| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Video & Audio | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Games | Mobile | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
For only the fifth time in Test history, a team won a match losing only two wickets
July 23, 2012
The most stunning aspect of South Africa's win at The Oval is that they won a Test match against arguably the best bowling attack in the world losing just two wickets. Last season, this attack had decimated India's much-hyped batting line-up, averaging 25.55 runs per wicket over four matches. Against South Africa in this game, they took two wickets for 637 runs, an average of 318.50 runs per wicket. England's batsmen, on the other hand, averaged 31.25 in the match. The difference of 287.25 is the highest in a Test which has produced a result, which makes this the most comprehensive win ever.
In fact, for South Africa, this is sweet revenge for the humiliation they had suffered at Lord's in 1924 in a Test match with similar numbers: England racked up 531 for 2, and dismissed South Africa cheaply on either side of their batting effort. In that game, South Africa had averaged 25.65 runs per wicket compared to England's 265.50; the difference between the two averages was 239.85, which was the previous record for the highest difference between averages in a decisive Test.
| Winning team | Runs per wkt | Losing team | Runs per wkt | Difference | Venue, year |
| South Africa | 318.50 | England | 31.25 | 287.25 | The Oval, 2012 |
| England | 265.50 | South Africa | 25.65 | 239.85 | Lord's 1924 |
| West Indies | 263.33 | Pakistan | 34.22 | 229.11 | Kingston, 1958 |
| Sri Lanka | 237.67 | Zimbabwe | 22.95 | 214.72 | Bulawayo, 2004 |
| South Africa | 235.00 | Bangladesh | 20.50 | 214.50 | Chittagong, 2003 |
| England | 229.50 | India | 19.05 | 210.45 | Edgbaston, 1974 |
This is only the fifth time in a Test that a team has won a Test losing two wickets. For South Africa, this was the second such instance - they'd beaten Bangladesh in a similar manner in 2003 - but the last time any team had inflicted this humiliation on an opposition not named Bangladesh was in 1974, when England thrashed India by an innings and 78 runs at Edgbaston, scoring 459 for 2 in their only innings. In fact, England and South Africa are the only teams to win Tests losing two wickets: England achieved these results against South Africa (1924) and New Zealand (1958). South Africa, though, are the only side to achieve this overseas - all three of England's wins have come at home.
| Team | Opposition | Result margin | Venue, year |
| South Africa | England | Innings and 12 runs | The Oval, 2012 |
| South Africa | Bangladesh | Innings and 60 runs | Chittagong, 2003 |
| England | India | Innings and 78 runs | Edgbaston, 1974 |
| England | New Zealand | Innings and 71 runs | Headingley, 1958 |
| England | South Africa | Innings and 18 runs | Lord's 1924 |
More stats
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Stats editor Every week the Numbers Game takes a look at the story behind the stats, with an original slant on facts and figures. The column is edited by S Rajesh, ESPNcricinfo's stats editor in Bangalore. He did an MBA in marketing, and then worked for a year in advertising, before deciding to chuck it in favour of a job which would combine the pleasures of watching cricket and writing about it. The intense office cricket matches were an added bonus.
ICICI Bank M2I. Register Now and Get A Gift Offer.
Safe & simple online money transfer. Apply Now!
Buy Wisden 2013 & get a FREE Playfair
Available now at Cricshop
@Aneeshmoha, yes statistically speaking SA might have been the most successful side but we were talking about the number of games played. Keep in mind that if SA had played more games and become no 1, the going would have been that much tougher for them. e.g. if SA go to SL as a no 3 side and manage a 1-1, they would probably stay on the same number of points but if they manage such a result as a no 1 side, they might well end up losing some points. Point being, as you climb the rankings, the win ratio required is higher to maintain your ranking which is not necessarily made any easier by playing more games. This only confirms the general saying in life that it's hard to reach the top but harder even to stay there.
Posted by Aneesmoha on (July 26, 2012, 16:56 GMT)@tests_the_best with all due respect over the last 4 years SA have lost 1 series only 1 and that was against Australia. SA have beaten or drawn with everyone most of those away from home including pakistan india and australia. Stats don't liemeaning statistically SA are the most successful team over the last for years purely on the basis that they've only lost 1 series. Name another team over the same period with a better record.
Posted by Hammond on (July 26, 2012, 11:28 GMT)I love how no-one is now talking about the birth place of a couple of players in the England side. I think as an England fan one can judge how well we are doing when people start trotting (pun intended) out that old chestnut. I hope to see it again by the end of next test.
Posted by JG2704 on (July 26, 2012, 7:44 GMT)@Muttee on (July 25 2012, 08:44 AM GMT) It was a shock that our batting was so bad and obviously I give full credit to the Pak bowlers but alot of the wickets weren't to unplayable deliveries. Also (and I know it's different conditions etc)but Pak spinners didn't do so well against SL afterwards. It's hypothetical of course but I'd still say our batsmen were woeful
Posted by Muttee on (July 25, 2012, 8:44 GMT)@JG2704: no disrespect to Pakistani batting but compared to English batting, they were at best mediocre. Both bowling line-ups had to bowl at different sides, Pak bowlers had a much tougher task and don't you think it was the bowling that made them look bamboozled rather than just plain abysmal batting. the aggressive fields set for Ajmal and Rehman put so much pressure and they just couldn't read his doosra at all. I wouldn't blame your batting on that, if you had seen it ball by ball you would know it was your batting;s failure but it was the class of bowling that made your batting look pedestrian.
Posted by Zahidsaltin on (July 25, 2012, 5:32 GMT)The best bowling attack in the world?? How can some one make such claims about English bowling unit. They have no world class bowler and some what better figures from Andersen are only because he plays most of his game on swing friendly home wickets.
Posted by Meety on (July 25, 2012, 1:09 GMT)@unregisteredalien - classic! @Aneesmoha - lack of games does not neccessarily mean lack of points, unless it coincides with NOT playing lowly ranked sides relative to other top sides.
Posted by tests_the_best on (July 24, 2012, 20:32 GMT)@Aneesmoha, agreed SA played less games than eng and aus but how can you be sure that if they had played more, they would have only won/drawn those games? Loss in those games would have negatively impacted SA's ranking. Of the more games that eng played, 5 were is asia where they lost 1-4. Am sure eng would easily have settled for playing less games if that would have wiped out the 1-4 blot on their otherwise impressive record till that time.
Posted by Aneesmoha on (July 24, 2012, 19:45 GMT)All those talking about the rankings regardless of the formula used SA have played. 11 less games than England and are 9 points behind. They have played 13 less games than Australia and are only 3 points behind. They have played the 3rd least amount of tests after NZ and Bangladesh. This SA team should win or draw 80-85% of the games or series they compete in. So seriously who is the best team in the world.
Posted by JG2704 on (July 24, 2012, 19:40 GMT)@Jeremy Bradshaw on (July 24 2012, 08:54 AM GMT) The ranking system is not meaningless at all. Sure we beat Australia in 2010/11 but if you look at results of both teams since against common opponents and both teams beat India 4-0 , but Aus won in SL whereas Eng drew , Eng beat WI at home 2-0 and Aus beat WI away by the same margin. Aus drew away to SA late last year which looks at this point to be trumping Eng's home series vs SA. Eng deserved to get to number 1 , mainly from their 4-0 win vs Ind and 3-1 away win in Oz but we have to say that if/when we lose this series the number 1 will deservedly go to SA and we can't really begrudge Aus going ahead of us if we're getting beaten so regularly