardene M 1997 Slk 125 29 11 13 2 3
Of special interest would be the fourth innings hundreds. Of the top10, Ponting and Gavaskar have scored 4 hundreds in the fourth innings. Of course, we must allow for meaningless hundreds also. Of the others only the unlikely duo of Younis Khan and Sarwan have scored 4 second innings hundreds, indicating their value to their teams. Readers must remember that this is not an Innings Ratings analysis. Sacrilege it is, but Lara's alltime classic of 153* is considered in the same group as Boycott's 100 at Hyderabad against Pakistan during 1978.
Now for a very interesting analysis. This is based on the career split into three equal parts. Three seems the right number since it allows the starting period, settled middle period and (possibly) declining ending period to be looked into.
10. Hundreds by career split third
SNo.Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s C1 C2 C31.Tendulkar S.R 1989 Ind 182 51 16 18 17 2.Kallis J.H 1995 Saf 145 40 7 16 17 3.Ponting R.T 1995 Aus 154 39 9 21 9 4.Dravid R 1996 Ind 158 35 9 14 12 5.Lara B.C 1990 Win 131 34 9 9 16 6.Gavaskar S.M 1971 Ind 125 34 16 10 8 7.Waugh S.R 1985 Aus 168 32 5 12 15 8.Hayden M.L 1994 Aus 103 30 11 9 10 9.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 12 8 9 10.Jayawardene M 1997 Slk 125 29 9 7 13 11.Border A.R 1979 Aus 156 27 9 14 4 12.Sangakkara K.C 2000 Slk 103 27 4 12 11 13.Sobers G.St.A 1954 Win 93 26 9 9 8 14.InzamamulHaq 1992 Pak 120 25 5 10 10 15.Chanderpaul S 1994 Win 136 24 2 12 10 16.Mohammad Yousuf 1998 Pak 90 24 6 7 11 17.Chappell G.S 1970 Aus 87 24 8 8 8 18.Richards I.V.A 1974 Win 121 24 11 8 5 19.Javed Miandad 1976 Pak 124 23 7 7 9 20.Langer J.L 1993 Aus 105 23 7 9 7 21.Hammond W.R 1927 Eng 85 22 9 6 7 22.Cowdrey M.C 1954 Eng 114 22 6 10 6 23.Azharuddin M 1985 Ind 99 22 7 7 8 24.Sehwag V 2001 Ind 90 22 8 7 7 25.Smith G.C 2002 Saf 91 22 7 6 9 26.Boycott G 1964 Eng 108 22 5 10 7 27.Boon D.C 1984 Aus 107 21 7 7 7 28.Kirsten G 1993 Saf 101 21 5 6 10 29.Harvey R.N 1948 Aus 79 21 11 5 5 30.Barrington K.F 1955 Eng 82 20 6 6 8 31.Gooch G.A 1975 Eng 118 20 4 7 9 32.Waugh M.E 1991 Aus 128 20 7 9 4 33.de Silva P.A 1984 Slk 93 20 5 7 8
Tendulkar is amazing. Almost dead equal split of his 51 centuries, indicating wonderful consistency, possibly the trait he is identified with almost always. However note the wide variations with many others. Kallis has a poor start but then plateaus for the next two thirds. Ponting is still more bizarre. A very average start and end and a wonderful middle one third, during which he averages a hundred every two and half Tests. Dravid is like Kallis. Lara follows a different pattern. Nothing great for twothirds and then an explosive end. There is still no answer as to why he quit or was made to quit. The West Indian Board specializes in losing their best players. Gavaskar is the mirror image of Kallis/Dravid: great upto twothirds and then a drop. Hayden is almost like Tendulkar. Bradman, a little like Gavaskar, or should it be the other way around. Jayawardene is like Lara. Phew! what a lot of variations within the top 10 players.
Of the rest, look at Sangakkara, how much he has done after a very poor start. Richards has scored nearly a half of his hundreds in the first third of his career. The only perfect split is Greg Chappel's: 888 and Boon's; 777.
The last table is a special one. I have split the hundreds by the % of innings score. A hundred which is greater than 50% is a very special effort. The most famous ones are by Charles Bannerman, Laxman, Slater, Gooch and Greenidge. At the other end I have hundreds which formed lower than 25% of the team score. These represent almost always huge innings and the century maker would normally have played a secondary role.
11. Hundreds by % of innings score
SNo.Batsman Year Cty Mat 100s 50+% Oth 25%94.Hanif Mohammad 1952 Pak 55 12 5 7 0 31.Gooch G.A 1975 Eng 118 20 5 14 1 24.Sehwag V 2001 Ind 90 22 5 16 1 9.Bradman D.G 1928 Aus 52 29 6 22 1 6.Gavaskar S.M 1971 Ind 125 34 7 24 3 5.Lara B.C 1990 Win 131 34 6 26 2 37.Taylor M.A 1989 Aus 104 19 4 11 4 26.Boycott G 1964 Eng 108 22 4 16 2 ... ... 1.Tendulkar S.R 1989 Ind 182 51 2 43 6 2.Kallis J.H 1995 Saf 145 40 0 32 8 3.Ponting R.T 1995 Aus 154 39 0 34 5 4.Dravid R 1996 Ind 158 35 0 25 10 7.Waugh S.R 1985 Aus 168 32 0 20 12 8.Hayden M.L 1994 Aus 103 30 3 20 7 10.Jayawardene M 1997 Slk 125 29 2 20 7
I have ordered this, somewhat loosely, on the number of hundreds which were greater than 50% of team score. Hanif Mohammed has five such efforts, out of 12, indicating his immense contributions to Pakistani cricket. Sehwag has five such efforts, mainly because of his appetite for big scores and scoring rate. A number of others in the top group, like Gooch, Lara, Gavaskar have played in weaker teams. Gavaskar leads this table with seven such efforts, unfortunately including the inconsequential 103. Bradman has six such efforts.
Look at the four modern greats like Kallis, Ponting, Dravid and Steve Waugh who do not have a single such effort. Also the number of below25% efforts of Dravid indicating the batting strength surrounding him.
And finally a bonus. Summary tables of the double hundreds scored by batsmen. The qualification criteria is 5 or more double hundreds.
12. Summary tables of double hundreds
Batsman Cty 200s 300s 400sBradman D.G Aus 12 2 Lara B.C Win 9 1 1 Sangakkara K.C Slk 8 Hammond W.R Eng 7 1 Atapattu M.S Slk 6 Sehwag V Ind 6 2 Javed Miandad Pak 6 Jayawardene M Slk 6 1 Tendulkar S.R Ind 6 Dravid R Ind 5 Ponting R.T Aus 5
Batsman Cty Inns 200s Freq
Bradman D.G Aus 80 12 6.8 Hammond W.R Eng 140 7 20.0 Sangakkara K.C Slk 173 8 21.6 Lara B.C Win 232 9 24.7 Sehwag V Ind 156 6 26.0 Atapattu M.S Slk 156 6 26.0 Javed Miandad Pak 189 6 31.5 Jayawardene M Slk 207 6 34.5 Tendulkar S.R Ind 300 6 50.0 Ponting R.T Aus 265 5 53.0 Dravid R Ind 275 5 55.0
Batsman Cty 200s Runs Avge
Jayawardene M Slk 6 1581 263.5 Sehwag V Ind 6 1577 262.8 Lara B.C Win 9 2339 259.9 Bradman D.G Aus 12 3033 252.8 Hammond W.R Eng 7 1702 243.1 Javed Miandad Pak 6 1431 238.5 Sangakkara K.C Slk 8 1871 233.9 Dravid R Ind 5 1142 228.4 Ponting R.T Aus 5 1121 224.2 Tendulkar S.R Ind 6 1324 220.7 Atapattu M.S Slk 6 1297 216.2
Bradman leads the table of 200s with 12 and has a mindblowing frequency of 4.3 Tests per 200. Would Sangakkara have a chance of overhauling him ? Most probably not. He needs to play in about 50 Tests more even to equal Bradman. That is about 6 years of Test Cricket. Quite tough. However he is very likely to overtake Lara. Look at the average of the 200 scores of the modern batsmen, Jayawardene, Sehwag and Lara. All have scored big 200s and their average of 200s is around 260. Tendulkar's 220 is not surprising considering that his highest score is 248. Atapattu is the surprise presence in this elite group.
To download/view the document containing all the 11 complete tables please click/rightclick here.
Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratingsrelated systems
Feeds: Anantha NarayananKeywords: Stats,
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
 
Comments have now been closed for this article 

Anantha Narayanan
Anantha spent the first half of his fourdecade working career with corporates like IBM, Shaw Wallace, NCR, Sime Darby and the Spinneys group in ITrelated positions. In the second half, he has worked on cricket simulation, ratings, data mining, analysis and writing, amongst other things. He was the creator of the Wisden 100 lists, released in 2001. He has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket, and worked extensively with Maruti Motors, Idea Cellular and Castrol on their performance ratingsrelated systems. He is an armchair connoisseur of most sports. His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth.
great work and the stats are arranged exceptionally well....awesome ....truely awesome !!!!!!!
Posted by Aman on (November 27, 2011, 1:28 GMT)Thank you for sharing this analysis. Really interesting. Is it possible to provide some data on the strength of the batsman that these greats batted with. Eg Kallis, Ponting, Tendulkar have all played in teams where most of the top 6 average in the 45  50 range. Where has Lara had did not have this luxury. [[ This is one analysis I have never done. What was the average of the other batsman a specific batsman played with. I have done Team strengths, but not this. Opens up interesting possibilities. Thanks. Ananth: ]]
Posted by Narayan on (November 25, 2011, 12:38 GMT)Pls analyze the coaches of the game and how they fared in their playing days. I am also looking forward to analysis of bowlers, wicket keepers, fielders, and all rounders. :) Form is perhaps some thing that is relevant too. When this is down we tend to write off a player. How often have batsmen bounced back from bad form? How far do they sink? Is there a point in players being supported based on their past performance even when they are on the decline. If there were a statistics based selection at all times, how often have statistically weak players selected and they vindicated their selection? How often have teams considered good based on their current averages been winning. What about consistency? We always use average. Do we use a standard deviation to rank players? Since standard deviation by itself makes less sense without the average, what is the 1 sigma level of the various players?.
Just posting some points of views to analyze :)
Posted by Boll on (November 24, 2011, 23:16 GMT)@Kapil. Plenty of info available on statsguru for your suggestions.
Most hundreds in a series goes to Walcott (5) in the 1955 series vs Oz. 4 in a series has been achieved 17 times, 3 by Bradman, most recently by Mohammed Yousuf in a 3test series vs WI. Bradman holds the record (3) for most double centuries in a series  1930 in England.
Yousuf also holds the record for most centuries in a calendar year, (9) in 2006.
Bradman (6) holds the record for centuries in consecutive matches. Everton Weekes (5) for centuries in consecutive innings.
Bradman`s 19 centuries vs England is the most vs any team.
Ashraful, Javed and Sobers are the youngest to score 100/200/300, Hobbs the oldest.
Posted by Kapil on (November 24, 2011, 22:08 GMT)Ananth,
RE: Conversion Ratio
The figure of 71 on my first post represents the 42 half centuries Bradman has to his name plus the 29 that he passed en route to his centuries. Simply, he raised his bat 71 times to acknowledge applause of his reaching 50 runs (one would hope). [[ No, I still do not get it. Bradman did not score 42 half centuries. He scored 13 half centuries in addition to the 29 centuries. Let us look at another way. He took strike at 0, a total of 80 times. The times he reached 50 are 42, leading to 52.5%. The times he reached 100 are 29, leading to 36.25%. He reached 50 a total of 42 times, no doubt about that. Out of this he reached 100, 29 times, leading to 69%. Where do we have this communivcation gap, I wonder. What is 71. It does not exist for Bradman. Ananth: ]]
The way I see it is thus: conversion ratios represent the batsman's ability of converting 50s to 100s. This ratio must therefore compare the number of centuries the batsman has made to all instances of the batsman crossing the 50 run barrier. Most analyses, however, tend to account for only those instances where he fell shy of the 100 run mark.
My suggestion goes against the traditional method of calculating conversion ratios.
I ask you, sir, can you at all see the philosophy behind it?
Posted by Kapil on (November 24, 2011, 15:13 GMT)Ananth,
This piece is still playing on my mind! Other things to consider re hundreds:
No. of partners, whether those partners were top/ middle/ lower order batsman [[ As I have already written in a recent response, it is impossible to determine when a batsman was out in the first 1500 or so Tests. The FoW information does not specify who was dismissed. It is easy to determine when the batsman came in but not when he was out if he was dismissed. Ananth: ]]
No. of hundreds in match, series, calendar year or any random fixed time period
Max and min innings between hundreds
No. of hundreds versus venue [[ All the above three are very good suggestions and I will do this sometime. Ananth: ]] No. of hundreds versus climate (if you are extremely bored and freakishly inquisitive)
I'll stop now!
Posted by Kapil on (November 24, 2011, 14:17 GMT)Ananth,
I much enjoyed reading through this analysis, it tells a lot about hundred scorers and exemplifies the versatility of the best.
One area that I slightly disagree with is your calculation of conversions rates.
You, as many others have, define conversion rates as the chance of having a fifty converted into a hundred. I agree with this but disagree with your maths.
You wrote, "When Bradman reached a 50, there was a 69% chance of having that converted into a hundred". This is untrue since Bradman reached the fifty mark 71 times in his career. 69% of this is approximately 49, however, he did not reach this number of hundreds.
I believe the following equation should be used:
Conversion Rate (%) = 100* No. of 100s/ (No. of 100s + No. of 50s)
Keep up the good work! [[ I am sorry to say that you are slightly off target. Bradman scored only 42 50s in his Test career so my statement on 69% is correct. The problem might very well be that this is not the normal way of representing 50s. Someone has already commented on this earlier and I changed the column heading. Ananth: ]]
Posted by anu on (November 23, 2011, 8:40 GMT)Ganguly name typed twice in my previous post was a typo error it should be Salim Malik from Pak. I am nowhere saying in my post that Indians will lead the table 6. I have mentioned the names of Boycott, Hammond, Stewart who are english and non indians before Vishy and Ganguly. I have also asked why the west indian Greenhidge after playing 108 tests with 19 '100s' is at no.3 and Slater after playing 34 tests less with 5 hundreds less is at no.1? Rahul Dravid before England tour in summer of 2011 had 32 hundreds and 22 of which had come in indian wins and 1 had come in indian loss. Win factor as per ur logic was 0.69 before the england tour and 0.64 after england tour. As memoriesofthepast has pointed outA hundred or 10 wicket haul is utilized if test is won or drawn and goes in vain if test is lost it will be appropriate to have a century (or 10wicket haul) utilization factor instead of win factor. [[ I will again make a patient statement. You should read the article carefully first and then come out with comments. The cutoff was 10 hundreds. All the players who have reached 10 hundreds are considered. Then within this group different analyses are done. If Slater has scored 14 hundreds, won 11 and 3 drawn, his result % is 89 and he is on top. Forget about the Indian players. He is ahead of Ponting who has scored 39 hundreds, 28 wins and 7 draws. How can Slater be on top because, amongst all batmen selected, he has the highest result %. Pl try and understand this particular measure and how this works. If you want to suggest an alternate measure, by all means do do. Ananth: ]]
Posted by Boll on (November 22, 2011, 17:12 GMT)Apologies, in my last post I meant to refer to Hayden as the only player of the 10 from Table 1 (number of test centuries)not to have captained his team.
Posted by Alex on (November 22, 2011, 16:42 GMT)@Ananth: I read Ashik Uzzaman's tables; these are available on the URL in his comment. It is pretty interesting. I was surprised at the similarities in the test numbers for Lara & Viv and the ODI numbers for Gayle & Yuvraj. Pl see if you can add the following to these tables:
1. Add a RPI (runs/innings) column for the partnership ... you usually do this for individual batsmen analysis. 2. Add a column on the % of runs/match. This can be computed in two ways:  partnership average/ (batting average in the match)  partnership RPI/ (average RPI in the match). 3. Add a column on the variance (and not just average).
People talk about matchwinning innings by a batsman but I think 3 strong batting partnerships are more important for a win. If X% of the needed runs are scored in 3 partnerships, the chances of winning can be high, esp. in ODI's. Can you pl do an article on this for different values of X? [[ This will certainly break new ground since I have never analyzed partnerships. However there is a problem to be overcome since the information is not very clear for most matches. Whe the batsman came in is clear but not when he got out. Ananth: ]]