# One session, 130 runs

163 Balls faced by Ben Stokes for his double-century, the second-fastest by any batsman, next only to Nathan Astle's 153-ball double against England in Christchurch in 2002. The previous fastest double-hundred for England was off 220 balls, by Ian Botham against India at The Oval in 1982, while the previous quickest in Cape Town was 211 balls, by Herschelle Gibbs against Pakistan in 2003.

130.3 Stokes' strike rate (258 off 198 balls), the second fastest for a 200-plus score in Tests. Astle scored at a rate of 132.14 in his 168-ball 222 in that Christchurch Test in 2002.

178 The previous highest Test score by an England batsman batting at No. 6 or lower: Graeme Hick got that many against India in Mumbai in 1993. In all, Stokes' blast was the 16th double-century in Tests by a batsman batting at No. 6 or lower. Australia have seven of those, Pakistan three, and India, West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and England one each.

130 Runs scored by Stokes in the morning session on day two; it is the most by any batsman in the first session of a day in Tests. The previous highest was 123, by Les Ames, the England wicketkeeper, also against South Africa, at The Oval in 1935. Overall, it's the seventh best by any batsman in a session. (Click here for most runs scored between lunch and tea, and here for most runs after tea.)

399 The partnership between Stokes and Jonny Bairstow, England's second highest for in Tests, next only to the 411-run stand between Colin Cowdrey and Peter May against West Indies at Edgbaston in 1957. The Stokes-Bairstow stand is also the highest ever in South Africa, the highest for the sixth wicket by any team, and the second best for any wicket against South Africa, next only to the world record stand of 624 between Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara.

6.91 The run rate during the Stokes-Bairstow partnership, the best in any 200-plus stand in Tests. It is marginally better than the previous highest of 6.88, between Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist in their partnership of 233 against Zimbabwe in Perth in 2003.

11 Sixes for Stokes in his innings, the joint second-highest for any batsman in Tests, next only to Wasim Akram's 12 against Zimbabwe in his unbeaten 257. The others with 11 sixes are Astle, Hayden, and Brendon McCullum (twice).

408 Runs scored by England's Nos. 6 and 7 batsmen, the highest aggregate at these two positions in any Test innings. It's also the first time two batsmen at No. 6 or lower have scored 150-plus runs in the same innings.

150* Bairstow's score, the third highest by an England wicketkeeper in Tests, and their best in South Africa.

2002 The last time four South African bowlers conceded 100-plus runs in a Test innings at home: that happened against Australia in Johannesburg. It has only happened to them 13 times in all Tests, and five times at home.

4.99 England's run rate, the second best for a 600-plus total in Tests; the only faster innings was by Australia, when they scored 735 for 6 declared against Zimbabwe in Perth in 2003 at a run rate of 5.01.

482 Runs conceded by South Africa's fast bowlers, the fifth most for them in any Test, and second at home, only one run short of what they conceded against Australia in that Johannesburg Test in 2002.

150 Runs conceded by Chris Morris, the second highest for a South African bowler on debut. The highest is 152, by George Parker, a right-arm fast bowler, way back in 1924. Parker took six wickets, though, compared to Morris' one.

2005 The last time a first-ball duck was followed by two 150-plus scores on the batting card. That was by Pakistan against India in Bangalore, when Shahid Afridi opened the batting and fell for 0, only to be followed by two huge scores by Younis Khan (267) and Inzamam-ul-Haq (184).

18 Number of innings in international cricket without a 50-plus score for Hashim, before the Cape Town Test. His last 50-plus score was 124, in an ODI against New Zealand in Centurion in August 2015. Since then and before this Test, Amla had scored 316 runs in 18 international innings at an average of 17.55.

*With inputs from Shiva Jayaraman and Bharath Seervi.*

S Rajesh is stats editor of ESPNcricinfo. @rajeshstats

Comments have now been closed for this article

Eralok has confused the issue about rounding numbers because of incorrectly referring to rounding a score of 99 to a score of 100, and so the batsman would then have a "century". Of course you do not round whole numbers like that. Here, rounding is only for a calculated sum, like the run rate, that results in multiple decimal places, but it is only written with a small fixed number of decimal places, usually 1, 2 or occasionally 3. Then the last digit should be rounded for the most accurate and correct representation of the number, as of course nobody really wants to see calculated numbers written with 5 or 10 decimal places! So a calculated run rate of 4.99867 for the England run rate becomes 5.0 to 1 decimal place, 5.00 to 2 decimal places, and 4.999 to 3 decimal places. Nothing anybody can do about the fact that giving a calculated number like this with a reduced number of decimal places means that the number is not quite 100% accurate! It applies to a lot of things in life!

unbelievable batting from stokes..i support SA cricket and my heart bled today..was so glad when it was finally over!!!

Ananth is absolutely right. Numbers must be rounded or else the results are not correct. Otherwise, more decimal places should be given. In fact the leading run rate by Australia against Zimbabwe is also incorrect as it is 5.017, and so should be 5.02 when written to 2 decimal places. So at least the gap between that number and the new England one then remains the same!

Let me predict, by the time he retires from test cricket, he will be the leading six hitter. Dips my lid to him.

Did anyone else notice that both the fastest and the second fastest double centurions (Astle and Stokes) were born in the same city (Christchurch, NZ)?

Ananthnarayanan: in cricket round off doesnt work. Unless u score a hundred its not a century if u scored 99. Similarly if a bowler hasnt conceded 5 an over den y wud u raise his economy to 5 instead of 4.9.

Cannot ask for a better Sunday of test cricket after seeing the Stokes Bairstow massacre. It was simply beyond what words can say.

Just scintillating batting by my favorite overseas batsman Stokes......amazing stuff.....

Rajesh: England scoring rate is 6*629/755 which works to 4.99867. In no system of rounding off can this be taken as 4.99. This has to be 5.00. Your number drops off the third digit. That is wrong. It has to be rounded. Ananth

Eralok has confused the issue about rounding numbers because of incorrectly referring to rounding a score of 99 to a score of 100, and so the batsman would then have a "century". Of course you do not round whole numbers like that. Here, rounding is only for a calculated sum, like the run rate, that results in multiple decimal places, but it is only written with a small fixed number of decimal places, usually 1, 2 or occasionally 3. Then the last digit should be rounded for the most accurate and correct representation of the number, as of course nobody really wants to see calculated numbers written with 5 or 10 decimal places! So a calculated run rate of 4.99867 for the England run rate becomes 5.0 to 1 decimal place, 5.00 to 2 decimal places, and 4.999 to 3 decimal places. Nothing anybody can do about the fact that giving a calculated number like this with a reduced number of decimal places means that the number is not quite 100% accurate! It applies to a lot of things in life!

unbelievable batting from stokes..i support SA cricket and my heart bled today..was so glad when it was finally over!!!

Ananth is absolutely right. Numbers must be rounded or else the results are not correct. Otherwise, more decimal places should be given. In fact the leading run rate by Australia against Zimbabwe is also incorrect as it is 5.017, and so should be 5.02 when written to 2 decimal places. So at least the gap between that number and the new England one then remains the same!

Let me predict, by the time he retires from test cricket, he will be the leading six hitter. Dips my lid to him.

Did anyone else notice that both the fastest and the second fastest double centurions (Astle and Stokes) were born in the same city (Christchurch, NZ)?

Ananthnarayanan: in cricket round off doesnt work. Unless u score a hundred its not a century if u scored 99. Similarly if a bowler hasnt conceded 5 an over den y wud u raise his economy to 5 instead of 4.9.

Cannot ask for a better Sunday of test cricket after seeing the Stokes Bairstow massacre. It was simply beyond what words can say.

Just scintillating batting by my favorite overseas batsman Stokes......amazing stuff.....

Rajesh: England scoring rate is 6*629/755 which works to 4.99867. In no system of rounding off can this be taken as 4.99. This has to be 5.00. Your number drops off the third digit. That is wrong. It has to be rounded. Ananth

No featured comments at the moment.

Rajesh: England scoring rate is 6*629/755 which works to 4.99867. In no system of rounding off can this be taken as 4.99. This has to be 5.00. Your number drops off the third digit. That is wrong. It has to be rounded. Ananth

Just scintillating batting by my favorite overseas batsman Stokes......amazing stuff.....

Cannot ask for a better Sunday of test cricket after seeing the Stokes Bairstow massacre. It was simply beyond what words can say.

Ananthnarayanan: in cricket round off doesnt work. Unless u score a hundred its not a century if u scored 99. Similarly if a bowler hasnt conceded 5 an over den y wud u raise his economy to 5 instead of 4.9.

Did anyone else notice that both the fastest and the second fastest double centurions (Astle and Stokes) were born in the same city (Christchurch, NZ)?

Let me predict, by the time he retires from test cricket, he will be the leading six hitter. Dips my lid to him.

Ananth is absolutely right. Numbers must be rounded or else the results are not correct. Otherwise, more decimal places should be given. In fact the leading run rate by Australia against Zimbabwe is also incorrect as it is 5.017, and so should be 5.02 when written to 2 decimal places. So at least the gap between that number and the new England one then remains the same!

unbelievable batting from stokes..i support SA cricket and my heart bled today..was so glad when it was finally over!!!

Eralok has confused the issue about rounding numbers because of incorrectly referring to rounding a score of 99 to a score of 100, and so the batsman would then have a "century". Of course you do not round whole numbers like that. Here, rounding is only for a calculated sum, like the run rate, that results in multiple decimal places, but it is only written with a small fixed number of decimal places, usually 1, 2 or occasionally 3. Then the last digit should be rounded for the most accurate and correct representation of the number, as of course nobody really wants to see calculated numbers written with 5 or 10 decimal places! So a calculated run rate of 4.99867 for the England run rate becomes 5.0 to 1 decimal place, 5.00 to 2 decimal places, and 4.999 to 3 decimal places. Nothing anybody can do about the fact that giving a calculated number like this with a reduced number of decimal places means that the number is not quite 100% accurate! It applies to a lot of things in life!