February 8, 2014

Test series analysis - beyond the scorecard

An in-depth look at the most comprehensive series wins in Test history
16

Sri Lanka's 3-0 thrashing of Bangladesh in 2007 is one of the most comprehensive series wins in Test history © AFP

Summarised features of the Team performance analysis

Towards end of 2011 I had done an analysis of team performances in series. I had developed formulae, from scratch, to assign team performance points based on results and margins of wins/losses. My view is that I got the result matches fairly correct. However the draws were allocated on simplistic methods and were found wanting. There is no doubt that draws are very complicated to evaluate and play an important part in evaluation of team performances. It is significant that a third of the Test matches played have ended in draws.

Maybe inspired by this analysis, Milind and I embarked on our ambitious Test Performance Analysis project. We adopted a totally top-down approach and took our time at each level. It took more than six months and the results have passed all our stringent tests. We feel it is time to unveil part of the work. How we handle the complete set of tables is something we are yet to decide on.

The contribution determination is structured in the following manner.

Match >>> Teams >>> Innings >>> Functions >>> Players.

In this article I will cover the team performances in Test series using the data obtained from the Test Performance Analysis project. The first two levels are covered. These two levels cover about 10% of the total project contents.

Graphical representation of Test Contribution project

The player performance points can be combined at career, innings, function, Test, series and year levels to derive various tables.

First, let me give some important facts on the Test Performance Analysis project. The complexity level of the project is such that when I look at the code after a gap of about a few weeks, I take a day to get myself back on rails. So it is obvious that not everything will be clear to start with. We may also not be able to provide all clarifications.

Salient facts on Test Performance Analysis project: Top two levels

- These are non-contextual. Home/away, team strengths, period, series status etc. are not part of the equations. These are based solely on scorecard data, and nothing more. As such, these are not ratings.
- The cornerstone of these computations is the fact that the two tied matches are the only ones that will be accorded 50-50 performance points to the two teams. Everything else flows from this base.
- Wicket resources are calculated based on an in-depth analysis of the 2100+ Tests that have been played.
- There are draws and draws. Not all draws are equal. Some draws are more equal than others.
- All non-tied draws will be allotted points below 100. How close to 100 will be determined by how close to a result the match is at.
- The match is extended into the fourth dimension, so to speak, to get a handle on the nature of draw and points allotted.
- The total points for a drawn match depend on the extent of completion of the match. It could range from 0.38 points (Test #1907) to 98.36 points (Test #1420).
- A team that draws a match would always score less than 75 points depending on the scores. The highest points acquisition for a drawn match has been by South Africa, with 74.5 points, in Test #616 in which they missed a win very narrowly. Aus: 143, Saf: 332 and Aus: 148/8. Test #1420, mentioned above, follows closely.
- As already mentioned, only the teams in the two tied matches get equal points. Even among these two, the 1960-61 tie is the perfect one since all resources were exhausted. We cannot play a single ball more in any innings, in any dimension we choose.
- The 1986 tie is an imperfect one since Australia lost only 12 wickets.
- The Mumbai Test during 2011 was a draw with scores level. India get slightly more points since they had a very good chance of winning if the match continued for a few more balls. Also, the fact that they could not lose, come what may. The detractors of R Ashwin can change their mind and now pat him on the back for having the intelligence to play for this situation in the penultimate ball.
- All matches that ended in results will have 100 points allocated, to be shared between the two teams, based on a set of complicated formulae. There are two exceptions.
- The first is the contrived result based on the agreement between Nasser Hussain and Hansie Cronje. Only two innings were completed and the two teams share only 50 points (Test #1483).
- The other is the Test conceded by Pakistan because of ball-tampering allegations (Test #1814). This is worked out based on the condition at the time of the abrupt conclusion of the match. The situation then was favourable to Pakistan. This is the only Test in which the "winning" team gets fewer points than the "losing" team. For all practical purposes the "win" is just not there.
- Not all identical wins are equal. A 100-run win with scores of Abc: 150, Xyz: 70, Abc: 100 and Xyz: 80 will be considered to be far more emphatic than another 100-run win with scores of Abc: 250, Xyz: 200, Abc: 300 and Xyz: 250. The reason is obvious. The win margin of 100 is a much higher percentage of the winning team run totals: 250-40% and 550-18%.
- Similarly, two wins by innings and 50 runs could have different team performance points for the winning teams depending on their single innings scores. A win with scores of Abc: 80, Xyz: 200 and Abc: 70 will be considered to be far more emphatic than another similar margin win with scores of Abc: 250, Xyz: 500 and Abc: 200. The reason is obvious. The win margin is a much higher percentage of the single innings score of the winning team: 200-50% and 500-20%.
- It is not possible to predict a range for a win by runs since it depends on the scores and the final margin. The margins have varied between a one-run win (Test #1210-scored 50.08-49.92 for West Indies) to 675-run win (Test #176-scored 92.82-7.18 for England).
- A team that wins by runs could easily score more points than even a big innings win depending on scores: Eng: 85.95 pts (Test #47-Win by 288 runs) & 83.56 pts (Test #48-Win by inns & 197 runs). In fact the maximum points in a match as has been secured by England who won Test #176 by 675 runs, the target being 742. This has been referred to above.
- A team that achieves an innings win will always score more than 75 points since the winning team always played only one innings.
- A team that wins by wickets will always score below 75 points since the winning teams have always played two innings.

Readers might argue that the home/away data is available in the scorecard and can be applied. Very true. However home/away information means very little if we do not have the team strengths, which is an off-scorecard measure. Most teams are weak in the early days and hence cannon fodder to the established teams. South Africa in the 1890s, New Zealand in the 1920s, India in the 1930s, the early Bangladesh teams were all awfully weak. No great achievement in defeating these teams.

On top of that the winning teams should not be given any additional credit. Of course the English win over India in 2012 was a great achievement and stakes claims for additional credit. But I do not want to look at team strengths at this point.

Regarding series status, it is my firm belief that there is no such thing as a dead rubber. Try telling that to the hapless captains of the losing teams during the last Tests of the recent five whitewashes. Through the years, pride and careers were at stake. Of late money and rankings are also at stake. No team ever takes a single match lightly. Before the Perth ODI, Alastair Cook talked about possibly giving up the captaincy. Once the Perth match was won, he suddenly talked about leading until the World Cup. Let no one get fooled by the talk of dead rubbers.

I think Australia made a mistake, since they do not seem to be averse to the rankings system, by resting five key players before the Perth match when the #1 position was at stake, especially as they could very well have lost the Adelaide ODI. And, on this, I am not going to be unduly influenced by the player rotation policies of a team or two.

As I normally do, I have to set some qualification criteria. In this case it is simple. I will consider only series in which three or more Tests were played as genuine series. Out of the 658 series which have been played to date, 456 series qualify. I understand that many series involving Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh will be excluded. But I cannot really include these since I am averaging the Performance points and without the lower limit of three, the tables will be diluted.

Anyhow, in the new regime, the "single A+ class and two A- class" teams, in a new imperial avatar, will play five-Test home and away series amongst themselves and two (even one)-Test take-it-or-leave-it filler-contests with the "C class" teams, as and when they see fit, probably once every five years, if the "C Class" teams do not unite now and stay united in the future, and avoid the temptation to grab the crumbs (read IPL) that are being thrown at them. (I wanted to see whether I could do this in a single sentence and can say to myself "well done".)

Any reader who has survived this long introduction deserves a pat or two on the back, and as a reward, let us now move on to the tables. I will be posting a summary table listing the most comprehensive series amongst these 456 Test series. I will also post tables listing the most comprehensive of home series and away series wins. Finally, I will post tables listing the most comprehensive of three-Test series, four-Test series and five/six-Test series wins.

The most devastating Series wins
Series#YearLocTestsWonByTeam-1W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePtsTeam-2W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePts
201896Saf3ASaf0-0-3 53.317.76Eng3-0-0246.782.24
5542007Slk3HSlk3-0-0245.181.71Bng0-0-3 54.918.29
3411994Ind3HInd3-0-0233.477.80Slk0-0-3 66.622.20
491928Eng3HEng3-0-0232.077.34Win0-0-3 68.022.66
4602001Slk3HSlk3-0-0231.177.05Zim0-0-3 68.922.95
581931Aus5HAus5-0-0382.376.46Saf0-0-5117.723.54
3911997Pak3HPak3-0-0226.875.61Win0-0-3 73.224.39
5152004Aus3HAus3-0-0225.875.27Pak0-0-3 74.224.73
1371963Nzl3ANzl0-0-3 76.125.38Eng3-0-0223.974.62
551930Aus5HAus4-0-1372.774.53Win1-0-4127.325.47
101886Eng3HEng3-0-0222.674.21Aus0-0-3 77.425.79
1901974Eng3HEng3-0-0220.673.54Ind0-0-3 79.426.46
3291993Ind3HInd3-0-0219.373.10Eng0-0-3 80.726.90
2571984Win5HWin3-2-0365.273.04Aus0-2-3123.724.74
4722002uae3 Aus3-0-0218.872.93Pak0-0-3 81.227.07
2451982Pak3HPak3-0-0218.472.79Aus0-0-3 81.627.21
381912Eng3HEng3-0-0217.972.64Saf0-0-3 82.127.36
1231959Eng5HEng5-0-0362.372.46Ind0-0-5137.727.54
1511965Eng3HEng3-0-0217.372.44Nzl0-0-3 82.727.56
3371993Aus3HAus2-1-0216.972.29Nzl0-1-2 71.823.95

The most one-sided series of all time was the three-Test series held in South Africa in 1895-96 against England's second string team, but with George Lohmann in the ranks. England won the series 82.2-17.8 and the matches by 288 runs, innings and 197 and 33 runs in low-scoring matches. The second series is recent vintage: the 2007 home series for Sri Lanka against Bangladesh, won 81.7-18.3. Wins by innings and 234, 90 and 193 runs meant a wipeout nearly as good as the one 110 years back.

The next one had Sri Lanka at the receiving end, when they travelled to India in 1994 and lost 22.2-77.8. India won by innings and 119, 95 and 17 runs. Sri Lanka have another similar dominating series, against Zimbabwe, during 2001. As expected this table is dominated by three-Test series.

An interesting series is the 2002 one between Australia and Pakistan played in Sri Lanka and the UAE. Australia won by 41 runs, innings and 198 and 20 runs. This included the shocking Pakistan collapses for 59 and 53. Australia won 72.9-27.1

The most devastating Home Series wins
Series#YearLocTestsWonByTeam-1W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePtsTeam-2W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePts
5542007Slk3HSlk3-0-0245.181.71Bng0-0-3 54.918.29
3411994Ind3HInd3-0-0233.477.80Slk0-0-3 66.622.20
491928Eng3HEng3-0-0232.077.34Win0-0-3 68.022.66
4602001Slk3HSlk3-0-0231.177.05Zim0-0-3 68.922.95
581931Aus5HAus5-0-0382.376.46Saf0-0-5117.723.54
3911997Pak3HPak3-0-0226.875.61Win0-0-3 73.224.39
5152004Aus3HAus3-0-0225.875.27Pak0-0-3 74.224.73
551930Aus5HAus4-0-1372.774.53Win1-0-4127.325.47
101886Eng3HEng3-0-0222.674.21Aus0-0-3 77.425.79
1901974Eng3HEng3-0-0220.673.54Ind0-0-3 79.426.46
3291993Ind3HInd3-0-0219.373.10Eng0-0-3 80.726.90
2571984Win5HWin3-2-0365.273.04Aus0-2-3123.724.74
2451982Pak3HPak3-0-0218.472.79Aus0-0-3 81.627.21
381912Eng3HEng3-0-0217.972.64Saf0-0-3 82.127.36
1231959Eng5HEng5-0-0362.372.46Ind0-0-5137.727.54
1511965Eng3HEng3-0-0217.372.44Nzl0-0-3 82.727.56
3371993Aus3HAus2-1-0216.972.29Nzl0-1-2 71.823.95
4402000Saf3HSaf2-1-0215.771.91Slk0-1-2 77.925.98
1151957Eng5HEng3-2-0359.371.86Win0-2-3124.824.95
6142011Eng4HEng4-0-0284.871.19Ind0-0-4115.228.81

This table lists the home series wins by wide margins. We have already talked about the two Sri Lanka series, one on either side. The third entry in this table is England's home defeat of West Indies, playing their first Test series, by margins of innings and 58, 30 and 71 runs, leading to a 77.3-22.7 series win. The 2011 whitewash of India by England just about gets in, at the 20th place.

Australia's 1931-32 demolition of South Africa by margins of innings and 163, 155 and 72 runs and by 169 runs and ten wickets, and series margin of 76.5-23.5, is in comfortable top-six positions in both tables.

The most devastating Away Series wins
Series#YearLocTestsWonByTeam-1W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePtsTeam-2W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePts
201896Saf3ASaf0-0-3 53.317.76Eng3-0-0246.782.24
1371963Nzl3ANzl0-0-3 76.125.38Eng3-0-0223.974.62
4722002uae3 Aus3-0-0218.872.93Pak0-0-3 81.227.07
681935Saf5ASaf0-1-4130.726.14Aus4-1-0361.572.29
2591984Eng5AEng0-0-5141.328.25Win5-0-0358.771.75
1191958Ind5AInd0-2-3146.029.20Win3-2-0345.469.08
3801997Nzl3ANzl0-1-2 90.730.23Eng2-1-0203.267.72
401913Saf5ASaf0-1-4162.032.41Eng4-1-0328.965.78
4482001Eng5AEng1-0-4173.534.70Aus4-0-1326.565.30
861949Saf5ASaf0-1-4132.026.39Aus4-1-0324.264.85
1101956Nzl4ANzl1-0-3141.435.34Win3-0-1258.664.66
821948Eng5AEng0-1-4160.332.07Aus4-1-0321.964.38
871950Eng4AEng1-0-3143.535.88Win3-0-1256.564.12
1561966Ind3AInd0-1-2106.535.51Win2-1-0189.463.14
2921988Eng5AEng0-1-4144.828.96Win4-1-0314.862.96
611932Aus5AAus1-0-4186.937.37Eng4-0-1313.162.63
6082010Aus5AAus1-1-3170.934.18Eng3-1-1313.162.62
2231979Aus3AAus0-1-2 97.132.38Win2-1-0187.562.49
361911Aus5AAus1-0-4187.637.51Eng4-0-1312.462.49
4642002Saf3ASaf1-0-2114.238.07Aus2-0-1185.861.93

Now let us see the top away series wins of all time. We have already discussed the 1896 South African home series loss and the 2002 UAE win for Australia (classified as away series for both teams, for this table only). The home loss sandwiching these two is the 1962-63 series between New Zealand and England. England drew the Ashes series quite comfortably by sharing two wins and came to New Zealand in good spirits. They found New Zealand to be a much weaker opponent and took them to the cleaners by 74.6-25.4: wins by innings and 215 and 47 runs and seven wickets.

Two series are of interest, both involving West Indies. First they toured India in 1958-59 and rolled over India by a margin of 69.1-29.2. At least India managed to draw two Tests, one by the skin of their teeth. West Indies toured England 25 years later and vanquished them 5-0 and 71.8-21.2. England and Australia have suffered heavy home losses. Also of interest is the fact that many losing teams have won a Test.

The most devastating three-Test Series wins
Series#YearLocTestsWonByTeam-1W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePtsTeam-2W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePts
201896Saf3ASaf0-0-3 53.317.76Eng3-0-0246.782.24
5542007Slk3HSlk3-0-0245.181.71Bng0-0-3 54.918.29
3411994Ind3HInd3-0-0233.477.80Slk0-0-3 66.622.20
491928Eng3HEng3-0-0232.077.34Win0-0-3 68.022.66
4602001Slk3HSlk3-0-0231.177.05Zim0-0-3 68.922.95
3911997Pak3HPak3-0-0226.875.61Win0-0-3 73.224.39
5152004Aus3HAus3-0-0225.875.27Pak0-0-3 74.224.73
1371963Nzl3ANzl0-0-3 76.125.38Eng3-0-0223.974.62
101886Eng3HEng3-0-0222.674.21Aus0-0-3 77.425.79
1901974Eng3HEng3-0-0220.673.54Ind0-0-3 79.426.46
3291993Ind3HInd3-0-0219.373.10Eng0-0-3 80.726.90
4722002uae3 Aus3-0-0218.872.93Pak0-0-3 81.227.07
2451982Pak3HPak3-0-0218.472.79Aus0-0-3 81.627.21
381912Eng3HEng3-0-0217.972.64Saf0-0-3 82.127.36
1511965Eng3HEng3-0-0217.372.44Nzl0-0-3 82.727.56
3371993Aus3HAus2-1-0216.972.29Nzl0-1-2 71.823.95
4402000Saf3HSaf2-1-0215.771.91Slk0-1-2 77.925.98
4582001Aus3HAus3-0-0209.869.92Saf0-0-3 90.230.08
5312005Aus3HAus3-0-0209.869.92Win0-0-3 90.230.08
4562001Slk3HSlk3-0-0209.669.88Win0-0-3 90.430.12

Since the previous tables were dominated by three-Test series, I have now prepared a set of tables based on the number of Tests played. First, the three-Test series.

All the top Test series have already been covered. Only pertinent comment is that there are couple of series in which the losing team has managed to draw a match. No series which has ended in a 2-1 scoreline features here. It is understandable since a lost Test means a loss of many performance points and it is difficult to make it up in the other two Tests.

The most devastating four-Test Series wins
Series#YearLocTestsWonByTeam-1W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePtsTeam-2W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePts
6142011Eng4HEng4-0-0284.871.19Ind0-0-4115.228.81
6032010Eng4HEng3-0-1278.569.61Pak1-0-3121.530.39
6262011Aus4HAus4-0-0277.569.37Ind0-0-4122.530.63
1721970Saf4HSaf4-0-0276.169.03Aus0-0-4123.930.97
6442013Ind4HInd4-0-0271.167.78Aus0-0-4128.932.22
4962003Saf4HSaf3-1-0264.666.14Win0-1-3130.532.62
941952Eng4HEng3-1-0260.565.12Ind0-1-3 89.522.38
5072004Eng4HEng4-0-0260.365.09Win0-0-4139.734.91
1101956Nzl4ANzl1-0-3141.435.34Win3-0-1258.664.66
871950Eng4AEng1-0-3143.535.88Win3-0-1256.564.12
4812003Win4AWin1-0-3154.738.67Aus3-0-1245.361.33
1601967Aus4HAus4-0-0243.860.94Ind0-0-4156.239.06
811948Win4HWin2-2-0241.260.31Eng0-2-2134.533.62
5522007Eng4HEng3-1-0240.460.11Win0-1-3140.135.03
1621968Nzl4ANzl1-0-3161.240.30Ind3-0-1238.859.70
5012004Win4AWin0-1-3137.734.42Eng3-1-0235.058.74
2661985Win4HWin2-2-0234.458.61Nzl0-2-2127.931.98
661935Win4HWin2-1-1231.257.80Eng1-1-2159.739.93
5442006Win4AWin0-3-1161.040.25Ind1-3-0227.756.94
3591995Win4AWin1-1-2159.939.98Aus2-1-1222.955.72

These are the four-Test series. Finally, we come to something we can identify with. The most devastating four-Test series loss was India's rout by England during 2011. England won that series by a margin of 71.2-28.8 (wins by 196 and 319 runs and innings and 242 and 8 runs). India's loss to Australia during 2011-12 was by a margin of 69.4-30.6 but almost carbon-copied by India when Australia visited India during 2013 and India won by 67.8-32.2.

England's 3-1 win over Pakistan during 2010 is in second place with a winning margin of 69.6-30.4. England, with three huge wins was able to compensate for Pakistan's narrow win.

The most devastating five/six-Test Series wins
Series#YearLocTestsWonByTeam-1W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePtsTeam-2W-D-LPerfPtsAvgePts
581931Aus5HAus5-0-0382.376.46Saf0-0-5117.723.54
551930Aus5HAus4-0-1372.774.53Win1-0-4127.325.47
2571984Win5HWin3-2-0365.273.04Aus0-2-3123.724.74
1231959Eng5HEng5-0-0362.372.46Ind0-0-5137.727.54
681935Saf5ASaf0-1-4130.726.14Aus4-1-0361.572.29
1151957Eng5HEng3-2-0359.371.86Win0-2-3124.824.95
2591984Eng5AEng0-0-5141.328.25Win5-0-0358.771.75
4382000Aus5HAus5-0-0354.770.94Win0-0-5145.329.06
2731986Win5HWin5-0-0354.070.79Eng0-0-5146.029.21
1341962Win5HWin5-0-0349.569.91Ind0-0-5150.530.09
1181958Eng5HEng4-1-0346.469.28Nzl0-1-4113.222.64
1351962Eng5HEng4-1-0345.769.13Pak0-1-4123.024.60
1191958Ind5AInd0-2-3146.029.20Win3-2-0345.469.08
801947Aus5HAus4-1-0341.368.25Ind0-1-4129.625.91
411920Aus5HAus5-0-0340.968.18Eng0-0-5159.131.82
771946Aus5HAus3-2-0340.468.08Eng0-2-3147.629.51
5482006Aus5HAus5-0-0339.667.93Eng0-0-5160.432.07
6552013Aus5HAus5-0-0332.066.41Eng0-0-5168.033.59
401913Saf5ASaf0-1-4162.032.41Eng4-1-0328.965.78
1201958Aus5HAus4-1-0327.665.53Eng0-1-4156.431.27

Finally the cream of Test cricket: the five/six-Test series. The one nice change from the previous tables is that there are a number of drawn matches in the picture. Margins of 3-0 and 4-0 wins are spread amongst this list.

The 1983-84 series between West Indies and Australia is an interesting one. The first two Tests were drawn but West Indies dominated both by 70-24 margins. Then West Indies won the next three Tests by huge margins winning the series by a 73.0-24.7 margin. The year 1984 also saw a 5-0 whitewash of England by West Indies, England losing the series 28.2-71.8. Let us salute the magnificence of West Indies. Between March 2, 1984 and August 14, West Indies faced the two top teams of the world at home and away in ten Tests and won 8-2-0 and 141.8-52.9. West Indies, please show some of those qualities now, off the field and do not meekly succumb to the money being offered.

Then comes the 1959 disaster of the Indian team in England. But for some good fight shown by Abbas Ali Baig and Polly Umrigar in the fourth Test, this 5-0 defeat might have finished on top. As it is England won the series 72.5-27.5. Considering that India lost the 2011 series 71.2-28.8, it is almost certain that the 2011 defeat was far more devastating since India was the #1 team in the world and possessed no less than 8 world class players.

Australia's recent domination is confirmed by the fact that the three series, played during the past 15 years, which figure in this list are all Australia's 5-0 trouncings of West Indies and England, including the most recent Ashes series. But it must be accepted that most of the recent five-Test series are between Australia and England. South Africa, No.1 team in the world, are offered a two-Test series by India, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Finally, an interesting bonus. The most evenly conducted Test series was when West Indies played Pakistan at home in 2000 (Series #428). After a two-innings draw with a slight edge to Pakistan and an exciting but very close draw, West Indies won the third Test by one wicket to just about wipe out the slight advantage Pakistan had. The series ended 39.0-38.9 for West Indies, a wafer-thin gap between the two teams. The third Test was pegged at 50.6-49.4 for West Indies!

However, the closer series was the five-Test encounter, played between West Indies and New Zealand during 1972. All five Tests were drawn. In the first and the last Tests West Indies missed wins. However the middle three Tests had New Zealand at advantageous positions and the series ended 41.6-41.4 in favour of New Zealand.

To download/view the complete table of all qualifying series, please CLICK HERE. My take is that many of the questions can be answered if you download this file, extract the component files and view the contents. Instead of asking me obvious questions for which the answers are already there in the tables, you could download the file and view the tables.

I have just about completed the top levels of the ODI matches and will come out with an article on ODIs. However, the problem is that there are so many tournaments, at last count approaching 200, and I have to think of a way to handle these.

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

  • NALINWIJ on February 10, 2014, 12:29 GMT

    Perhaps this type of point system can be incorporated into points awarded to a team in test matches and they could be tallied over 4 years and the 2 top teams could play in a test series to determine world test champion and if the series is drawn then the point system could adjudicate the winner.
    [[ I have plans to do a massive 137-year rating of Tests using these index values. That will be very useful to see what has been the most dominating team ever.
    However two teams to play a match to determine a winner is a fantasy. The new setup, dominated by BCCI, will kill any such initiative since it will take the gloss away from what they set out to achieve. There is no place for any Test championship in their plans. Ananth: ]]

  • AnanthNarayanan on February 9, 2014, 5:09 GMT

    Let me post an update on the wonderful Test match which just got over. Who says that Test matches are dead. Only the fools and the uninitiated. Interest right through and a close match at the end.
    The Performance points were 52.27-47.73 in New Zealand's favour. The closeness of the win is reflected in the scoreline. If NZL had won by 150 runs it would have been 57-43. If NZL had enforced the follow-on and won by innings and 25 runs, it would have been 77-23 or so. By now the readers should have got the hang of it.
    Ananth

  • MilPand on February 9, 2014, 3:42 GMT

    An interesting match was Test 1449 - Nzl 168; Saf 442/1d; Nzl 127/1 As we all know, First class matches are played over 2 innings each. There is a chance to come back and superiority in only one of the innings does not matter that much. Teams have tied/lost after double declaration too. The equations were in place to reward the wickets saved in declaration but those had to be kept aside in the final analysis. A declaration is a forfeit of remaining wickets. Captains/Teams decide to declare (or not enforce a follow-on) based on their reading of their ability to get 20 wickets in the time available. So coming back to T1449, RSA will not be determined as too far ahead in the game because they lost just 1 wicket to score 442 because in the match context, they have only 10 more wickets left.
    [[
    Thanks, Milind.
    In Test 2049, when South Africa declared at 637 for 2, it was Smith's decision to declare at that time to ensure that his side would get England out in the remaining 130 overs. As Milind says a declaration means the remaining wickets are forfeited. If at all they had to bat a second time they would only have 10 wickets.
    Pl remember that even though the 1986 tie was an imperfect one, as I have mentioned in the article, the two teams were allotted 50.0 pts each, despite the two declarations by Australia.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • dibbly_dobbler on February 8, 2014, 18:06 GMT

    I would like to know the points earned in the 1st test match of the 2012 series between South Africa and England. Personally, this is the most one-sided test match that I have ever watched as South Africa won by an innings and only lost 2 wickets.
    [[
    The points for that Test were 75.31-24.69. Do not forget that the final win was by an innings and 12 runs. As I have explained in the article the margin is the base for the working. Compare this with something like Eng: 292, Aus: 47 & 43 (Match 32).
    We debated for days on end to decide that the number of wickets lost in amassing the score will not play a part. I would request Milind also to respond to this. 637 for 2 or 637 for 4 are the same as far as the win was concerned.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:14 GMT

    Domestic tournaments generally award x points for win, y for draws and z for first innings lead to determine league position. Matches tend to be less competitive in second innings if both teams feel that the max possible points are earned. Draws will be competitive till the last available delivery if such points system is used that rewards every wicket taken and every run scored.

    * *

    Starting with 2nd Test of South Africa in India that commenced on 14th Feb 2010, here is a summary for last 4 years:

    Saf......32.......593.0.......18.5 Eng......50.......608.2.......12.2 Aus......45.......188.0........4.2 Ind......41........85.0........2.1 Pak......34.......-18.2.......-0.5 Slk......35......-125.5.......-3.6 Win......33......-234.4.......-7.1 Nzl......34......-442.1......-13.0 Zim......10......-186.6......-18.7 Bng......20......-467.4......-23.4
    [[ Being on the road, I cannot add anything to Milind's contributions. Probably even otherwise. I will return home and study Milind's contributions. Ananth: ]]

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:09 GMT

    2010-toDate........27.4........174 ........Eng........30.0.........52 ........Aus........25.5.........47 ........Saf........29.6.........35 ........Win........23.0.........33 ........Nzl........28.2.........34 ........Ind........30.8.........44 ........Pak........25.4.........36 ........Slk........23.6.........35 ........Zim........32.2.........10 ........Bng........27.2.........22

    The absolute difference will be lower in case of narrow wins as well as draws. The average difference was practically under 25 for all teams during 1960-1989. Lowest values recorded for Pak(17.5) in '70s, Ind(18.6) in '80s & Nzl(19.6) in '30s.

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:09 GMT

    1990-1999..........24.2........347 ........Eng........24.6........107 ........Aus........26.6........108 ........Saf........23.4.........66 ........Win........25.6.........81 ........Nzl........24.6.........81 ........Ind........22.2.........69 ........Pak........23.1.........76 ........Slk........21.5.........67 ........Zim........24.2.........39

    2000-2009..........28.8........464 ........Eng........26.6........129 ........Aus........28.7........115 ........Saf........28.4........108 ........Win........25.2........108 ........Nzl........26.6.........80 ........Ind........25.9........103 ........Pak........25.8.........83 ........Slk........30.3.........96 ........Zim........37.6.........44 ........Bng........44.1.........61

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:08 GMT

    1960-1969..........22.3........186 ........Eng........21.8........100 ........Aus........21.6.........67 ........Saf........21.1.........31 ........Win........24.7.........49 ........Nzl........23.8.........43 ........Ind........21.7.........52 ........Pak........22.4.........30

    1970-1979..........22.3........198 ........Eng........22.1.........95 ........Aus........24.8.........83 ........Saf........38.1..........4 ........Win........21.4.........63 ........Nzl........24.6.........41 ........Ind........21.2.........64 ........Pak........17.5.........46

    1980-1989..........22.9........266 ........Eng........21.7........104 ........Aus........25.4.........97 ........Saf....................... ........Win........26.0.........82 ........Nzl........20.5.........59 ........Ind........18.6.........81 ........Pak........22.1.........80 ........Slk........28.1.........29

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:06 GMT

    Using Absolute values of the difference between T1 & T2, I have generated the summary below. The header describes Period, Overall Average & Number of Tests played in this period. After that average difference and number of tests for each country are listed.

    Upto-1929..........27.8........185 ........Eng........27.6........171 ........Aus........26.8........133 ........Saf........29.0.........63 ........Win........54.7..........3

    1930-1949..........29.1........133 ........Eng........24.8........104 ........Aus........40.7.........56 ........Saf........28.3.........38 ........Win........29.3.........28 ........Nzl........19.6.........20 ........Ind........30.6.........20

    1950-1959..........30.9........165 ........Eng........31.6.........83 ........Aus........29.0.........58 ........Saf........28.1.........36 ........Win........32.8.........48 ........Nzl........35.4.........32 ........Ind........29.9.........44 ........Pak........29.5.........29

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:05 GMT

    Regarding T2049: Teams do not get extra points for declaration but batting points are shared between fewer batsmen. So team points for South Africa are just over 75 but the batting points are shared between Amla, Kallis and Smith. Amla's triple hundred is ranked high but we have to keep in mind that Kallis and Smith played well too. Hence Amla will not get extremely high values in this zero-sum game.

  • NALINWIJ on February 10, 2014, 12:29 GMT

    Perhaps this type of point system can be incorporated into points awarded to a team in test matches and they could be tallied over 4 years and the 2 top teams could play in a test series to determine world test champion and if the series is drawn then the point system could adjudicate the winner.
    [[ I have plans to do a massive 137-year rating of Tests using these index values. That will be very useful to see what has been the most dominating team ever.
    However two teams to play a match to determine a winner is a fantasy. The new setup, dominated by BCCI, will kill any such initiative since it will take the gloss away from what they set out to achieve. There is no place for any Test championship in their plans. Ananth: ]]

  • AnanthNarayanan on February 9, 2014, 5:09 GMT

    Let me post an update on the wonderful Test match which just got over. Who says that Test matches are dead. Only the fools and the uninitiated. Interest right through and a close match at the end.
    The Performance points were 52.27-47.73 in New Zealand's favour. The closeness of the win is reflected in the scoreline. If NZL had won by 150 runs it would have been 57-43. If NZL had enforced the follow-on and won by innings and 25 runs, it would have been 77-23 or so. By now the readers should have got the hang of it.
    Ananth

  • MilPand on February 9, 2014, 3:42 GMT

    An interesting match was Test 1449 - Nzl 168; Saf 442/1d; Nzl 127/1 As we all know, First class matches are played over 2 innings each. There is a chance to come back and superiority in only one of the innings does not matter that much. Teams have tied/lost after double declaration too. The equations were in place to reward the wickets saved in declaration but those had to be kept aside in the final analysis. A declaration is a forfeit of remaining wickets. Captains/Teams decide to declare (or not enforce a follow-on) based on their reading of their ability to get 20 wickets in the time available. So coming back to T1449, RSA will not be determined as too far ahead in the game because they lost just 1 wicket to score 442 because in the match context, they have only 10 more wickets left.
    [[
    Thanks, Milind.
    In Test 2049, when South Africa declared at 637 for 2, it was Smith's decision to declare at that time to ensure that his side would get England out in the remaining 130 overs. As Milind says a declaration means the remaining wickets are forfeited. If at all they had to bat a second time they would only have 10 wickets.
    Pl remember that even though the 1986 tie was an imperfect one, as I have mentioned in the article, the two teams were allotted 50.0 pts each, despite the two declarations by Australia.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • dibbly_dobbler on February 8, 2014, 18:06 GMT

    I would like to know the points earned in the 1st test match of the 2012 series between South Africa and England. Personally, this is the most one-sided test match that I have ever watched as South Africa won by an innings and only lost 2 wickets.
    [[
    The points for that Test were 75.31-24.69. Do not forget that the final win was by an innings and 12 runs. As I have explained in the article the margin is the base for the working. Compare this with something like Eng: 292, Aus: 47 & 43 (Match 32).
    We debated for days on end to decide that the number of wickets lost in amassing the score will not play a part. I would request Milind also to respond to this. 637 for 2 or 637 for 4 are the same as far as the win was concerned.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:14 GMT

    Domestic tournaments generally award x points for win, y for draws and z for first innings lead to determine league position. Matches tend to be less competitive in second innings if both teams feel that the max possible points are earned. Draws will be competitive till the last available delivery if such points system is used that rewards every wicket taken and every run scored.

    * *

    Starting with 2nd Test of South Africa in India that commenced on 14th Feb 2010, here is a summary for last 4 years:

    Saf......32.......593.0.......18.5 Eng......50.......608.2.......12.2 Aus......45.......188.0........4.2 Ind......41........85.0........2.1 Pak......34.......-18.2.......-0.5 Slk......35......-125.5.......-3.6 Win......33......-234.4.......-7.1 Nzl......34......-442.1......-13.0 Zim......10......-186.6......-18.7 Bng......20......-467.4......-23.4
    [[ Being on the road, I cannot add anything to Milind's contributions. Probably even otherwise. I will return home and study Milind's contributions. Ananth: ]]

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:09 GMT

    2010-toDate........27.4........174 ........Eng........30.0.........52 ........Aus........25.5.........47 ........Saf........29.6.........35 ........Win........23.0.........33 ........Nzl........28.2.........34 ........Ind........30.8.........44 ........Pak........25.4.........36 ........Slk........23.6.........35 ........Zim........32.2.........10 ........Bng........27.2.........22

    The absolute difference will be lower in case of narrow wins as well as draws. The average difference was practically under 25 for all teams during 1960-1989. Lowest values recorded for Pak(17.5) in '70s, Ind(18.6) in '80s & Nzl(19.6) in '30s.

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:09 GMT

    1990-1999..........24.2........347 ........Eng........24.6........107 ........Aus........26.6........108 ........Saf........23.4.........66 ........Win........25.6.........81 ........Nzl........24.6.........81 ........Ind........22.2.........69 ........Pak........23.1.........76 ........Slk........21.5.........67 ........Zim........24.2.........39

    2000-2009..........28.8........464 ........Eng........26.6........129 ........Aus........28.7........115 ........Saf........28.4........108 ........Win........25.2........108 ........Nzl........26.6.........80 ........Ind........25.9........103 ........Pak........25.8.........83 ........Slk........30.3.........96 ........Zim........37.6.........44 ........Bng........44.1.........61

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:08 GMT

    1960-1969..........22.3........186 ........Eng........21.8........100 ........Aus........21.6.........67 ........Saf........21.1.........31 ........Win........24.7.........49 ........Nzl........23.8.........43 ........Ind........21.7.........52 ........Pak........22.4.........30

    1970-1979..........22.3........198 ........Eng........22.1.........95 ........Aus........24.8.........83 ........Saf........38.1..........4 ........Win........21.4.........63 ........Nzl........24.6.........41 ........Ind........21.2.........64 ........Pak........17.5.........46

    1980-1989..........22.9........266 ........Eng........21.7........104 ........Aus........25.4.........97 ........Saf....................... ........Win........26.0.........82 ........Nzl........20.5.........59 ........Ind........18.6.........81 ........Pak........22.1.........80 ........Slk........28.1.........29

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:06 GMT

    Using Absolute values of the difference between T1 & T2, I have generated the summary below. The header describes Period, Overall Average & Number of Tests played in this period. After that average difference and number of tests for each country are listed.

    Upto-1929..........27.8........185 ........Eng........27.6........171 ........Aus........26.8........133 ........Saf........29.0.........63 ........Win........54.7..........3

    1930-1949..........29.1........133 ........Eng........24.8........104 ........Aus........40.7.........56 ........Saf........28.3.........38 ........Win........29.3.........28 ........Nzl........19.6.........20 ........Ind........30.6.........20

    1950-1959..........30.9........165 ........Eng........31.6.........83 ........Aus........29.0.........58 ........Saf........28.1.........36 ........Win........32.8.........48 ........Nzl........35.4.........32 ........Ind........29.9.........44 ........Pak........29.5.........29

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:05 GMT

    Regarding T2049: Teams do not get extra points for declaration but batting points are shared between fewer batsmen. So team points for South Africa are just over 75 but the batting points are shared between Amla, Kallis and Smith. Amla's triple hundred is ranked high but we have to keep in mind that Kallis and Smith played well too. Hence Amla will not get extremely high values in this zero-sum game.

  • ArjunHemnani on February 10, 2014, 12:10 GMT

    Ananth, 1924 series between Australia and England is very interesting. Scoreline (4-1) looks deceptive while differnce in index is almost negligible. Aus 51.57 Eng 48.43 The diff in index is suggesting 5 drawn tests. Could this be most closely fought test series with almost one-sided result ? btw i havn't checked the scorecards.
    [[ Arjun, the points for the 5 Tests are given below. Aus first.
    57.99 - 42.01
    53.33 - 46.67
    50.50 - 49.50
    24.09 - 75.91
    71.94 - 28.06
    The big win for England in the fourth Test was mostly compensated by the fifth Test. But the third Test win was by 11 runs and the second by 81 runs. So it was a much closer series than the scoreline indicates. England was 12 runs away from making it 2-3 and less than 100 runs away from making it 3-2.
    Suddenly the Wi-Fi up in the hills of Yercaud is galloping. So I am able to send a long reply. Ananth: ]]

  • sreek_arch on February 10, 2014, 9:08 GMT

    Hi Anantha, another excellent article. i done some data analysis in the file, and found the difference in average points in the series (absolute values). And tried to find the average of these average points in different periods (like 1960-70, 1970-80 etc.). Dont know my calculations are exact, but found interesting results. Found out that average difference in average points was least during 1960-69 (15.31), and it was sable during 1970-1999(16.39, 16.65, 16.58 during each ten year period). But it starts to increase after 2000. During 2000.10 it is 18.69 and 2010-present it is 20.29. Before first world war the difference was 20.51, between first and second world wars it was 20.77 and after second world war to 1959 it was 22.32 highest. Maybe it shows the difference in standards between test nations are increasing or like we are seeing series wins are lop sided. Anyway thanks for the article. Thanking you and milind for this great data.
    [[ Sri, I am on the road and up on the hills of Yercaud, the Wi-Fi is as fast as a dial-up connection of 15 years back. I will respond on my return in 2 days. Many thanks. Ananth: ]]

  • on February 9, 2014, 13:04 GMT

    Hi Ananth, Another great article though I did not go into the minute details. If you are kind enough just provide me points details for following match/Series. 1.India Vs Australia Series 2001 2.India Vs Australia (Mumbai 2004) 3.India Vs Australia (Adelaide 2003)
    [[
    1. 2001: Ind First: 25.36-74.63, 57.68-42.32, 52.12-47.88.
    2. Ind: 51.43-48.57.
    3. Aus: 44.33-55.67.

    Ananth
    ]]

  • on February 9, 2014, 11:33 GMT

    Hi Anantha! 1. Wonderfully done and presented. Quite brilliant! Keep up the great job. 2. As I began reading the article, I was on the lookout to see if the 1975/76 WI tour of Aus makes the cut. To my surprise, despite the 5-0-1 scoreline, that series does not make the cut. I made use of the link to the table and I found it languishing quite low on the list with AvgPoints of 57.05 and 42.95. Would you be able to tell us how different the table would've looked if WI had not won by an innings at Perth in the 2nd test? Or better still, could you evaluate various other scenarios for us like WI losing by innings, by runs, drawing etc. Why I ask this question is to understand the impact of that 1 innings victory that WI managed to score over Chappell and co. Thanks in advance! Regards, Sriram!
    [[
    The WI win was the heaviest of wins in the series. It was pegged at 22.3-77.7. The other 5 matches went 67.5-32.5, 68.5-31.5, 64.9-35.1, 59.5-40.5 and 59.7-40.3. If you sum this it goes 342.4-257.6 and the average is 57.05-42.95. So you can see how one big win compensates for 2 losses. This series would also make it clear that a series win of 70-30 (like the 2011 whitewash) is an almost complete rout. If, say Nzl wins the next match by 5 wickets, it may be 57-43 and the series will go 55-45.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Charith99 on February 9, 2014, 6:18 GMT

    As always nice work Ananth. SL team does not feature much in this analysis because we don't get to play many 3 test series. Things will only get worse for us because we have now offended the mighty 3. It's funny that in the end only the two most dysfunctional cricket boards chose to do the right thing and southafrican board choked at the last minute much like their cricket team.
    [[
    Your comments are perfect and on the spot.
    At close of play yesterday, only two boards can stand with their head high. The other boards cannot look at anyone in the eye, especially the South African board. What is the price of self-respect? A promised 3-Test series and the lure of IPL and allowing Mr.Lorgat's entry into ICC. How low can anyone go. I would not even blame the big 3. Power corrupts and they are power-grabbers. But South Africa: Yes, I agree chokers on and off the field.
    Ananth: ]]

  • Rufus_Fuddleduck on February 8, 2014, 14:50 GMT

    Anantha as always - a new algorithm and drilled down. How would it be if a dissertation were to be done of victories in terms of runs and wickets? Would it necessarily offer insights on which part of the victor's team was dominant?
    [[
    If you view the graph you will see that the further splits into innings/batting/bowling/fielding/players has already been done. But there is so much data to be covered that we are sure the articles are not the medium for covering these.
    It is possible that we may have to do a book.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Rufus_Fuddleduck on February 8, 2014, 14:50 GMT

    Anantha as always - a new algorithm and drilled down. How would it be if a dissertation were to be done of victories in terms of runs and wickets? Would it necessarily offer insights on which part of the victor's team was dominant?
    [[
    If you view the graph you will see that the further splits into innings/batting/bowling/fielding/players has already been done. But there is so much data to be covered that we are sure the articles are not the medium for covering these.
    It is possible that we may have to do a book.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Charith99 on February 9, 2014, 6:18 GMT

    As always nice work Ananth. SL team does not feature much in this analysis because we don't get to play many 3 test series. Things will only get worse for us because we have now offended the mighty 3. It's funny that in the end only the two most dysfunctional cricket boards chose to do the right thing and southafrican board choked at the last minute much like their cricket team.
    [[
    Your comments are perfect and on the spot.
    At close of play yesterday, only two boards can stand with their head high. The other boards cannot look at anyone in the eye, especially the South African board. What is the price of self-respect? A promised 3-Test series and the lure of IPL and allowing Mr.Lorgat's entry into ICC. How low can anyone go. I would not even blame the big 3. Power corrupts and they are power-grabbers. But South Africa: Yes, I agree chokers on and off the field.
    Ananth: ]]

  • on February 9, 2014, 11:33 GMT

    Hi Anantha! 1. Wonderfully done and presented. Quite brilliant! Keep up the great job. 2. As I began reading the article, I was on the lookout to see if the 1975/76 WI tour of Aus makes the cut. To my surprise, despite the 5-0-1 scoreline, that series does not make the cut. I made use of the link to the table and I found it languishing quite low on the list with AvgPoints of 57.05 and 42.95. Would you be able to tell us how different the table would've looked if WI had not won by an innings at Perth in the 2nd test? Or better still, could you evaluate various other scenarios for us like WI losing by innings, by runs, drawing etc. Why I ask this question is to understand the impact of that 1 innings victory that WI managed to score over Chappell and co. Thanks in advance! Regards, Sriram!
    [[
    The WI win was the heaviest of wins in the series. It was pegged at 22.3-77.7. The other 5 matches went 67.5-32.5, 68.5-31.5, 64.9-35.1, 59.5-40.5 and 59.7-40.3. If you sum this it goes 342.4-257.6 and the average is 57.05-42.95. So you can see how one big win compensates for 2 losses. This series would also make it clear that a series win of 70-30 (like the 2011 whitewash) is an almost complete rout. If, say Nzl wins the next match by 5 wickets, it may be 57-43 and the series will go 55-45.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on February 9, 2014, 13:04 GMT

    Hi Ananth, Another great article though I did not go into the minute details. If you are kind enough just provide me points details for following match/Series. 1.India Vs Australia Series 2001 2.India Vs Australia (Mumbai 2004) 3.India Vs Australia (Adelaide 2003)
    [[
    1. 2001: Ind First: 25.36-74.63, 57.68-42.32, 52.12-47.88.
    2. Ind: 51.43-48.57.
    3. Aus: 44.33-55.67.

    Ananth
    ]]

  • sreek_arch on February 10, 2014, 9:08 GMT

    Hi Anantha, another excellent article. i done some data analysis in the file, and found the difference in average points in the series (absolute values). And tried to find the average of these average points in different periods (like 1960-70, 1970-80 etc.). Dont know my calculations are exact, but found interesting results. Found out that average difference in average points was least during 1960-69 (15.31), and it was sable during 1970-1999(16.39, 16.65, 16.58 during each ten year period). But it starts to increase after 2000. During 2000.10 it is 18.69 and 2010-present it is 20.29. Before first world war the difference was 20.51, between first and second world wars it was 20.77 and after second world war to 1959 it was 22.32 highest. Maybe it shows the difference in standards between test nations are increasing or like we are seeing series wins are lop sided. Anyway thanks for the article. Thanking you and milind for this great data.
    [[ Sri, I am on the road and up on the hills of Yercaud, the Wi-Fi is as fast as a dial-up connection of 15 years back. I will respond on my return in 2 days. Many thanks. Ananth: ]]

  • ArjunHemnani on February 10, 2014, 12:10 GMT

    Ananth, 1924 series between Australia and England is very interesting. Scoreline (4-1) looks deceptive while differnce in index is almost negligible. Aus 51.57 Eng 48.43 The diff in index is suggesting 5 drawn tests. Could this be most closely fought test series with almost one-sided result ? btw i havn't checked the scorecards.
    [[ Arjun, the points for the 5 Tests are given below. Aus first.
    57.99 - 42.01
    53.33 - 46.67
    50.50 - 49.50
    24.09 - 75.91
    71.94 - 28.06
    The big win for England in the fourth Test was mostly compensated by the fifth Test. But the third Test win was by 11 runs and the second by 81 runs. So it was a much closer series than the scoreline indicates. England was 12 runs away from making it 2-3 and less than 100 runs away from making it 3-2.
    Suddenly the Wi-Fi up in the hills of Yercaud is galloping. So I am able to send a long reply. Ananth: ]]

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:05 GMT

    Regarding T2049: Teams do not get extra points for declaration but batting points are shared between fewer batsmen. So team points for South Africa are just over 75 but the batting points are shared between Amla, Kallis and Smith. Amla's triple hundred is ranked high but we have to keep in mind that Kallis and Smith played well too. Hence Amla will not get extremely high values in this zero-sum game.

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:06 GMT

    Using Absolute values of the difference between T1 & T2, I have generated the summary below. The header describes Period, Overall Average & Number of Tests played in this period. After that average difference and number of tests for each country are listed.

    Upto-1929..........27.8........185 ........Eng........27.6........171 ........Aus........26.8........133 ........Saf........29.0.........63 ........Win........54.7..........3

    1930-1949..........29.1........133 ........Eng........24.8........104 ........Aus........40.7.........56 ........Saf........28.3.........38 ........Win........29.3.........28 ........Nzl........19.6.........20 ........Ind........30.6.........20

    1950-1959..........30.9........165 ........Eng........31.6.........83 ........Aus........29.0.........58 ........Saf........28.1.........36 ........Win........32.8.........48 ........Nzl........35.4.........32 ........Ind........29.9.........44 ........Pak........29.5.........29

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:08 GMT

    1960-1969..........22.3........186 ........Eng........21.8........100 ........Aus........21.6.........67 ........Saf........21.1.........31 ........Win........24.7.........49 ........Nzl........23.8.........43 ........Ind........21.7.........52 ........Pak........22.4.........30

    1970-1979..........22.3........198 ........Eng........22.1.........95 ........Aus........24.8.........83 ........Saf........38.1..........4 ........Win........21.4.........63 ........Nzl........24.6.........41 ........Ind........21.2.........64 ........Pak........17.5.........46

    1980-1989..........22.9........266 ........Eng........21.7........104 ........Aus........25.4.........97 ........Saf....................... ........Win........26.0.........82 ........Nzl........20.5.........59 ........Ind........18.6.........81 ........Pak........22.1.........80 ........Slk........28.1.........29

  • MilPand on February 11, 2014, 7:09 GMT

    1990-1999..........24.2........347 ........Eng........24.6........107 ........Aus........26.6........108 ........Saf........23.4.........66 ........Win........25.6.........81 ........Nzl........24.6.........81 ........Ind........22.2.........69 ........Pak........23.1.........76 ........Slk........21.5.........67 ........Zim........24.2.........39

    2000-2009..........28.8........464 ........Eng........26.6........129 ........Aus........28.7........115 ........Saf........28.4........108 ........Win........25.2........108 ........Nzl........26.6.........80 ........Ind........25.9........103 ........Pak........25.8.........83 ........Slk........30.3.........96 ........Zim........37.6.........44 ........Bng........44.1.........61