June 28, 2014

Consistency of Test batsmen - Part 2

A new tool to analyse which batsmen have been the most consistent in Test cricket
25

A cumulative reading of Part 1 and Part 2 of this series could lead to the conclusion that Rohan Kanhai is the most consistent batsman in cricket history
A cumulative reading of Part 1 and Part 2 of this series could lead to the conclusion that Rohan Kanhai is the most consistent batsman in cricket history © Getty Images

In my previous article I had analysed the consistency of Test batsmen, from the innings point of view. I received a number of good comments and a few excellent ideas were sent by the readers. The one idea which appealed to me most was by Santosh Sequeira who suggested that the Consistency analysis will have much better value if done using a single Test as the basis. Once I got out of my self-created mental block that 100 and 0 in a single Test represented inconsistency, this made a lot of sense.

I could see the following benefits accruing if Test Consistency was measured by Test, and not by innings.

- A Test is the logical unit of delivery for a player since the result is driven by a Test.
- There was a well-justified concern that many batsmen, even the very best, were short-changed in the innings-based analysis. A 100 and 0 represented two innings out of the consistency zone. This will disappear if these two innings have been played within a single Test.
- Top batsmen rarely have double failures in a Test. They make up for failures in one innings with a good innings in the other. The Test-based analysis recognises this characteristic.
- The results bear out this improvement since many top batsmen who were languishing in the lower half of the table of the select group of batsmen, have moved up considerably.
- The upper limit of the consistency zone was fairly low and this meant that many a good innings went out of the consistency zone. This is partly alleviated in the Test-based analysis.
- The impact of not-outs is fairly negligible. Since there are two innings to combine, I could adopt a different approach.

Let me reassure the readers that the following ideas that went into my to-do list are still active candidates for inclusion in future articles.

- Consistency analysis using the Median (Q2) value. This will be an assumption-free analysis.
- Batsman low-score analysis.
- Consistency value at batsman peak.
- Analysis of batsman troughs.

At the end of this article I will check whether there is good correlation between the innings-based analysis and Test-based analysis. If there is good correlation, we could work with either of the methods. If there are many variations, we have to peg our hat on either of the analysis methods. The criteria could be many. Why cross a bridge which is a few kilometres away?

I have devised a simple concept of "Batsman-active Tests". If a batsmen batted in either innings, I consider that Test as an active one for him. Else I do not include it. Don Bradman batted in 50 Tests only, and Sachin Tendulkar in 197 Tests. Just to give a specific example, when South Africa scored 637 for 2 at The Oval and won, AB de Villiers did not bat at all. So this Test is excluded from this analysis. On the other hand Alviro Peterson scored a duck and this is certainly an "active Test" for him. This is eminently fair, simple to understand and easy to work out.

If a batsman is not out at 10 in the only innings he played in a Test, well, these would even out across a career. It is the same policy for all batsmen. I briefly considered, and discarded, the method of taking a fraction of a Test, derived from the scores, in the denominator. Quite confusing, and just not worth it. An analysis of 39.42 Tests? No way.

Test Batsmen Consistency analysis: Top 30 batsmen
No Batsman LHB Ctry Tests Runs RpT Inactive-Tests Active-Tests Real RpT Cons-Zone Range Below CZ Below CZ % Cons-Zone Tests Cons-Index
1Saeed AhmedPak 41 2991 73.0 1 40 74.837.4-112.2 1025.0%2562.5%
2RB KanhaiWin 79 6227 78.8 0 79 78.839.4-118.2 1822.8%4658.2%
3RC FredericksLWin 59 4334 73.5 0 59 73.536.7-110.2 1322.0%3457.6%
4CH LloydLWin110 7515 68.3 1109 68.934.5-103.4 2522.9%6256.9%
5KD WaltersAus 74 5357 72.4 0 74 72.436.2-108.6 1824.3%4256.8%
6AH JonesNzl 39 2922 74.9 0 39 74.937.5-112.4 923.1%2256.4%
7GM TurnerNzl 41 2991 73.0 0 41 73.036.5-109.4 1126.8%2356.1%
8NC O'NeillAus 42 2779 66.2 1 41 67.833.9-101.7 922.0%2356.1%
9SR WatsonAus 52 3408 65.5 0 52 65.532.8- 98.3 1325.0%2955.8%
10Misbah-ul-HaqPak 46 3218 70.0 1 45 71.535.8-107.3 1022.2%2555.6%
11MH RichardsonLNzl 38 2776 73.1 0 38 73.136.5-109.6 923.7%2155.3%
12IJL TrottEng 49 3763 76.8 0 49 76.838.4-115.2 1326.5%2755.1%
13FE WoolleyLEng 64 3283 51.3 2 62 53.026.5- 79.4 1829.0%3454.8%
14A RanatungaLSlk 93 5105 54.9 2 91 56.128.0- 84.1 2527.5%4953.8%
15ND McKenzieSaf 58 3253 56.1 2 56 58.129.0- 87.1 1628.6%3053.6%
16AL HassettAus 43 3073 71.5 0 43 71.535.7-107.2 1023.3%2353.5%
17RB RichardsonWin 86 5949 69.2 0 86 69.234.6-103.8 2124.4%4552.3%
18JH EdrichLEng 77 5138 66.7 2 75 68.534.3-102.8 2026.7%3952.0%
19GR MarshAus 50 2854 57.1 0 50 57.128.5- 85.6 1428.0%2652.0%
20L HuttonEng 79 6971 88.2 0 79 88.244.1-132.4 2329.1%4151.9%
21BJ HaddinAus 57 3033 53.2 1 56 54.227.1- 81.2 1730.4%2951.8%
22DPMD JayawardeneSlk14411392 79.1 1143 79.739.8-119.5 3725.9%7451.7%
23ER DexterEng 62 4502 72.6 0 62 72.636.3-108.9 1524.2%3251.6%
24WJ CronjeSaf 68 3714 54.6 2 66 56.328.1- 84.4 1928.8%3451.5%
25ME TrescothickLEng 76 5820 76.6 0 76 76.638.3-114.9 2330.3%3951.3%
26SP FlemingLNzl111 7172 64.6 3108 66.433.2- 99.6 3431.5%5550.9%
27Asif IqbalPak 58 3575 61.6 1 57 62.731.4- 94.1 1526.3%2950.9%
28A FlowerLZim 63 4794 76.1 0 63 76.138.0-114.1 2031.7%3250.8%
29KJ HughesAus 70 4415 63.1 1 69 64.032.0- 96.0 2029.0%3550.7%
30WR HammondEng 85 7249 85.3 0 85 85.342.6-127.9 2428.2%4350.6%
31AD NourseSaf 34 2960 87.1 0 34 87.143.5-130.6 1029.4%1750.0%

The top position in the Test-based Consistency table is taken by Saeed Ahmed, the attacking Pakistani batsmen whose Test average of 40.41 belied his value to his team. Out of the 40 Tests he batted in, he was in the ConZone an amazing 25 times, leading to an outstanding index value of 62.5%: That is 5 out of 8 Tests. The other telling statistic is the fact that he failed to reach the ConZone in only ten Tests out of these 40. That is a very low failure rate of 25%. In 1965, he made an unforgettable 172, out of a score of 307 for 8, against New Zealand, saving Pakistan from possible defeat. That was his highest Test score.

Then come four more attacking batsmen: Rohan Kanhai, Roy Fredericks, Clive Lloyd and Doug Walters. There are three West Indians and one Australian. This re-emphasises my belief that the attacking batsmen are as likely to be as consistent as the staid batsmen. With their more aggressive attitude, they are more likely to be able to make up for failures in one innings with good showings in the other. All these batsmen have Consistency indices above 56%.

There are a number of lovely batsmen in the top-20. Norm O'Neill is in the top-10. He might not have been the "next Bradman" but was a terrific batsman. The under-rated Misbah-ul-Haq rounds off the top-10. We will look at Jonathan Trott later on. I am very happy to see John Edrich in 18th place. Frank Woolley was a classical left-hander who is deservedly in 13th position. They are both favourites of mine. The 20th ranked batsman is Len Hutton, possibly the best in this lot. He himself clocks in at 51.9%. There are 36 batsmen who have index values of 50% or higher. The last batsman featured is Dudley Nourse who was placed in first position in the other table.

Test Batsmen Consistency analysis: Bottom 10 batsmen
No Batsman LHB Ctry Tests Runs RpT Inactive-Tests Active-Tests Real RpT Cons-Zone Range Below CZ Below CZ % Cons-Zone Tests Cons-Index
191Shoaib MohammadPak 45 2705 60.1 1 44 61.530.7- 92.2 1840.9%1534.1%
192Aamer SohailLPak 47 2823 60.1 0 47 60.130.0- 90.1 1940.4%1634.0%
193VT TrumperAus 48 3163 65.9 1 47 67.333.6-100.9 1940.4%1634.0%
194DL AmissEng 50 3612 72.2 0 50 72.236.1-108.4 2040.0%1734.0%
195HW TaylorSaf 42 2936 69.9 0 42 69.935.0-104.9 1535.7%1433.3%
196GA HickEng 65 3383 52.0 0 65 52.026.0- 78.1 2640.0%2132.3%
197SK WarneAus145 3154 21.8 8137 23.011.5- 34.5 5943.1%4331.4%
198Ijaz AhmedPak 60 3315 55.2 2 58 57.228.6- 85.7 2441.4%1831.0%
199AC ParoreNzl 78 2865 36.7 3 75 38.219.1- 57.3 3040.0%2330.7%
200MS AtapattuSlk 90 5502 61.1 2 88 62.531.3- 93.8 4045.5%2629.5%

Let us look at the table proppers. Marvan Atapattu takes possession of the 200th position. What makes Atapattu so inconsistent? He batted in 88 Tests. He reached the ConZone mark of 31-94 only 26 times. That is a meagre 29.5%: not even a third of his Tests. This index is less than a half of Saeed Ahmed, the table topper. And Atapattu's inconsistency is emphasised by the 40 Tests below the ConZone. A look at his series of scores indicates that there were 30 Tests in which he scored 20 runs or less, and 11 Tests in which he scored 150 or higher.

Ijaz Ahmad has been a revelation. He was 200th in the innings-based table and 198th in this one: a very firm indicator that he was the embodiment of inconsistency. His index is a very low 31.0%. The inscrutable Graeme Hick is in the last-5 with a low index value of 32.3%. Dennis Amiss also confirms that his inconsistency moves on from the innings level to Test level, with an index of 34%. He was 193rd in the earlier table and he has moved one place below to 194th in this one. Michael Clarke has moved away from 192nd to 167th, still way down the table, but at least some distance away from the bottom.

The graphs are self-explanatory. The first one plots the top five batsmen and three from the bottom-10. I have used a modified box plot to do this visual depiction. The benefit is that I can easily show ten batsmen in one graph. The values for all batsmen are scaled, with 100 being taken to represent the number of Active Tests. This makes comparisons easier. The wider the rectangle, the higher will be the Consistency Index. The more the rectangle is to the right, the more will be the sub-CZ numbers, indicating a greater number of failures.

In this chart, I have picked ten notable batsmen and plotted their numbers. Nourse has been added to this list since he was No. 1 in the earlier table. It can be seen that most of these batsmen now have Consistency index values between 40 and 50%. In the earlier table, they had values between 30 and 40%. This clearly confirms that the top batsmen tend to make up for a failure in one innings with a good innings in the other. Double failures are that much rarer. The first number is also interesting. This indicates the real failures. Garry Sobers and Ricky Ponting lead in this measure with failures in a third of their Tests. The top-of-the-table values for this measure are around 25% and below.

Let us now study the ranks in the two tables. Not one batsman features in the top-10 positions in the two tables. However there is a very close contender for this honour. Trott is in 12th position in both tables. This could very well qualify him to be a contender for the most consistent batsman ever. Shane Watson is very close to Trott with ranks of 14 and 9 respectively in the two tables. Neil McKenzie is in positions 17 and 16. Richie Richardson is in creditable sub-20 positions of 13 and 18. Kanhai is very well placed at 19 and 2. Fredericks is at 16 and 3. Now we come to Dudley Nourse. He was first in the earlier table but has moved down to 31st here. Saeed Ahmed was 57th in the innings-based table and has moved to top position here.

The three batsmen whose ranks zoomed upwards are Walters who moved from 169 to 5, Thilan Samaraweera who moved from 194 to 38 and Bruce Mitchell who saw his position skyrocket from 186 to 35.

There were quite a few batsmen who saw drastic drops in their positions. Not many were top batsmen. The highest drop was also the top-most one: Sobers dropped 133 places from 22 to 155. Aamer Sohail moved from 63 to 192. Vijay Manjrekar dropped like a stone from an exalted 5 to 130. De Villiers drops from a respectable 18 to a mid-table 89. Why did they drop? I do not really have one single explanation. An explanation has to consider many factors including scoring patterns.

Bradman moved 99 places up from 159 to 60. Sunil Gavaskar moved up 79 places from 166 to 87. Tendulkar jumped 71 places from 153 to 82. Kevin Pietersen moved from 113 to 49. Brian Lara improved his position by 63 places: from 127 to 64. Andy Flower, Gordon Greenidge, Mahela Jayawardene, VVS Laxman, Neil Harvey et al., all moved up by around 50 places.

A final point on the ranks secured by the table. I added the two ranks, rather elementary step this is, just to get the batsmen who were top or bottom in both. Fredericks leads this ad-hoc combined table with a combined rank of 19. Kanhai follows with 21. Watson is in third position with 23. Trott, with an even 12 in both, is next with 24. Glenn Turner and Richie Richardson round off the top-5 with a combined rank of 31. Dudley Nourse, McKenzie, Dexter and Hammond round off the top-10.

Ijaz Ahmed is at the bottom with a combined rank of 398. Herbie Taylor is next at 390. Amiss confirms his high level of inconsistency with 386. John Reid and MAK Pataudi clock in at 386. Michael Clarke is tenth from last with a combined rank value of 359.

A few technical details on the comparisons of player ranks derived from the two methods.
- The Pearson's Correlation Coefficient between the two sets of ranks is 0.431, indicating that the two sets of values have virtually no correlation at all.
- The average of the absolute rank difference is 50.1 indicating that there are a number of very significant changes in ranks.
- A mere 28 players have rank differences in single digits. This is only 14% of the population.

Thus it is easy to conclude that the two methods create two entirely different sets of tables. We have to bite the bullet and select one of these two as the final defining table. I am sure the readers would agree with me that the Test-based Consistency analysis has a lot more going for it and that would be my choice. The reasons are summarised below.
- This method allows for players to compensate for one poor innings with a good innings during the course of a single match.
- Many of the top players have achieved this and have moved up in the Test-based table.
- Many of the top scoring and high performance batsmen are in higher positions in the Test-based table.
- The unit of a Test as the contest which produces the result is the final clincher.

What do we conclude? With the Test-based consistency analysis as the guiding factor and the innings-based analysis as a supporting entity, five batsmen stand out. Saeed Ahmed, Nourse, Trott, Kanhai and Fredericks. Considering the number of runs scored, the quality of opposition faced, the very high second position in the important table and the length of the career, I would place Rohan Kanhai at the top of the list.

To me, the type of attacking batsman that he was, the Consistency index values of 58.2% and 40.6% and the very low level of below-ConZone innings/Tests, Kanhai has been absolutely wonderful in the consistency stakes. Kanhai has played only eight Tests in which he scored 20 or fewer runs. He has 46 Tests in the ConZone range of 40-118. Rohan Bholalall Kanhai is an under-rated batsman who lived right through his career under the shadow of Sobers. However, he was a world-class batsman in his own right and this analysis substantiates that.

I have uploaded a single composite Excel chart containing the data for all 200 qualifying players. This contains the Test-based table, Innings-based table and Rank comparisons. To download/view this file, please CLICK HERE.

"A tale of two penultimate balls" could very well be the Dickensian title of the two glorious Tests over the past fortnight. Sitting on the outside it is easy to say that there were no losers and cricket was the winner. But England would feel gutted. They drew a match they should have won and lost a match they should have drawn match. But they could take a lot of positives from the series. The four centurions were all new players: not Cook or Bell. Plunkett's 11 wickets in the series was impressive. The fight England's lower order batsmen showed on the last day was magnificent.

"The private club" is however another thing. The lopsided scheduling in favour of the troika is already being seen. Why could the Sri Lankans not have been given three Tests and India, four Tests? This will happen in the future. This series cried out for a third Test. Next time it could be a two-Test Australia-South Africa series and a five-Test Australia-India series. This sort of imbalance will be the order of the day.

Amazing, but true. If Sangakkara and Jayawardene were to retire tomorrow, they would have shared 22986 career Test runs between them, split right down the middle.

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

  • on July 3, 2014, 11:26 GMT

    Ananth, thanks for the mention, but i think you are being too magnanimous.....you would have figured it out anyways. On the previous article i had commented for a filter that would have omitted Kapil Dev. Ironically he is the only Indian in the top 50. Even though the two articles throw up different results, some positions do get reiterated as in Trott, Nourse and Fredricks were very consistent batsman indeed. Attapatu and Ijaz at the opposite end of the spectrum. Kanhai was a beauty (Lawrence Rowe rated him above Sobers I had once read)!!!! What happens to the "Private Club" if South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan become the three best test teams in the world which is a realistic possibility. A series featuring No.1 and No 2 team would be played over 2 tests and No.5 and No.6 could be playing a 5 test series.
    [[
    Santosh, I live on such sparks provided by readers. I had earlier thought of this alternative but did not work on it because of my own mental block. Your reference to the result-orientation of a Test made me think afresh.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on June 30, 2014, 17:37 GMT

    Sometimes some players are able to openly appreciate a player from opposition. In Gavaskar's debut series Kanhai fielding at slips would tut-tut him whenver he played a false stroke. No surprise then that Sunil named his son Rohan. Consistency list divides a career in three parts - poor, average and very good. It is a great honour to top a consistency list based on fewest low scores which is indirectly achieved here. Inconsistency is good when a player posts a score above ConZone. In the first chart, Amiss, Ijaz and Atapattu are troppers by virtue of > 40% low scores. Compare Hobbs and Hutton in second chart. Hobbs scores 27, 48 & 25 compared to 29, 52 and 19 by Hutton in three zones. Hobbs gets out for a Below Par score fewer times than Hutton and scores Above Par more often. This brings down his ConZone comparativiely but that is a good thing.
    [[
    You are correct. This analysis is dicey in parts since Hobbs with CZ% of 48 is considered at a lower level to Hutton, with 52. In reality if we take away the low scores, Hobbs is at 73 and Hutton at 71. Maybe when i do the low score analysis this fact will come out clearly.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 30, 2014, 2:24 GMT

    CLR James said that Rohan Kanhai represented the evolutionary peak of West Indian batting, and I have always felt the same in my gut, but I never had enough statistical evidence to support the assertion with too much confidence. Thank you for your contribution.
    [[
    Chris, this is one of the measures to evaluate batsmen. If nothing else, it tells us that there is more to Kanhai than meets the eye. It is a revelation that Kanhai scored below 20 in a Test only 8 out of 79 Tests.The average of 47.5 has always pulled him down. That is also because he has only 6 not outs, somewhat similar to Lara.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • RaviMarathe on June 29, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    A good article Ananth, It does bring out Kanhai of the shadows. Then there are players who seem to be "always there in the mix or always contributing in some way or the other". Perhaps that is an perception developed over time due to their big scores, matchwinning efforts combined with media reports. I always imagined V Hazare, C Lloyd as 2 of them. This analysis brings out the consistency well. And what about H Sutcliffe and Miandad whose average never dropped <50 throughout their careers? Where do they stand?
    [[
    Ravi,
    Sutcliffe was 4th in the innings table and 72nd in the Test table. I am not able to explain the steep drop.
    Miandad was 33 and dropped to 112.
    The never-below-50-or-60 does not mean much in this analysis.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • harshthakor on June 29, 2014, 10:03 GMT

    I also greatly admire Clive Lloyd.It strikes me that in his last 5 series ,that too as a skipper he averaged above 50.This included series against India,England and Australia overseas.Since Bradman I wonder whether any skipper has emulated this feat.Clive was an epitome of consistency even overshadowing Viv Richards in test series in the early 1980s.I can never forget his 161 not out at Calcutta in 1983-84 that won the series for his country, his 77 not out at Adelaide in 1981-82 that enabled his side to retain the Frank Worrrel tropphy and his 121 at Adelaide which ensured that West Indies won their first official test series on Australian soil.

    I feel Gordon Greenidge misses out who from 1984-87 was arguably the best batsmen in the world and ever consistent.Remember his 4 double hundreds and 3 scored in his peak era.Another name that comes to my mind is Gundappa Vishwanath who was the ultimate performer to turn matches for India o r champion a crisis.
    [[
    As I have already mentioned in the article the number of West indian batsmen in the top positions is indeed amazing. Maybe we should look at the attacking batsmen with some respect.
    Visvanath does not fare well in the Test based analysis. He is only 165th. In the other one he is within the first 100.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • harshthakor on June 29, 2014, 9:46 GMT

    Ananth,I am overjoyed with your evaluation of Rohan Kanhai on such a pedestal at the top .It gives credibility to the fact that the all time great strokemakers or players with great natural talent can be more consistent than just those who batted for their lives or had sound technique.Significantly he averaged 58 in games won and 53 at one down.Infact often Kanhai overshadowed even Gary Sobers in a crisis or on difficult tracks like in 1960-61 in Australia.At his best to me Kanhai could even surpass the likes of Viv Richards or Greg Chappell,particularly when the chips were down.Arguably since Bradman no batsman was as complete as Kanhai like an architect and artist rolled into one.It also teaches us that just a 50+ average is not the test for consistency.Morally Kanhai could have even been ahead of Greg Chappell or Greame Pollock if we analyzed the bowling he faced. Surprised wit another spectacular strokemaker Roy Fredericks ,so high.,ahead of Geoff Boycott or Sunil Gavaskar.
    [[
    Gavaskar is a major surprise. AT least he moved from 166 to 87.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • SLSup on June 28, 2014, 16:16 GMT

    I understand the premise as it is defined but I still believe a comparative study on batting consistency should be limited to A) players recognized as batsmen and B) that it be Per Inning but across an entire career of the player concerned. Perhaps a 30 Test minimum threshold maybe applied since it can be argued that a player who hasn't played at least 30 Tests has not played Test cricket consistently enough to warrant a comparison on Consistency. I was intrigued by ONE thing in this article. That is the corelation of Not Outs to Consistency. Haven't quite associated these two in my cricketing thoughts and I felt I was caught flat footed and entirely at the mercy of what this googly might do! However, I am firm on INCLUDING Not Outs when runs are divided to get overall batting average since cricketing laws define an Inning as when a batsman walks pass the boundary line. In fact, if he doesn't do it timely he can be given Out. Perhaps all innings must be considered COMPLETED?
    [[
    A. It is your choice to download the Excel sheet and exclude the non-batsmen. I feel that a lower level batsman can be consistent, that is all.
    B. The Innings analysis was the first one done. So you could anyday take that as your choice.
    C. My cut-off is higher than the 30 Tests you have suggested.
    My Test base in fact takes away the importance of not outs. After all two innings are there to be played.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on July 8, 2014, 2:40 GMT

    I have always held that Rohan Kanhai is one of the greatest batsmen ever .I saw him on many occasions along with many of the modern greats and was able to make my comparison .Great job Ananth .Great comment by Harsh Thakoor as well .

  • on July 4, 2014, 16:01 GMT

    Extremely off topic . . . Two of the classic serve-and-volley players could possibly resume their rivalry on Sunday. As coaches for Djoker & FedEx - yes Boom Boom Becker and Stephan Edberg. How can one forget the 3 blinders of finals 1988-90 (Boris sort of reached so many finals since 1985 - 85,86,88,89,90,91,95 . . . . Somehow still my favorite) - His on-field acrobatics to reach the ball across the court would still be the best. He just peaked too young and struggled to come to terms with his early success . . . . And the calm Swede would sweat his opponents out and he had the knack of playing 5 setters in the least emotional manner. He was more of the Strict-Officer. You never knew from his face if he has actually won or lost the match. It would be great to see them sit side by side when their wards play against each other
    [[
    Ranga, Edberg was my favourite player before Graf and then Federer. The common thing running through is their on-court behaviour and silken sublime game. This match is probably 51-49 in favour of Federer only because of the way the semi-finals went. It is tough to call a winner. But Edberg has clearly influenced Federer more than Becker did Djokovic. There is a clear change in the way Federer has come to the net and the increase in net-winners % testifies this. That has been the change this year.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on June 30, 2014, 17:37 GMT

    Charles Bannerman scored 165* in the first innings but split the index finger on his right hand at 240/7. Shaw removed Kendall and Hodges quickly and the innings came to a close at 245. The scorecard does not read Aus:245/9 even though Garrett was not out and Bannerman retired hurt. Scorecard reports Australia all out for 245 after 169.3 overs. Scorecard correctly states that Bannerman retired but the interpratation that he was not out is questionable. Graeme Smith came out to bat despite his condition becuase there was a slim chance of saving the test besides his ability to take guard. The 'absent' and 'retired' cases should be treated as not outs only if the scorecard shows wickets in hand, otherwise these are dismissals. Unlike de Villiers, Bradman was required to bat in the three innings mentioned earlier. He batted 80 times but was required to bat 83 times. 6996 should be divided by 73 instead of 70 as he failed to add to team total on 3 occasions.
    [[
    99.94, the number imprinted on many a cricket followers' mind in indelible ink, will be changed to 95.83. I am not sure whether it will go well with the followers.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on July 3, 2014, 11:26 GMT

    Ananth, thanks for the mention, but i think you are being too magnanimous.....you would have figured it out anyways. On the previous article i had commented for a filter that would have omitted Kapil Dev. Ironically he is the only Indian in the top 50. Even though the two articles throw up different results, some positions do get reiterated as in Trott, Nourse and Fredricks were very consistent batsman indeed. Attapatu and Ijaz at the opposite end of the spectrum. Kanhai was a beauty (Lawrence Rowe rated him above Sobers I had once read)!!!! What happens to the "Private Club" if South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan become the three best test teams in the world which is a realistic possibility. A series featuring No.1 and No 2 team would be played over 2 tests and No.5 and No.6 could be playing a 5 test series.
    [[
    Santosh, I live on such sparks provided by readers. I had earlier thought of this alternative but did not work on it because of my own mental block. Your reference to the result-orientation of a Test made me think afresh.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on June 30, 2014, 17:37 GMT

    Sometimes some players are able to openly appreciate a player from opposition. In Gavaskar's debut series Kanhai fielding at slips would tut-tut him whenver he played a false stroke. No surprise then that Sunil named his son Rohan. Consistency list divides a career in three parts - poor, average and very good. It is a great honour to top a consistency list based on fewest low scores which is indirectly achieved here. Inconsistency is good when a player posts a score above ConZone. In the first chart, Amiss, Ijaz and Atapattu are troppers by virtue of > 40% low scores. Compare Hobbs and Hutton in second chart. Hobbs scores 27, 48 & 25 compared to 29, 52 and 19 by Hutton in three zones. Hobbs gets out for a Below Par score fewer times than Hutton and scores Above Par more often. This brings down his ConZone comparativiely but that is a good thing.
    [[
    You are correct. This analysis is dicey in parts since Hobbs with CZ% of 48 is considered at a lower level to Hutton, with 52. In reality if we take away the low scores, Hobbs is at 73 and Hutton at 71. Maybe when i do the low score analysis this fact will come out clearly.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 30, 2014, 2:24 GMT

    CLR James said that Rohan Kanhai represented the evolutionary peak of West Indian batting, and I have always felt the same in my gut, but I never had enough statistical evidence to support the assertion with too much confidence. Thank you for your contribution.
    [[
    Chris, this is one of the measures to evaluate batsmen. If nothing else, it tells us that there is more to Kanhai than meets the eye. It is a revelation that Kanhai scored below 20 in a Test only 8 out of 79 Tests.The average of 47.5 has always pulled him down. That is also because he has only 6 not outs, somewhat similar to Lara.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • RaviMarathe on June 29, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    A good article Ananth, It does bring out Kanhai of the shadows. Then there are players who seem to be "always there in the mix or always contributing in some way or the other". Perhaps that is an perception developed over time due to their big scores, matchwinning efforts combined with media reports. I always imagined V Hazare, C Lloyd as 2 of them. This analysis brings out the consistency well. And what about H Sutcliffe and Miandad whose average never dropped <50 throughout their careers? Where do they stand?
    [[
    Ravi,
    Sutcliffe was 4th in the innings table and 72nd in the Test table. I am not able to explain the steep drop.
    Miandad was 33 and dropped to 112.
    The never-below-50-or-60 does not mean much in this analysis.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • harshthakor on June 29, 2014, 10:03 GMT

    I also greatly admire Clive Lloyd.It strikes me that in his last 5 series ,that too as a skipper he averaged above 50.This included series against India,England and Australia overseas.Since Bradman I wonder whether any skipper has emulated this feat.Clive was an epitome of consistency even overshadowing Viv Richards in test series in the early 1980s.I can never forget his 161 not out at Calcutta in 1983-84 that won the series for his country, his 77 not out at Adelaide in 1981-82 that enabled his side to retain the Frank Worrrel tropphy and his 121 at Adelaide which ensured that West Indies won their first official test series on Australian soil.

    I feel Gordon Greenidge misses out who from 1984-87 was arguably the best batsmen in the world and ever consistent.Remember his 4 double hundreds and 3 scored in his peak era.Another name that comes to my mind is Gundappa Vishwanath who was the ultimate performer to turn matches for India o r champion a crisis.
    [[
    As I have already mentioned in the article the number of West indian batsmen in the top positions is indeed amazing. Maybe we should look at the attacking batsmen with some respect.
    Visvanath does not fare well in the Test based analysis. He is only 165th. In the other one he is within the first 100.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • harshthakor on June 29, 2014, 9:46 GMT

    Ananth,I am overjoyed with your evaluation of Rohan Kanhai on such a pedestal at the top .It gives credibility to the fact that the all time great strokemakers or players with great natural talent can be more consistent than just those who batted for their lives or had sound technique.Significantly he averaged 58 in games won and 53 at one down.Infact often Kanhai overshadowed even Gary Sobers in a crisis or on difficult tracks like in 1960-61 in Australia.At his best to me Kanhai could even surpass the likes of Viv Richards or Greg Chappell,particularly when the chips were down.Arguably since Bradman no batsman was as complete as Kanhai like an architect and artist rolled into one.It also teaches us that just a 50+ average is not the test for consistency.Morally Kanhai could have even been ahead of Greg Chappell or Greame Pollock if we analyzed the bowling he faced. Surprised wit another spectacular strokemaker Roy Fredericks ,so high.,ahead of Geoff Boycott or Sunil Gavaskar.
    [[
    Gavaskar is a major surprise. AT least he moved from 166 to 87.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • SLSup on June 28, 2014, 16:16 GMT

    I understand the premise as it is defined but I still believe a comparative study on batting consistency should be limited to A) players recognized as batsmen and B) that it be Per Inning but across an entire career of the player concerned. Perhaps a 30 Test minimum threshold maybe applied since it can be argued that a player who hasn't played at least 30 Tests has not played Test cricket consistently enough to warrant a comparison on Consistency. I was intrigued by ONE thing in this article. That is the corelation of Not Outs to Consistency. Haven't quite associated these two in my cricketing thoughts and I felt I was caught flat footed and entirely at the mercy of what this googly might do! However, I am firm on INCLUDING Not Outs when runs are divided to get overall batting average since cricketing laws define an Inning as when a batsman walks pass the boundary line. In fact, if he doesn't do it timely he can be given Out. Perhaps all innings must be considered COMPLETED?
    [[
    A. It is your choice to download the Excel sheet and exclude the non-batsmen. I feel that a lower level batsman can be consistent, that is all.
    B. The Innings analysis was the first one done. So you could anyday take that as your choice.
    C. My cut-off is higher than the 30 Tests you have suggested.
    My Test base in fact takes away the importance of not outs. After all two innings are there to be played.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on July 8, 2014, 2:40 GMT

    I have always held that Rohan Kanhai is one of the greatest batsmen ever .I saw him on many occasions along with many of the modern greats and was able to make my comparison .Great job Ananth .Great comment by Harsh Thakoor as well .

  • on July 4, 2014, 16:01 GMT

    Extremely off topic . . . Two of the classic serve-and-volley players could possibly resume their rivalry on Sunday. As coaches for Djoker & FedEx - yes Boom Boom Becker and Stephan Edberg. How can one forget the 3 blinders of finals 1988-90 (Boris sort of reached so many finals since 1985 - 85,86,88,89,90,91,95 . . . . Somehow still my favorite) - His on-field acrobatics to reach the ball across the court would still be the best. He just peaked too young and struggled to come to terms with his early success . . . . And the calm Swede would sweat his opponents out and he had the knack of playing 5 setters in the least emotional manner. He was more of the Strict-Officer. You never knew from his face if he has actually won or lost the match. It would be great to see them sit side by side when their wards play against each other
    [[
    Ranga, Edberg was my favourite player before Graf and then Federer. The common thing running through is their on-court behaviour and silken sublime game. This match is probably 51-49 in favour of Federer only because of the way the semi-finals went. It is tough to call a winner. But Edberg has clearly influenced Federer more than Becker did Djokovic. There is a clear change in the way Federer has come to the net and the increase in net-winners % testifies this. That has been the change this year.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on June 30, 2014, 17:37 GMT

    Charles Bannerman scored 165* in the first innings but split the index finger on his right hand at 240/7. Shaw removed Kendall and Hodges quickly and the innings came to a close at 245. The scorecard does not read Aus:245/9 even though Garrett was not out and Bannerman retired hurt. Scorecard reports Australia all out for 245 after 169.3 overs. Scorecard correctly states that Bannerman retired but the interpratation that he was not out is questionable. Graeme Smith came out to bat despite his condition becuase there was a slim chance of saving the test besides his ability to take guard. The 'absent' and 'retired' cases should be treated as not outs only if the scorecard shows wickets in hand, otherwise these are dismissals. Unlike de Villiers, Bradman was required to bat in the three innings mentioned earlier. He batted 80 times but was required to bat 83 times. 6996 should be divided by 73 instead of 70 as he failed to add to team total on 3 occasions.
    [[
    99.94, the number imprinted on many a cricket followers' mind in indelible ink, will be changed to 95.83. I am not sure whether it will go well with the followers.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 30, 2014, 15:44 GMT

    One question- Don Bradman?

  • on June 30, 2014, 12:30 GMT

    Mr Anantnarayan, I do not comprehend your analysis. But I know there was one batsman who was most consistent for atleast his first 104 tests. Later on he slipped recovered and never reached the same heights in his next 60 tests. Irrefutably India,s most dependable test batsman rahul Dravid gets missed out . He never got the recognition that was due to him and when you talk about test batting consistency how can Kallis Dravid miss out?

  • Batmanian on June 30, 2014, 12:18 GMT

    Very interesting! Of course, in Watson's case 'consistency' was long used ironically for his failure to build on reliable starts. His case illustrates that cricket is ultimately a team game, where a team's most pivotal players are judged on their ability to fulfil their talent, while the more marginal cases can be appreciated for modest contributions. Ed Cowan is quintessentially consistent - but in a completely different sense.
    [[
    I have clearly staed in the article that 30 & 30 is a very consistent pair of scores and a 100 & 0 is a very inconsistent pair of scores. That does not make the first one a better batsman. These open up new lines of thoughts. Especially regarding the players who we would not associate with consistency: Kanhai, Fredericks etc.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on June 30, 2014, 7:05 GMT

    Bradman also bowled in that match with figures of 2.2-1-6-0. In his third over "occurred the tragic accident to Bradman, who when bowling caught his foot in a worn foot-hole, fell prone and was carried off the field by two of his colleagues." Bradman and Fingleton were absent hurt so only 9 batsmen batted twice for Australia in that innings defeat. Thus we have two matches where the absence of a batsman did not affect the outcome.
    [[
    So my methodology is correct as far as the player is concerned. Bradman did, in fact, play in only 50 Tests.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Graeme Smith with a broken hand came out to bat as #11 on Day 5 at SCG 2009 with half an hour remaining. He batted for 26 minutes and did score a few in the process. A run is not scored in isolation, it is always for the team, either using the bat or via an extra. If a team is bowled out it is clear that an absent player contributed 0 runs and the 'all out' in summary clearly indicates that the wicket was lost. In the record books effectively 0 runs are added marking the innings not played as 'inactive/not out'.
    [[
    Smith scored 30 in the first innings and 3 in the second. So, in whatever manner we consider this, he has played in that Test. He just falls short of the CZ, which starts at 39.6.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • MilPand on June 30, 2014, 7:05 GMT

    Both the inactive timesless tests for Bradman are interesting. The first played at MCG in 1932 was the fifth and final one against RSA. The summary at close of first day reads: South Africa 36, Australia 153, South Africa 5/1. Bradman was absent hurt. On the final day Australia won by an innings and 72 runs despite scoring only 152 when they bowled out the opposition for 45. Runs not scored by Bradman did not cost the team. 6 years later another fifth and final test this time against England at The Oval. http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/151853.html 22 year old Hutton beat Bradman's record score of 334. Hammond declared on Day 3 at Tea at 903/7 in 335.2 overs. Bradman inspired his team with fast running and clean picking-up. He ran out Leyland at 187: "Hutton drove a ball .. Hassett fumbled it. Then he slung in a very fast return to the bowler's end and Bradman, .., dashed towards the wicket from from mid-on, caught the throw-in and broke the wickets".

  • on June 30, 2014, 6:26 GMT

    As an aside, with ICC redefined as Incharge Chepauk Cheenu, it could be very well curtains test cricket soon. Would be really happy to proved otherwise. Let India or Australia or England or whoever, have the revenue pie as per contribution, but why tinker with the structure of ICC? And going by how these great administrators run cricket, in 2012, there was a commitment to "Prime home season" for India, but we hardly have any test scheduled. CLT20 seems to be the focus of home season (could well be moved to Sep-Oct), and well, invite Zim or NZL for 2 Test / 3 ODI series before the tough tour down under. I doubt if Chepauk Cheenu would schedule 5 test series for India, given India's inability to last the 3rd test. In fact, he would slowly phase Tests out of India. Our reluctance to show any commitment towards the longer formats is clearly seen in our scheduling and in our domestic structures.

    Prediction 2017: Courtesy Chepauk Cheenu, RIP Test Cricket Metrics that may define cricket: $

  • on June 30, 2014, 6:09 GMT

    Hi Ananth - Another excellent analysis. Well, I liked both the perspectives. Innings-wise consistency isolated "batting" factor from the match factor. It could give a list of batsmen with a streak. However, this analysis, as you rightly pointed out, brings about the beauty of Test cricket (which separates it from the other formats) - Endurance and resilience. Coming back after being knocked in 1st innings. In the last analysis, I was trying to combine one of your earlier articles (Performance in various pitch types and bowling conditions) versus consistency in innings. I am midway through that. This article can be combined with may be "match" top scores or position-wise average score (distinguishing a consistent 30 v consistent 50). We can always keep adding complexities. But the beauty of these articles are that there is always a new way of analyzing tests. From that perspective, beauty of tests is unmatched.
    [[
    The last day at Headingley was a testament to the fact that one does not need a 30-ball-50 to make a match exciting. The 6 hours of bloody-minded batting by Ali, supported by lesser batsmen and the last 70 minutes of bull-dog tenacity of a batsman who accumulated single-digit aggregates in 53 of the 90 Tests he batted in, all speak of the eternal nature of Test cricket. But I fear for Test cricket, as you have indicated.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • VISH.R on June 29, 2014, 15:43 GMT

    Nice analysis, but it would be great if weight age was given to the Longevity factor as well. Some one maybe able to do well over 40 tests but 125 tests is different. So perhaps dividing into slabs of 40 tests and assigning a longevity weight age to each slab on an increasing basis will provide a better picture of consistency.

  • harshthakor on June 29, 2014, 9:54 GMT

    Infact no batsmen arguably posessed such a creative or natural genius for batting as Rohan Kanhai.Many experts even rated him marginally ahead of Sobers in his time.Kanhai could pulverize the best bowling attacks in the most difficult situations and in the most testing conditions.Few batsmen blended supreme artistry with great technical skill as Kanhai.In the 1960-61 season in Australia he was a better batsman than Gary Sobers while his 115 at Perth in Australia in 1972 for rest of the world is regarded by some experts ahead of Gary Sobers 254 in the same season.Above all Kanhai scored the runs when most needed.Morally Kanhai may have been better than some batsmen who averaged above 50,making a greater impact on the course of games.Arguably he was closer to the Don than Everton Weekes or Viv Richards in full flow.In the modern era he may have well averaged around 53.Had he done justice to his ability he may have come closest to Bradman.

  • Rufus_Fuddleduck on June 29, 2014, 4:07 GMT

    Ananth, logic is much better when the whole Test is considered as a unit. In that context, is it any way possible to look at a normalised curve of person's contribution to the team? A % to the team total basically.
    [[
    Pankaj, Contribution is a well-loaded idea. 100 out of 300 is one thing. But the work done by me and Milind together takes this many levels above. Contribution in a Test as a player, batsman, bowler are all possible. We have been debating as to how best to bring this out. This blogspace is the wrong route. A book is the only serious possibility.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • rizwan1981 on June 28, 2014, 23:32 GMT

    its.rachit In the RICHEST sport in the world , the NFL income is shared equally among all teams - so why not in cricket - Perhaps the youngest ever test Centurion Mohammed Ashraful ( I still have nightmares of him taking Murali to the cleaners when he he was only 17 years old ) would not have engaged in match fixing if he had been adequately compensated by his board .
    [[
    Your point may not valid in a strict ethical sense but has a lot of validity in a practical sense. Who indulged in the IPL spot-fixing. Other than the nincompoop, Sreesanth, it was those players who were paid a pittance. The IPL millionaires would never do it. Forget about upbringing and such nonsense. It is the millions of dollars in front. I remember even Sri Lankan cricketers who were paid very little and rebelled. Make sure that the young talent like Shehzad, Talha, Silva, Vithanage, Mominul, Al-ain, Gazi et al are guaranteed good earnings and hopefully we will not see Asif, Lokuraachi and Ashraful.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • SLSup on June 28, 2014, 23:10 GMT

    Response to Ananth: When I read the headline of your last post (Part 1), Imran Khan came to mind. Then I found he was listed 9th there : ) To your point, he sure was a lower order bat and what impressed me most about Imran was his ability to place the ball when batting. On the question of Innings vs Tests, considering a batsman doesn't play two innings at once - and even straight forward batting averages are divided per Inning and not per Test - I prefer Part 1 over Part 2. This, of course, is a matter of preference, not a question of right/wrong or better/worse.
    [[
    That is correct. I have presented the reasons why a Test can be considered as the base. These could be valid or not. This blogspace always allows the readers to have their say and form their conclusions. One thing let us all agree on: on Kanhai.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Off topic reaction to its.rachit: If India must receive 60-70% of ICC revenue because "...it contributes as much" I wonder what might be if this principle were applied to taxation and public adminstration : ) Ridiculous!
    [[
    Talking about India only, it would mean states like Maharashtra receiving 50% or so of the tax revenues and the North-eastern states receiving fractions of %. I question the fact that earlier India received very low %. However I would not mind if it was said that India should get a much bigger share and work on that. Why form a "privileged club" of three teams. What happens if, in five years, the interest in Cricket in India tapers off, for any reason whatsoever.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 28, 2014, 17:23 GMT

    Thank you for using a different methodology. Using a "match" as the smallest unit has much greater logical consistency. Am watching the football - and using "innings" as a unit seems to be similar to differentiating between 1st and 2nd half goals. The resulting above tables are closer to what one may have intuitively believed.
    [[
    Yes, once I got my mental block out, the Test base seemed to be the logical process.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 28, 2014, 16:35 GMT

    hello Ananth, the article would have proved even finer if the batsmen were divided into groups of batting position.Batters opening the innings could be forgiven a few innings. For eg, Michael atherton opened the innings and had to play the best fast bowlers whereas someone like mahela jayawardene nested well at 4 on some rather docile pitches. Also noteworthy could be the team fortunes when the openers fired and misfired in the same match.Thanks and cheers!!!
    [[
    You will find that the batting position really does not have any importance on the Consistency index determined. You will see that the top-30 batsmen are a mix of different batting positions.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • its.rachit on June 28, 2014, 11:51 GMT

    Hi Ananth ... On your point regarding test series length, any series involving India can afford to be 5-6-7 matches cos that pulls in the money thru the sponsors which in turn (atleat till now when money was not decided based on contribution) finances other boards and events ... a powerful India might not be in favor with every one, but aleast it fuels the game ... forward or backward is another day's discussion ... and I for one am in favor of India keeping 60-70% of revenue if it generates that much ... Michael Atherton once said that IPL money shuld be distributed across all boards, then by the same logic, Santosh Trophy should be funded thru the EPL and UEFA Champions League ...
    [[
    I do not agree that money should drive everything. At this rate there will only be 5-Test series between the controlling three teams. The others, including South Africa, will be given 2-Test series.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • its.rachit on June 28, 2014, 11:51 GMT

    Hi Ananth ... On your point regarding test series length, any series involving India can afford to be 5-6-7 matches cos that pulls in the money thru the sponsors which in turn (atleat till now when money was not decided based on contribution) finances other boards and events ... a powerful India might not be in favor with every one, but aleast it fuels the game ... forward or backward is another day's discussion ... and I for one am in favor of India keeping 60-70% of revenue if it generates that much ... Michael Atherton once said that IPL money shuld be distributed across all boards, then by the same logic, Santosh Trophy should be funded thru the EPL and UEFA Champions League ...
    [[
    I do not agree that money should drive everything. At this rate there will only be 5-Test series between the controlling three teams. The others, including South Africa, will be given 2-Test series.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 28, 2014, 16:35 GMT

    hello Ananth, the article would have proved even finer if the batsmen were divided into groups of batting position.Batters opening the innings could be forgiven a few innings. For eg, Michael atherton opened the innings and had to play the best fast bowlers whereas someone like mahela jayawardene nested well at 4 on some rather docile pitches. Also noteworthy could be the team fortunes when the openers fired and misfired in the same match.Thanks and cheers!!!
    [[
    You will find that the batting position really does not have any importance on the Consistency index determined. You will see that the top-30 batsmen are a mix of different batting positions.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 28, 2014, 17:23 GMT

    Thank you for using a different methodology. Using a "match" as the smallest unit has much greater logical consistency. Am watching the football - and using "innings" as a unit seems to be similar to differentiating between 1st and 2nd half goals. The resulting above tables are closer to what one may have intuitively believed.
    [[
    Yes, once I got my mental block out, the Test base seemed to be the logical process.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • SLSup on June 28, 2014, 23:10 GMT

    Response to Ananth: When I read the headline of your last post (Part 1), Imran Khan came to mind. Then I found he was listed 9th there : ) To your point, he sure was a lower order bat and what impressed me most about Imran was his ability to place the ball when batting. On the question of Innings vs Tests, considering a batsman doesn't play two innings at once - and even straight forward batting averages are divided per Inning and not per Test - I prefer Part 1 over Part 2. This, of course, is a matter of preference, not a question of right/wrong or better/worse.
    [[
    That is correct. I have presented the reasons why a Test can be considered as the base. These could be valid or not. This blogspace always allows the readers to have their say and form their conclusions. One thing let us all agree on: on Kanhai.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Off topic reaction to its.rachit: If India must receive 60-70% of ICC revenue because "...it contributes as much" I wonder what might be if this principle were applied to taxation and public adminstration : ) Ridiculous!
    [[
    Talking about India only, it would mean states like Maharashtra receiving 50% or so of the tax revenues and the North-eastern states receiving fractions of %. I question the fact that earlier India received very low %. However I would not mind if it was said that India should get a much bigger share and work on that. Why form a "privileged club" of three teams. What happens if, in five years, the interest in Cricket in India tapers off, for any reason whatsoever.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • rizwan1981 on June 28, 2014, 23:32 GMT

    its.rachit In the RICHEST sport in the world , the NFL income is shared equally among all teams - so why not in cricket - Perhaps the youngest ever test Centurion Mohammed Ashraful ( I still have nightmares of him taking Murali to the cleaners when he he was only 17 years old ) would not have engaged in match fixing if he had been adequately compensated by his board .
    [[
    Your point may not valid in a strict ethical sense but has a lot of validity in a practical sense. Who indulged in the IPL spot-fixing. Other than the nincompoop, Sreesanth, it was those players who were paid a pittance. The IPL millionaires would never do it. Forget about upbringing and such nonsense. It is the millions of dollars in front. I remember even Sri Lankan cricketers who were paid very little and rebelled. Make sure that the young talent like Shehzad, Talha, Silva, Vithanage, Mominul, Al-ain, Gazi et al are guaranteed good earnings and hopefully we will not see Asif, Lokuraachi and Ashraful.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Rufus_Fuddleduck on June 29, 2014, 4:07 GMT

    Ananth, logic is much better when the whole Test is considered as a unit. In that context, is it any way possible to look at a normalised curve of person's contribution to the team? A % to the team total basically.
    [[
    Pankaj, Contribution is a well-loaded idea. 100 out of 300 is one thing. But the work done by me and Milind together takes this many levels above. Contribution in a Test as a player, batsman, bowler are all possible. We have been debating as to how best to bring this out. This blogspace is the wrong route. A book is the only serious possibility.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • harshthakor on June 29, 2014, 9:54 GMT

    Infact no batsmen arguably posessed such a creative or natural genius for batting as Rohan Kanhai.Many experts even rated him marginally ahead of Sobers in his time.Kanhai could pulverize the best bowling attacks in the most difficult situations and in the most testing conditions.Few batsmen blended supreme artistry with great technical skill as Kanhai.In the 1960-61 season in Australia he was a better batsman than Gary Sobers while his 115 at Perth in Australia in 1972 for rest of the world is regarded by some experts ahead of Gary Sobers 254 in the same season.Above all Kanhai scored the runs when most needed.Morally Kanhai may have been better than some batsmen who averaged above 50,making a greater impact on the course of games.Arguably he was closer to the Don than Everton Weekes or Viv Richards in full flow.In the modern era he may have well averaged around 53.Had he done justice to his ability he may have come closest to Bradman.

  • VISH.R on June 29, 2014, 15:43 GMT

    Nice analysis, but it would be great if weight age was given to the Longevity factor as well. Some one maybe able to do well over 40 tests but 125 tests is different. So perhaps dividing into slabs of 40 tests and assigning a longevity weight age to each slab on an increasing basis will provide a better picture of consistency.

  • on June 30, 2014, 6:09 GMT

    Hi Ananth - Another excellent analysis. Well, I liked both the perspectives. Innings-wise consistency isolated "batting" factor from the match factor. It could give a list of batsmen with a streak. However, this analysis, as you rightly pointed out, brings about the beauty of Test cricket (which separates it from the other formats) - Endurance and resilience. Coming back after being knocked in 1st innings. In the last analysis, I was trying to combine one of your earlier articles (Performance in various pitch types and bowling conditions) versus consistency in innings. I am midway through that. This article can be combined with may be "match" top scores or position-wise average score (distinguishing a consistent 30 v consistent 50). We can always keep adding complexities. But the beauty of these articles are that there is always a new way of analyzing tests. From that perspective, beauty of tests is unmatched.
    [[
    The last day at Headingley was a testament to the fact that one does not need a 30-ball-50 to make a match exciting. The 6 hours of bloody-minded batting by Ali, supported by lesser batsmen and the last 70 minutes of bull-dog tenacity of a batsman who accumulated single-digit aggregates in 53 of the 90 Tests he batted in, all speak of the eternal nature of Test cricket. But I fear for Test cricket, as you have indicated.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on June 30, 2014, 6:26 GMT

    As an aside, with ICC redefined as Incharge Chepauk Cheenu, it could be very well curtains test cricket soon. Would be really happy to proved otherwise. Let India or Australia or England or whoever, have the revenue pie as per contribution, but why tinker with the structure of ICC? And going by how these great administrators run cricket, in 2012, there was a commitment to "Prime home season" for India, but we hardly have any test scheduled. CLT20 seems to be the focus of home season (could well be moved to Sep-Oct), and well, invite Zim or NZL for 2 Test / 3 ODI series before the tough tour down under. I doubt if Chepauk Cheenu would schedule 5 test series for India, given India's inability to last the 3rd test. In fact, he would slowly phase Tests out of India. Our reluctance to show any commitment towards the longer formats is clearly seen in our scheduling and in our domestic structures.

    Prediction 2017: Courtesy Chepauk Cheenu, RIP Test Cricket Metrics that may define cricket: $