Anantha Narayanan

This is the second part of the analysis on the first ten and last ten Tests in a player's career. I looked at the batsmen in the first part and this article concentrates on the bowlers.

I am going to standardise the criteria. First, the start of a player's career is defined as the first ten Tests and the finish of his career as the last ten Tests. Ninety-two bowlers qualify with my cut-off for wickets which is 150. Sydney Barnes has crossed this landmark in the short span of 27 Tests, which is the lowest any player has played in this list. So, his middle period is only seven Tests. Because of the rather high cut-off, bowlers like Subhash Gupte, Hedley Verity, Bill O'Reilly, Fazal Mahmood, Colin Croft, Saeed Ajmal et al. do not qualify. But this cannot be helped. Lowering the cut-off to 100 wickets will mean that a few bowlers who have played either side of 20 Tests will get it and that does not seem correct.

I did not want to draw the line at the "active status" of players. That would exclude many players and is an artificial restriction, especially, since some of them may play very few Tests in future. I am also going to use Wickets-per-Test (WpT) as the measure of comparison. The Bowling-average is only an add-on information data element. The most important task of a bowler is to capture wickets and whether he captures 5 for 50 or 5 for 100, there is very little difference. 'Five-fors' are very important. It is also common knowledge that 5 for 80 scores over 4 for 50, almost always.

I have incorporated different types of analysis in this article. I have tables which list the best and worst starts among players' careers. I have the best and worst finishes among players' careers. Then I have combined the start and finish to create four different combinations. Great starts and great finishes, great starts and poor finishes, poor starts and great finishes and finally poor starts and poor finishes. These are represented in a BCG Chart, which is my favourite graph. Many insights can be drawn from these tables.

First let us look at the great starts. I have to have cut-offs for each table to keep the tables to reasonable sizes.

Maurice Tate had the best ever start for a bowler: 67 wickets at 20.0 in 10 Tests. Ravi Shastri's final figures were so poor that even the 2.7 WpT he captured during the start of his career pushed him into the second place. In a way, Srinivas Venkataraghavan was in a similar position. Ian Botham and Andy Roberts had great starts at over 5 WpT. Many famous bowlers have had wonderful starts, including Waqar Younis. It is clear that these starts would be neutralised by below-average figures for the rest of their career, especially for bowlers such as Tate and Botham.

The figures are true. Andrew Flintoff, in whatever capacity he was playing, captured seven wickets in his first ten Tests, nine lower than Bob Massie and Narendra Hirwani captured in their first Test. Alan Davidson had a similar nightmare start, with a princely haul of 13 wickets in ten Tests. And his playing comrade, Richie Benaud, pitched in with 17. Garry Sobers and Jacques Kallis had awful starts as bowlers, capturing 12 and 11 wickets in their ten Tests. I remember that both had poor starts as batsmen also. And Shane Warne, and Muralitharan. But Muttiah Muralitharan had an excellent start, by anybody's standards, with 40 wickets. It is only his stupendous career figure which has pushed him down.

These are the great finishers. They retired at the top, so to say. Rangana Herath is still active and his presence at the top is a testament to his phenomenal form over the past year. He led the wicket-takers table for 2012-13. Alec Bedser finished very strongly. Sydney Barnes finished with 88 wickets, most of it against South Africa in two series. If anyone glances through this illustrious set of bowlers, it is a representation of truly great bowlers across the generation: Barnes, Fred Trueman, Clarrie Grimmett and Davidson. Davidson made up for his miserable start with this good finish. Monty Panesar is still active and could go better or worse.

They finished poorly and probably after their sell-by-date. Imran Khan's presence is understandable since he played most of his later Tests as a batsman. But the fall of Ian Bishop and Botham was dramatic: they captured only 14 and 16 wickets in their last 10 Tests. Shastri fell off as a bowler. Javagal Srinath as a shadow of his peak period. But look at Abdul Qadir. Like his mentor, Imran, he also finished with a whimper: 20 wickets in ten Tests to finish his career. Waqar, who had a great start, fares poorly here. Anil Kumble and Kapil Dev round off this list. The presence of so many Indian bowlers in this list should make one think: do these bowlers stretch their career about a series or two past their retirement? Kapil, often highlighted in India for stretching his career, still finished with 20 wickets, a reasonable performance for an allrounder. Combined with his good batting finish, quite good: maybe he is the wronged player in this regard.

Now for the combination analysis. I have considered the two percentage values, start and finish and got them grouped into four combination groups. Not all bowlers are covered though. For each combination I have set different criteria and grouped the players. This is to ensure that the graph is not too crowded. The absence of players from these four groups basically means that they are in the circle in the centre. You can have a look at all players by perusing the downloadable file.

To represent these selected players I have used my favourite BCG chart. BCG stands for Boston Consulting Group for whom Bruce Henderson invented this method of depicting growth-share matrix for companies. It has since found many uses and I have used this graph extensively. When there are two independent measures, the quadrant-based representation of BCG chart is an excellent visual method of classifying players. In this case the two independent measures are the first-10-Test precentages and the last-10-Test percentages. These two measures form four groups and lend themselves to an excellent BCG representation.

We have the first-10-Tests WpT percentages in the X-axis and the last-10-Tests WpT % in the Y-axis. The graph is split into four quadrants. The top-right quadrant represents great starts and great finishes. The top-left quadrant represents poor starts and great finishes. The bottom-left quadrant represents poor starts and poor finishes. The bottom-right quadrant represents great starts and poor finishes. Let us now look at the graph.

Since I am going to show the tables for all these classifications I am not going to dwell too long on the graph now since the tables with detailed data for these players are presented later.

Wasim Akram and Dennis Lillee just about missed the poor finish list. However they were still reasonably okay since they captured 27 and 34 wickets. The others have had fairly good starts and finishes. In terms of sheer consistency, the best bowler in this elite lot is Curtly Ambrose.

To download/view the list of 92 bowlers and the complete tables ordered in different forms, in Text file format, please CLICK HERE.

A couple of readers had asked me for my comments on the recent off-field happenings. I had incorporated my comments in this article. Unfortunately, these did not meet the current editorial policy standards of ESPNcricinfo. If you want to see the comments you have to mail me directly at ananth.itfigures@gmail.com. I appreciate and understand ESPNcricinfo's reservations.

However, I did not want one player's inability to take a call on his fabulous but fading career have an influence on the timing of an important article. Hence, I have done this article knowing fully well that Tendulkar is still on for at least the next series. Let me also say this. Tendulkar's last ten Tests have been played at home and he has scored 367 runs at an average of 24.46. In three away-Tests in the forthcoming Test series against South Africa, facing Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel and Vernon Philander, would he suddenly score 400-500 runs? Even the staunchest of Tendulkar's supporters would realise the futility of such expectations. It is likely that he scores only 200 to 250 runs in these three Tests. So this article might only undergo minor changes.

I am going to standardise the criteria. First, the start of a player's career is defined as the first ten Tests and the finish of his career as the last ten Tests. The cut-off for this analysis is batsmen with 4,000-or-more Test runs and thus, 115 batsmen qualify. Everton Weekes crossed 4,000 comfortably and played 48 Tests, which is the lowest any player has played in this list. So, even he has a middle period of 28 Tests. Because of the rather high cut-off, batsmen like Hanif Mohammad, Dean Jones, Arthur Morris, Tony Greig, Clem Hill et al. do not qualify. But this also means that non-batsmen such as Shane Warne, Chaminda Vaas, Wasim Akram and a host of wicket-keeper-batsmen are also excluded. And, I am very close to the 50-Test cut-off which I was aiming at.

I did not want to filter out players who are still playing Test cricket. That would exclude many players and is an artificial restriction, especially since some of them may play very few Tests in future. I am also going to use the Batting average as the measure of comparison. It is the most used and acceptable of performance measures. Runs-per-Test value implies quantity rather than performance and Runs-per-Innings metric has its own shortcomings especially as we have batsmen who have batted from no.1 to no.8.

I had initially planned to complete both batsmen and bowlers in the same article. Then, as normally happens, I ended with 8 tables and one graph for the batsmen. I did not want to test the ability of cricinfo's production team to handle 16 tables and two graphs in one article. So the article on the bowlers is the next one.

I have incorporated different types of analysis in this article. I have tables which list the best and worst starts to the player's career. I have the best and worst finishes to a player's career. Then I have combined the start and finish to create 4 different combinations. Great starts and great finishes, great starts and poor finishes, poor starts and great finishes and finally poor starts and poor finishes. These are represented in a BCG(Boston Consultancy Group) Chart, which is my favourite graph. Many insights can be drawn from these tables.

First let us look at the great starts. In order to keep the tables to reasonable sizes I have to have cut-offs for each table.

Neil Harvey had the best start that any top cricketer has ever had. He had six hundreds in his first ten Tests and averaged 95.00. That is nearly 200% of his career figure. Thilan Samaraweera had a similar start, achieving over 170% of his career average. Mark Taylor, Doug Walters, Andrew Strauss and Michael Hussey should not surprise anyone. My hunch about Hussey was correct. But look at the starts Kapil Dev and Ian Botham had. They had averages like regular batsmen. Herbert Sutcliffe also had a near-80 average. It is surprising that only Sutcliffe, Javed Miandad and Hussey finished with a 50+ career average while the others dropped off.

This is the other end of the table. Players, who had miserable starts to their careers. I knew about Steve Waugh's very poor start to his Test career, averaging 20.8. However, I could have never imagined that Jacques Kallis, who is currently averaging 56.1, started his career with an average of 22.67, which is around 40%, the same as Waugh's. Marvan Atapattu's starting sequence of 0 0 0 1 0 0 meant that he was going to be a contender for the worst start. It is a miracle that he has been upstaged by Kallis and Waugh. A knock of 149 runs in the 10th Test took care of that. But his average of 16.89 is the lowest by any batsman in this group at the end of the 10th test. It is surprising to see very poor starts by Martin Crowe and Hashim Amla, who currently averages over 52. But here comes the ball-to-Mike Gatting. Look at the awful start of Garry Sobers. A Kris Srikkanth-like 29.93. The amazing feature of this table is that four of these batsmen recovered very well, to post career averages exceeding 50.

This is the follow-up to the article on Test results. The initial article covered results and this one will cover the fascinating area of ties and draws. It is my personal opinion that there is as much excitement in saving a tough match as there is in winning a close match. The techniques required are different yet comparable. If you ask a captain which is tougher: scoring 150 in 40 overs to win a Test or survive the final day to draw the Test? Many captains would vote for the later task.

Unfortunately, the obsession with winning, the American dicta that there has to be a winner and winning is everything, and similar attitudes have made the cricket followers look down on Test cricket. Someone asked me "How can any one play for five days and not have a result?", I would ask him "You are ready to spend two hours watching a football match and eulogize a 3-3 result, why not this?". Availability of time is relative. Five days might be too long for some people, two hours too long for some others, 30 minutes too long for someone else. One should not put down tradition just because one does not have time to appreciate it. Or because one does not have the patience. Or because there is a crowd of 5,000 in a Test match and 50,000 in an IPL match. Or because there has to be a winner in every contest. And so on.

It is necessary to respect tradition while paving the way for the new elements. If we do not respect tradition and the old school, and allow the new to completely bull-doze the old, we will be left with high-budget, colourful, glitzy and vacuous shows. As someone succinctly put it, these are "time-pass" matches, to be put on par with the three-hour action thriller films which come out, three a week. If we allow Test cricket to fade away, the result would be similar to the disappearance of classic films like "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca", "Rashomon", "Seven Samurai", "Bicycle Thief", "Do Bigha Zamin", "Mother India", "Do Aankhen Barah Haath", "Nirmalyam", "Desadanam", "Pava Mannippu", "Punnagai", "Kappalottiya Thamizhan", "Thanneer Thanneer!", "Sagara Sangamam", "Tabarana Kathe", "Shyamchi Aai", "Nagara Haavu", "Sudi Guntalu", "Apur Sansar", "Charulata", "Aparajito" et al. We will be left with three-hour extravaganzas, mind-numbing, watch-and-forget, form-over-content types, both on field and on screen, with an unseemly alliance between both.

Has Tennis gone the cricket way? No. They have not replaced the five-set matches with single-set winner-takes-all contests, as dictated by the Television demands; or introduced 31-point tie-breaker sets so that the match could finish in 60 minutes. They are ready to have matches going 5-6 hours and beyond. And these are watched by 15,000 in the stadia and billions around the world. They might have changed the racket material and got in tie-breakers, but have remained true to the basic game. Let me also state that there are five-set classics such as Nadal-Federer, Borg-McEnroe, Graf-Sanchez and Federer-Roddick at Wimbledon, Djokovic-Murray, Djokovic-Nadal and Djokovic-Wawrinka at Melbourne, Santoro-Clament at Paris did not warrant a loser. A draw would have been an appropriate result. For that matter let us not forget Isner-Mahut at Wimbledon.

Draws are part of the Test match scenario. Of course, quite a few of the draws are dull and dreary, as can be seen in later classifications. But there are many draws which are hard-fought and no quarter given either way. I would any day view a gripping draw which finished in the last over than a 3-day drubbing of a hapless team by a strong one.

The comments for Part-1 were very revealing. Most readers only saw the anecdotal part of the article, pushing in their own memories, but almost no one commented on the analytical aspects of the article. My suggestion is "do both". Otherwise, these articles lose their value. Is it because of the new restrictions imposed that many readers have stopped sending in their comments? Anyhow, because of the lack of response to the tables and new ideas, I will present these with minimal comments. You readers have made this small corner of Cricinfo wonderful and you have to continue to do so, irrespective of the fact that I have had to move house, so to speak.

First, let me talk about the ties. It is a totally fascinating facet of the game. I love the way Milind has coined the phrases "perfect" and "imperfect" ties. Once we understand the terms, we wonder why we did not think of it. This interpretation was also needed by us for our contribution project.

Let us define these words. A perfect tie is one in which all available resources have been exhausted during the match, not just the last innings. In other words, all 40 wickets have been captured. The overs resource does not matter since the match ends when the last wicket is captured. No more deliveries can be bowled. The Brisbane tie during the 1960/61 season is an example of a perfect tie. More on this match in the later anecdotal section. Okay, the "ultra-perfect" tie, coined by me during the past minute, is one which finishes off the last available ball.

Now any reader can figure the other one by himself. The imperfect tie is one in which fewer than 40 wickets have been captured. The second tie, the Chennai match played during 1986, was an imperfect one. Australia lost only 12 wickets because they declared in both their innings. Some resources have not been used. Now, where it matters is in the team and batting/bowling allocations. For the Brisbane tie, both teams would get equal points and the batsmen and bowlers of both teams would get equal points. For the Chennai match, the Indian bowlers would get fewer points than the Indian batsmen. This match is also covered later.

There were a few matches which came close to another tie. The Mumbai Test between India and West Indies, a couple of years back, was the closest. If Ashwin had gone for a single off the penultimate ball and got out and the last ball result was repeated, it would have been the "ultra-perfect tie". The Adelaide Test between Australia and West Indies, which finished as a one-run win for West Indies, was equally close. Many of the one-wicket wins could have finished as ties.

This article is as much form as content. This is not the usual table-centric article. I have to present the analysis-data in different forms. As I normally do, let me say that most of the data presented here will be available through Cricinfo's stats and some further work. Only thing is you might need quite a few queries and results will not be available in this clear, concise format.

How does one analyse drawn matches. I have tried to separate the draws into the following five categories.

1. Could have ended in a result with one more ball.
2. Very close matches. Could have gone either way and/or great saves.
3. Close matches. Some slack in the matches.
4. Fair draws with some level of competition.
         (You would have to let the spectators in free)
5. Dull-dreary-dead drawn matches (DDD). 7/8 days to produce results.
         (Spectators would have to be paid to come in)

The description of these classifications is self-explanatory. The first group of draws occurs when a team has lost nine wickets in the fourth innings, the fourth innings target is six (or fewer) runs away or the team has lost nine wickets in the third innings and is still in arrears. Twenty six draws fall into this group. The second classification is a combination of miscellaneous factors: wickets, leads, RpW/BpW, resources available, et al. Too detailed to describe here. 80 Tests in this category. The third classification occurs when lot more resources are available and it is difficult to predict anything. The BpW/RpW combination also plays a part.

The fourth is the most populated one. All single-innings matches, most two-innings matches and a few three-innings matches fall under this umbrella. The last is the classification any cricket follower dreads. An example. India: 537/8. Sri Lanka: 952/7. India declared because this was a 5-day Test. Else they could have gone on. Sri Lanka could have gone past the 1000-run mark. Finally, how was the pitch? India was quite capable of scoring 500 more in the second innings. This is the perfect example of a level 5 draw. Another example: Aus-656/8. Eng-611ao. Aus-4/0. 59 Tests are in this classification. For obvious reasons, no four-innings matches will feature in this classification. We can't call a match dull and dreary if the fourth innings is in progress.

Easier said than done. How do I handle this split? It cannot be through inspection. By now I would have had to visit an asylum. So I used a judicious combination of the following five factors to separate the drawn matches. I cannot explain everything. Suffice to say that I used these factors to identify low-scoring vs high-scoring matches, dead vs live matches, unlikely wins vs probable wins et al. The key is to remember that all high scoring matches are not dull matches. I had to distinguish among a 500-500-200-190/8 match, a 500-500-300-90/1, a 500-500-200/1-150/1 match, and a 500-500-390 match.

Let me also say this. I have used a combination of the five measures, listed below, to do this classification. There is no guarantee that everything would be fine. A match or two may be out of place. For that matter what is a DDD draw might be a wonderful match for someone else because a world record was broken/attempted etc. So take these classifications with a pinch of salt. A list of all 720 drawn matches, with the classifications, can be downloaded using the link provided later in the article. I would advise readers not to split hair to the nth degree, but to examine and wonder at the wonderful world of Test draws.

- Match RpW.
- Match BpW.
- Batting resources still available, at close of play.
- How far ahead or behind the third batting team is, at close of play.
- How far away is the winning target for the fourth batting team, at close of play.

The first one was Match #1483. There was a lot of rain during the first four days at Centurion and South Africa had scored 248 for 8 in the 72 overs possible. South Africa could have batted on, and the result would have been a dull draw. However Nasser Hussain and Hansie Cronje agreed to forfeit their respective first and second innings and make a match of it. England had 90 overs to score 250 for a win. They did this in 75 overs and won the match by 2 wickets. Many players, commentators and writers have argued for and against this "arrangement". The added spice was the presence of Cronje as one of the protagonists and the subsequent match-fixing allegations. However, the presence of the impeccable English captain, Nasser Hussain, in the twosome should dispel any doubts on this match. I have only one wish. Instead of forfeiting the two innings, the two captains could have played an over each before declaration, making it a complete match. It would have avoided many programming headaches for me. More significantly, no one could have questioned the captains. Anyhow as far as I am concerned this is a match which ended in a 2-wicket win/loss.

The second is a serious "non-win" which became a win. Move the clock forward by six years, to Match #1814. England played poorly and were dismissed for 173 by Pakistan. Pakistan amassed a lead of over 300 runs and England took the field on the third day, in great distress. They reached 298 for 4, still 33 runs in arrears. Darrel Hair accused Pakistan of ball-tampering and awarded 5 penalty runs to England. Pakistan did not take the field and the match was awarded to England as a forfeited match. This was revised to a draw in 2008 and was reversed back to forfeit after another year. A sorry episode all through. Even now, I do not have any clarity in determining how to treat this match. A win no doubt, but not by an innings, not by runs, and not by wickets. For that reason I do not want to create a set of columns called "forfeited". So it remains an undefined win. It does not come under any of the three categories. It is an "un-earned" win. The two concerned teams have been allotted the result, though.

First, let me say that no team should ever forfeit a match, whatever be the provocation. But Pakistan had reason to feel aggrieved, not that it justifies Inzamam-ul-Haq's action. Let us not forget that the first forfeit almost happened 25 years earlier when Sunil Gavaskar, given out lbw, and more likely because of unnecessary and provocative on-field comments from the Australians, almost walked off the field at MCG during 1981. But for the timely action of the manager, Wg CmdrSalim Durrani, in pushing Dilip Vengsarkar onto the field and ensuring that Chetan Chauhan did not cross the line, unpleasant history would have been made then and there. We were 5 seconds away from the first forfeiture of a Test match.

The first table sets the tone. We start sedately with a straightforward table of results across ages and then increase our pace.

In 135 years of Test cricket, 2085 matches have been played. There have been 1365 results, which is just over 65% of the matches. That is just under 2 out of 3. For the purpose of this article the two tied matches, have been categorized as draws. Teams batting first have won 690 matches, 33.1%, and the teams batting second, 675, around 32.4%. Over the long period, teams batting first have an infinitesimal edge of less than 1%. Take a look at the average of first-innings score of teams batting first, which stands at 324.6.

I have then analysed the results in four broad periods. My usual period work is done by creating 8 periods. Here, I felt that we could consider the two modern periods, one middle period and the first one, covering just over 70 years.

During the first period, upto 1948, the result percentage was higher than 70%, partly helped by timeless Tests. The average first-innings score was lower at 307.8, but the number of matches won by teams batting first was quite high, at over 40%. teams batting second won only 30% of the matches, a clear difference of 25%. Pitches deteriorated faster during this period, owing to them being uncovered.

The period between 1949 and 1979 is perceived to be the dull period when no risks were taken and draws were the first option for some teams. This is shown by the increase of average first-innings score to 320 and the huge drop of over 10% in result matches, to around 59%. Look at the draw percentage, which is over 41%. Teams batting first won more matches comfortably.

Now we arrive at the 1980s and 90s. Despite the presence of very formidable bowling attacks, this period does not even boast a 60% result rate. Probably it was difficult to shrug off the safety-first attitude. The average first-innings score dropped. For the first time more teams won batting second: 31.5% against 28.2%. Fairly high number of draws. So, contrary to the usual perception, the 1980-1999 was not that great a Test period. It is clear that the West Indian dominance was offset by mediocrity elsewhere.

Finally we reach the current era: a truly great Test playing period, despite the proliferation of ODIs and T20 matches. A 75% results in matches is truly phenomenal. That means a 4-Test series is likely to end in a 3-0 or a 2-1 result. Look at the 7% increase in the average first-innings score; it is now around 340-350. And a very significant increase in the wins by teams batting second, despite this increase. No longer can the toss-winning captain play the percentage-game of batting first. You are more likely to lose than not.

B. A look at first-innings scores

First Inns scores>=300   Tests:1070 Wins: 435 Draws: 488 Losses: 147 Perf: 63.5%
First Inns scores>=324   Tests: 958 Wins: 412 Draws: 435 Losses: 111 Perf: 65.7%
First Inns scores>=350   Tests: 832 Wins: 364 Draws: 385 Losses:  83 Perf: 66.9%
First Inns scores>=400   Tests: 607 Wins: 285 Draws: 283 Losses:  39 Perf: 70.3%

This is a special look at first-innings scores. As can be seen, the all-time average first-innings score is 324. I did a special analysis of all matches in which this mean level was reached or exceeded. There were 958 Tests and the teams batting first won 412 of these matches. The overall performance percentage was 65.7, which denotes a fair achievement level. Then I increased the cut-off values and found out that at around 394 runs, the 70% figure is reached. This represents a very good achievement. Rounding off this to 400, we get an excellent performance value of 70.3%. My take is that any target between 350 and 400 can be taken, with the stronger teams opting for the latter figure. The current acceptable level is certainly 350+. We have decided to set the target for all first innings as 400 in our contribution work. Just to get a clear overall picture, I have done this exercise for 300 and 350 runs also. The performance percentage is 63.5% and 66.9%, respectively. As the cut-off runs are reduced, the wins decrease but the number of draws increases significantly. One other interesting fact emerged as I pushed the bar further up. The magic figure of 50% wins is reached at a cut-off score of 594. Out of the 75 instances when this total was reached, 38 ended in wins and 37 in draws.

C. A summary of innings wins

Innings wins:363   Total=34938     Avge=96.2
  Wins by inns &  1-9    runs   23   6.3
  Wins by inns & 10-49   runs  101  27.8
  Wins by inns & 50-99   runs  102  28.1
  Wins by inns & 100-199 runs   96  26.4
  Wins by inns & 200+    runs   41  11.3

This is a summary of the 363 innings wins. The average shown is an interesting number. It is the average margin of the innings victories. In other words, the sum of win-runs divided by the number of wins. Also, the additional runs scored, forms the slack. The average win has been by an innings and 96 runs, which is a big win. This is explained by the analysis below. Only 6.3% of the wins have been by an innings and upto-10 runs. These are still not close contests. It was only a matter of avoiding innings defeats. It can clearly be seen that more than 66% of the innings wins have been by wide margins. This is reflected in the overall average also. Let us not forget that the winning team also had the 10 wickets in hand, in addition to the run margins.

D. A summary of wins by runs

Runs wins: 464     Total= 73968  Avge=159.4
  Wins by  1-9    runs     9    1.9
  Wins by 10-49   runs    57   12.3
  Wins by 50-99   runs    81   17.5
  Wins by 100-199 runs   175   37.7
  Wins by 200+    runs   142   30.6

This is a summary of the 464 wins by runs. The average is calculated similar to the innings victories. There is a lot of slack in these wins also. The average win has been by 159 runs, which is a reasonably big win. This is explained by the analysis below. Only 1.9% of the wins have been by upto10 runs. However, the big difference here is that all these matches were extremely close and could easily have gone the other way. In a way, even the next category, upto-50 runs, is similar to this. These are narrow wins. Beyond this, the wins become more comfortable. Look at the high %, 30.6, of the last category, 200+ runs, all these being huge wins. It can clearly be seen that more than 68% of the innings wins have been by wide margins. This is reflected in the overall average also.

E. A summary of wins by wickets

Wicket  wins: 537  Total= 3856    Avge=  7.2
  Wins by  1 wkt(s)   12   2.2
  Wins by  2 wkt(s)   17   3.2
  Wins by  3 wkt(s)   22   4.1
  Wins by  4 wkt(s)   32   6.0
  Wins by  5 wkt(s)   48   8.9
  Wins by  6 wkt(s)   47   8.8
  Wins by  7 wkt(s)   74  13.8
  Wins by  8 wkt(s)   97  18.1
  Wins by  9 wkt(s)   80  14.9
  Wins by 10 wkt(s)  108  20.1

First, let me say that these are the only wins in which there is no slack. Always, the required number of runs, i.e. the aggregate runs of the losing team plus the run(s) needed to overtake this aggregate, are scored, since the learned duo of Duckworth-Lewis have not made their appearance into the Test arena. This analysis of wins by wickets is an eye-opener. Most of the wins, 92% to be specific, are by 4 or more wickets, which are quite comfortable wins. These teams had a lot of resources to spare. Only wins by 3/2/1 wickets can be termed as narrow and that total is below 10%. The average win margin of 7.2 wickets reflects this. Also, note the increasing trend of the numbers.

No surprises here. Australia leads the table with a result percentage exceeding 60, the only team to do so. This is based on 1.0 for a win and 0.5 for a draw basis. But what do we have here? Australia has played 14 close matches (listed elsewhere: sub-10 runs and 1-wkt wins). They have lost 10 of those. That means they are the team, despite the abundance of talent and determination, to lose more than 2 of 3 such matches. A true paradox. And it is also a surprise that they get into these situations far more often than others.

England follows next with 53.4%. They seem to hold their nerves, as shown by their wonderful saves during the past 4 years. Maybe there is something there for the Australians to learn. Pakistan and South Africa, with their special bowling attacks capable of winning everywhere, are next with 51.5%. They do not get into these close situations often. These are the only four teams to have a performance percentage of greater than 50. West Indies fall short of the 50% mark, by a whisker. Look at the high percentage of drawn matches for India, a throw-back to the safety-first methods between 1950 and 1995. India and Sri Lanka are almost at the same level.

Australia has a rather even record everywhere, confirming that they are not just lions at home. They have a result percentage of 66% at home, 53.5% away and 83% in neutral locations: all figures the best in each classification. This makes their recent 0-4 loss an aberration. Pakistan is the only other team with a home result percentage of greater than 61. All other major teams are grouped between 55% and 60%. England is quite good, playing away, with a result percentage of just below 50. South Africa, West Indies and Pakistan follow next. Sri Lanka, India and New Zealand have only average performances away from home. Only Pakistan have played reasonable number of matches in neutral locations and have only a fair result percentage and outside UAE, they have not done well.

This is an analysis by match ground. UAE, a non-Test playing country, has hosted 12 matches. The key measure here is the percentage of matches which ended in a result. Australia leads this table with just over 80% results. That means that a 5-Test series in Australia is likely to end with a single draw. In addition to the type of cricket played by Australia, the pitches with true bounce which provide equal help to batsmen and bowlers alike, would be the main reason. If and when the World Test Championship (WTC) is played, it should be conducted in Australia, Indian money notwithstanding. South Africa follows suit, reasonably close behind with nearly 75% results. Fine, let us have some of the WTC matches there too. Sri Lanka and England are fairly high, at around 65%. West Indies falls just short of 60%. Surprisingly New Zealand manages to produce a result only 56% of the time. India and Pakistan do not even reach 55%, no doubt weighed down by the awful 50s/60s.

Here is a potpourri of interesting result-matches gathered using special criteria. In all these summary score lines, the winning team is shown in upper-case letters.

1. Big Innings wins
    0266 1938 By I&579 runs ENG-903/7 aus-201ao fo aus-123ao
    1590 2002 By I&360 runs AUS-652/7 saf-159ao fo saf-133ao
    0463 1959 By I&336 runs WIN-614/5 ind-124ao fo ind-154ao
    0279 1946 By I&332 runs AUS-645ao eng-141ao fo eng-172ao
    1600 2002 By I&324 runs PAK-643ao nzl- 73ao fo nzl-246ao
    1289 1995 By I&322 runs WIN-660/5 nzl-216ao fo nzl-122ao
    1630 2002 By I&310 runs bng-139ao WIN-536ao    bng- 87ao
    2033 2012 By I&301 runs NZL-495/7 zim- 51ao fo zim-143ao

The Oval disaster for Australia leads the chart. Imagine facing 903 without Don Bradman, who twisted his ankle while bowling. Zimbabwe arrived after a long delay to get slaughtered by New Zealand during 2012.

2. Big Run wins
    0176 1928 By   675 runs ENG-521ao aus-122ao    ENG-342/8 aus- 66ao
    0237 1934 By   562 runs AUS-701ao eng-321ao    AUS-327ao eng-145ao
    0114 1911 By   530 runs AUS-328ao saf-205ao    AUS-578ao saf-171ao
    1726 2004 By   491 runs AUS-381ao pak-179ao    AUS-361/5 pak- 72ao
    1905 2009 By   465 runs SLK-384ao bng-208ao    SLK-447/6 bng-158ao
    0779 1976 By   425 runs WIN-211ao eng- 71ao    WIN-411/5 eng-126ao
    0300 1948 By   409 runs AUS-350ao eng-215ao    AUS-460/7 eng-186ao
    0870 1980 By   408 runs WIN-328ao aus-203ao    WIN-448ao aus-165ao

The first match featured here was Bradman's debut Test. Maybe this Brisbane massacre, followed by him being dropped in the next Test at SCG, must have been partly responsible for Bradman's later run-hunger/thirst.

3. Close Wins - by 1 wkt
    0074 1902 By     1 wkt  aus-324ao ENG-183ao    aus-121ao ENG-263/9
    0088 1906 By     1 wkt  eng-184ao SAF- 91ao    eng-190ao SAF-287/9
    0097 1908 By     1 wkt  aus-266ao ENG-382ao    aus-397ao ENG-282/9
    0149 1923 By     1 wkt  saf-113ao ENG-183ao    saf-242ao ENG-173/9
    0345 1952 By     1 wkt  win-272ao AUS-216ao    win-203ao AUS-260/9
    0873 1980 By     1 wkt  win-140ao NZL-249ao    win-212ao NZL-104/9
    1268 1994 By     1 wkt  aus-337ao PAK-256ao    aus-232ao PAK-315/9
    1453 1999 By     1 wkt  aus-490ao WIN-329ao    aus-146ao WIN-311/9
    1497 2000 By     1 wkt  pak-269ao WIN-273ao    pak-219ao WIN-216/9
    1658 2003 By     1 wkt  bng-281ao PAK-175ao    bng-154ao PAK-262/9
    1812 2006 By     1 wkt  saf-361ao SLK-321ao    saf-311ao SLK-352/9
    1972 2010 By     1 wkt  aus-428ao IND-405ao    aus-192ao IND-216/9

I wanted this section to have no more than 10 Tests in each category but had to accept this classification featuring 12 Tests. The criterion is fixed. The amazing fact is that Australia featured in 6 of these Tests and lost 5. England featured in 3 and won all. One of Australian losses was the Laxman-heist at Mohali during 2010.

4. Close Wins - by fewer than 10 runs
    1505 2000 By     7 runs SAF-253ao slk-308ao    SAF-231ao slk-169ao
    2021 2011 By     7 runs NZL-150ao aus-136ao    NZL-226ao aus-233ao
    0009 1882 By     7 runs AUS- 63ao eng-101ao    AUS-122ao eng- 77ao
    0019 1885 By     6 runs AUS-181ao eng-133ao    AUS-165ao eng-207ao
    1243 1994 By     5 runs SAF-169ao aus-292ao    SAF-239ao aus-111ao
    0943 1982 By     3 runs ENG-284ao aus-287ao    ENG-294ao aus-288ao
    0073 1902 By     3 runs AUS-299ao eng-262ao    AUS- 86ao eng-120ao
    1758 2005 By     2 runs ENG-407ao aus-308ao    ENG-182ao aus-279ao
    1210 1993 By     1 run  WIN-252ao aus-213ao    WIN-146ao aus-184ao

These are the other close matches. Single-digit-run wins should be considered the closest of wins. Australia have featured in 8 of these 9 matches and have only a 3-5 record. They seem to lose their nerve or is there another reason?

5. Lost after scoring 500 runs in first inns
    0042 1894 By    10 runs aus-586ao ENG-325ao fo ENG-437ao aus-166ao
    1673 2003 By     4 wkts aus-556ao IND-523ao    aus-196ao IND-233/6
    1819 2006 By     6 wkts eng-551/6 AUS-513ao    eng-129ao AUS-168/4
    0635 1968 By     7 wkts win-526/7 ENG-404ao    win- 92/2 ENG-215/3
    0365 1953 By     6 wkts aus-520ao SAF-435ao    aus-209ao SAF-297/4
    0180 1929 By     5 wkts eng-519ao AUS-491ao    eng-257ao AUS-287/5

Scoring 500 and losing the match. Very painful. Australia again. They have featured in 5 matches and have only a 2-3 record. One was after making England follow-on and the other was the famous Indian win at Adelaide during 2003. The English win over West Indies was because of the declaration by Garry Sobers, often widely perceived as silly.

6. Lost losing fewer than 15 wkts
    1483 2000 By 2 wkts saf-248/8                      ENG-251/8  8 wkts lost
    0635 1968 By 7 wkts win-526/7 ENG-404ao  win- 92/2 ENG-215/3  9 wkts lost
    1814 2006 Forfeited ENG-173ao pak-504ao  ENG-298/4           10 wkts lost
    0313 1949 By 3 wkts saf-379ao ENG-395ao  saf-187/3 ENG-174/7 13 wkts lost
    1556 2001 By 6 wkts aus-447ao ENG-309ao  aus-176/4 ENG-315/4 14 wkts lost

The first is the match we have discussed earlier. Had to be present here for completion of presentation. The West Indies - England match has also been referred to briefly earlier. West Indies made two declarations, at 7 and 2 wickets, and lost the match. Quixotic, to say the least. The third match also has been discussed extensively earlier. I cannot get a handle on the fourth match. The South African bowling was very ordinary: no bowler even reaching a career aggregate of 60 wickets. Yet they declared leaving England, with Len Hutton, Cyril Washbrook, and Denis Compton, to get a sub-180 target. A strange decision by Dudley Nourse, indeed. But in his favour, it must be said that there was only 96 minutes of play possible. The amazing fact is that South Africa bowled 24 8-ball overs (32 6-ball overs) and captured 7 wickets. So let me equivocate - it is not so strange a decision as I had mentioned earlier. The fourth is the famous dead-rubber loss by Australia, orchestrated by Mark Butcher.

7. Won after scoring 100 runs in first inns
    0025 1887 By    13 runs ENG- 45ao aus-119ao    ENG-184ao aus- 97ao
    0009 1882 By     7 runs AUS- 63ao eng-101ao    AUS-122ao eng- 77ao
    0043 1895 By    94 runs ENG- 75ao aus-123ao    ENG-475ao aus-333ao
    0094 1907 By    53 runs ENG- 76ao saf-110ao    ENG-162ao saf- 75ao
    0059 1899 By   210 runs ENG- 92ao saf-177ao    ENG-330ao saf- 35ao
    2034 2012 By    71 runs PAK- 99ao eng-141ao    PAK-365ao eng-252ao

All but one of these matches were before 1908. Uncovered and deteriorating pitches meant that any runs on board were very valuable. The last match is of current vintage. England's loss was because of their first-innings failure to build a substantial lead after dismissing Pakistan for 99. Then Saeed Ajmal took over. The red herring which made everyone think that they were candidates for a 4-0 drubbing later in the year in India.

8. Won in least overs
    0047 1896 By   288 runs ENG-185ao saf- 93ao    ENG-226ao saf- 30ao (41.2 ov)
    0032 1889 By I&202 runs ENG-292ao saf- 47ao fo saf- 43ao           (50.3 ov)
    0082 1904 By   218 runs AUS-247ao eng- 61ao    AUS-133ao eng-101ao (54.1 ov)
    0216 1932 By I& 72 runs saf- 36ao AUS-153ao    saf- 45ao           (54.3 ov)
    0030 1888 By I& 21 runs ENG-172ao aus- 81ao fo aus- 70ao           (55.5 ov)
    1617 2002 By I&198 runs pak- 59ao AUS-310ao    pak- 53ao           (56.4 ov)
    0353 1952 By I&207 runs ENG-347/9 ind- 58ao fo ind- 82ao           (58.1 ov)

One match finished in fewer than 250 balls. That is a strike rate of a wicket every 12 balls. The umpires must have had sore shoulders. The most recent instance was Pakistan's Sharjah collapse in less than 60 overs for two sub-60 totals.

9. Won losing fewer than 3 wickets
    0154 1924 By I& 18 runs saf-273ao ENG-531/2    saf-240ao   2 wkts lost
    0456 1958 By I& 71 runs nzl- 67ao ENG-267/2    nzl-129ao   2 wkts lost
    0741 1974 By I& 78 runs ind-165ao ENG-459/2    ind-216ao   2 wkts lost
    1640 2003 By I& 60 runs bng-173ao SAF-470/2    bng-237ao   2 wkts lost
    2049 2012 By I& 12 runs eng-385ao SAF-637/2    eng-240ao   2 wkts lost

These are all matches with winning teams declaring 2 wickets down. For the first innings, there are a few matches won losing 3 wickets. The last match is fascinating. The same bowlers who orchestrated 4-0 and 2-1(away) wins against a strong Indian batting line-up managed to capture 2 wickets in 189 overs, in the interim period.

10. Won scoring fewer than 200 runs in match
    0009 1882 By     7 runs AUS- 63ao eng-101ao    AUS-122ao eng- 77ao
    0028 1888 By    61 runs AUS-116ao eng- 53ao    AUS- 60ao eng- 62ao
    0030 1888 By I& 21 runs ENG-172ao aus- 81ao fo aus- 70ao
    0034 1890 By     2 wkts aus- 92ao ENG-100ao    aus-102ao ENG- 95/8
    0128 1912 By    10 wkts saf- 95ao ENG-176ao    saf- 93ao ENG- 14/0
    0216 1932 By I& 72 runs saf- 36ao AUS-153ao    saf- 45ao
    0238 1935 By     4 wkts win-102ao ENG- 81/7    win- 51/6 ENG- 75/6
    0275 1946 By I&103 runs nzl- 42ao AUS-199/8    nzl- 54ao

This is a fascinating collection, mostly filled with pre-WW1 matches. Imagine, the winning team did not even need 200 runs in the two innings combined, to win, thrice with an innings to spare. I am fascinated by the 1888 match when Australia followed on, merely 91 runs behind. Australia's convenient declaration at 199/8 during 1946 got them in.

11. Won trailing by more than 250 runs
    1814 2006 Forfeited   ENG-173ao pak-504ao    ENG-298/4           Deficit 331
    1194 1992 By  16 runs AUS-256ao slk-547/8    AUS-471ao slk-164ao Deficit 291
    1535 2001 By 171 runs aus-445ao IND-171ao fo IND-657/7 aus-212ao Deficit 274
    0042 1894 By  10 runs aus-586ao ENG-325ao fo ENG-437ao aus-166ao Deficit 261
    0320 1950 By   5 wkts saf-311ao AUS- 75ao    saf- 99ao AUS-336/5 Deficit 236
    0905 1981 By  18 runs aus-401/9 ENG-174ao fo ENG-356ao aus-111ao Deficit 227
    1945 2010 By  36 runs AUS-127ao pak-333ao    AUS-381ao pak-139ao Deficit 206

In these matches the winning team trailed by more than 250 runs in the first innings. Three of these matches were won after following on. The fourth is the famous Botham-Willis match. The sixth is the equally famous Laxman-Harbhajan match. The last of these matches happened three years back at SCG. Possibly Michael Hussey's best ever Test innings gave Australian bowlers 175 runs to defend against Pakistan which they did in style. Nathan Hauritz's moment of glory.

12. 1/2 wkt wins with 50+ runs partnership for 8th/9th wicket   9w  10w   
   0096 1907 By  2 wkts eng-273ao AUS-300ao  eng-300ao AUS-275/8   56
   1012 1985 By  2 wkts pak-274ao NZL-220ao  pak-223ao NZL-278/8   50
   1097 1988 By  2 wkts pak-309ao WIN-306ao  pak-262ao WIN-268/8   61
   1268 1994 By  1 wkts aus-337ao PAK-256ao  aus-232ao PAK-315/9   22   57
   1453 1999 By  1 wkts aus-490ao WIN-329ao  aus-146ao WIN-311/9   54    9
   1658 2003 By  1 wkts bng-281ao PAK-175ao  bng-154ao PAK-262/9   52    9
   1972 2010 By  1 wkts aus-428ao IND-405ao  aus-192ao IND-216/9   81   11

These are fascinating matches in which the chasing teams achieved narrow wins by 1 or 2 wickets. However, these wins were unlikely ones in that there was a 50-plus run partnership for either the 9th or the last wicket. Each is a classic. Possibly the most exciting win was Pakistan's win over Australia, which is the only instance of an unbroken last wicket partnership of over 50 runs. The other classics are all here: the Brian Lara masterpiece at Bridgetown, Laxman special at Mohali and the Inzamam-inspired win against Bangladesh.

Which was the greatest of wins? The 1-run or 1-wkt wins are very close and might have provided great drama but the cause might not have been hopeless. But for sheer drama, courage and coming from behind, I have to narrow this search to the three wins after following on. Of these three, the one most talked about is the Calcutta win engineered by Laxman-Harbhajan-Dravid. But this match does not strike the right chords for me. India, at 232 for 4, were still 42 runs in arrears, but not a desperate situation. And Sourav Ganguly's decision to bat on the fifth day gave me the impression that he was not looking for a win. The win happened happenstance, that too by a wide margin. Now let us examine the other two matches. In the 1894 match, England had taken the lead with 6 wickets in hand. At SCG on the fifth day, any total above 150 was defendable, with an excellent bowling attack of Tom Richardson, Johnny Briggs, Bobby Peel and Bill Lockwood. However there is no arguing that this was a very close match.

The most exciting Test ever. The choice is individual: one could pick between the "The Ashes" Test, the first tie, the West Indian win by a single run against Australia, or those heart-stopping wins at Bridgetown, Karachi, Multan and Mohali. No one would go wrong. Result in doubt until the last ball, great individual performances and both teams "winning": what more can be asked for?

What about the 1981 Headingley classic? When Graham Dilley walked in, England were 135 for 7, still 92 in arrears. When Dilley was out, England were only 25 ahead. When Chris Old got out, England were only 92 ahead. Finally when Bob Willis was dismissed, the target for Australia was only 129. It needed one of the greatest fast bowling performances ever to give England the unlikeliest of wins. All things considered, I have no hesitation in nominating this Botham-Willis effort as the greatest of all wins. It is possible that non-match factors such as series status, opponent's fearsome reputation, own team's poor showing etc. might tilt the scale in favour of the 2001 win. But the 1981 match cannot be touched if we look at only the match.

As I have already explained this part itself has gone quite long. In the second part, I will examine the fascinating area of Test cricket, in the form of draws (in different hues), follow-ons, tied matches et al. I trust that at the end of this pair of articles you would have known whatever there is needed to know about Test results.

This is part two of the article on ODI Batting giants. The first part covered the standard measures. In this article I will be looking at certain special performance measures. Despite the requests by several readers, I have retained the same fifteen batsmen, in order to be consistent. However I am open to select a subset of these two articles, say 8-9 tables, and do the analysis for all ODI batsmen. This will depend on the readers' comments.

Though I could not satisfy all requests, a couple of tables were added to the few planned based on the the comments received. Since I already had seven tables planned I could not take in all requests. Also, where there were two suggestions on a single measure, say the Index, I have opted for the simpler one.

I am sure readers could justifiably comment that a 110 had no impact on the match while a 21 at No.7 had greater impact. I concede that. A context-driven innings ratings work, on the anvil, would bring out all such nuances. However here we are looking at players' careers at a macro level. Hence I have developed logical, easy-to-understand definitions to determine impact innings by the batsmen. The rules are given below. The idea is that it is easier for the top-order batsmen to score more runs, score a higher percentage of team runs but will score at lower rates, more often than not. The late-order batsmen are unlikely to accumulate runs and score higher percentage of team runs but are likely to score at a much faster rate. It is certain that some tweaks of the following numbers could be suggested. However these are based on common sense and are applied across all batsmen. My advice to readers is not to split hairs on these numbers and concentrate on the broad picture.

Definition of Impact innings

BatPos 1-3:
Runs scored 100 or more OR
Runs scored 50 or more and % of Team Runs 33% or more OR
Runs scored 50 or more and Relative Scoring Rate 125 or more.
BatPos 4-6:
Runs scored 75 or more OR
Runs scored 40 or more and % of Team Runs 25% or more OR
Runs scored 40 or more and Relative Scoring Rate 137.5 or more.
BatPos 7-11:
Runs scored 50 or more OR
Runs scored 25 or more and % of Team Runs 20% or more OR
Runs scored 25 or more and Relative Scoring Rate 150 or more.
Relative scoring rate = Individual SR / Team SR.

Richards leads the table with an impressive tally of 30.5% in the impact innings measure. That is just under one-in-three. He is way ahead of the next best, in this case, Miandad with 22.9% and Martin Crowe, with 22.7%. All three played their cricket before the 1990s. Dhoni and Tendulkar follow next. Jayasuriya's uncertain career moves are reflected in his 14.1% value. And I am sure most of these would have been in the second third of his career.

For the Innings Top score analysis I have adopted an intriguing method. For this I only consider the innings in which the batsman either top-scored or was the second-best score. Let us define these as PR, HS1 and HS2, where PR is the player runs and the other two represent the top two scores. It is easier to represent this in a formulaic fashion. If PR equal to HS1, then add PR/HS2 (will be above 1.00) to the TS points value, otherwise, add PR/HS1 (will be below 1.00). Finally divide this by the total number of innings played to arrive at the TS-Index. Higher TS-Index values indicate higher players performances at around the top of team scores.

First the % of innings the batsman top-scored. Richards (how often do we see him at the top in these performance based measures) with 32.3% of his innings being top scores. Martin Crowe follows close with 31.9% and then there is some daylight and Tendulkar at 28.5%. As expected, Dhoni, batting at the late order positions, has top scored only 15.8%. Richards is also in the top position of the TS-Index table, with a value 0.70. Tendulkar is next with 0.62 and Martin Crowe follows with 0.61. The way this index value is structured, it is not easy to even finish with 0.50.

Now comes the often subjective but important measure of MOM awards received. For sheer number of awards, Tendulkar, having played over 450 innings, leads with 60 awards. However the performance measure for this is the MOM-frequency which is Innings per MOM award. Who leads? Who leads? None other than Richards, with a very low figure of 5.39 inns per MOM. The next best is Tendulkar, requiring 7.5 innings per MOM and then, Martin Crowe, with a MOM every 7.83 innings. Incidentally Amla's TS-Index is 0.77 and he wins a MOM every 6.5 innings.

These are all performance-based analyses and it is amazing that Richards leads in each and every one of these.

This is a very important table to measure how the batsmen contributed in important tournaments. I have been quite tough in fixing the qualification criteria. I have only considered the 10 Word Cups and 6 Champions Trophy tournaments. There may be other 6/7-team tournaments. But only true World level tournaments make the cut.

I have looked at the performances in three categories. The first consists of the really important tournament-winning matches: World Cup Finals, Semi-Finals and Champions Trophy Finals. The second category consists of the significant later stage matches: Super-Six matches, Quarter-Finals and Champions Trophy Semi-Finals. The third category consists of all other matches in these tournaments.

In the first category, Tendulkar, Ponting, Gilchrist and Richards have exceeded 300 runs. This is reflected in their teams' successes. The average does not mean much. Hence only RpI is shown. More important than that is the total number of runs scored. Look at Gilchrist's strike rate in these matches, exceeding 115. Tendulkar has scored 331 runs, at a much lower strike rate.

Ponting leads in the significant matches category, with over 1300 runs. Kallis comes in next with exactly 1000 runs, outlining his importance to South Africa in these key matches. There is nothing for Richards since these matches were non-existent during the first 3/4 World Cups. Tendulkar is the run-away leader in the third category, with nearly 1600 runs, at an excellent strike rate. Lara follows next with just over 1000 runs and Miandad has also done well considering that he played only in World Cups.

It should be noted that all these three classifications are mutually exclusive. Tendulkar has scored a staggering 2700+ runs in these important world level tournaments. He missed the first four editions of the World Cup.

This is a revision of the ODI Batting Index. I have adopted Deepak's suggestion and got a revised Index value. His suggestion that the Index could be "Average x Strike Rate x Share of team runs" has a lot going for it. The top order batsmen who could lose on average because of decreased number of not-outs are likely to score a higher % of team runs. The compensation may not be complete but at least there would be a partial compensation. The "share of team runs" is also a dimension-less value. Richards scored 19.2% of his team runs, Tendulkar, 18% and Jayasuriya, 14.3%. The average seems to be around 16%. It should be understood that this analysis is valid only across the entire career since only then does the % of team runs have meaning.

What do we have here? This clearly shows how far ahead Viv Richards is. His revised Index value is 8.16 and is nearly 15% ahead of Tendulkar, the second-best. Dhoni is next, a very high average of 51 contributing to this position. Quite a number of batsmen are in the sub-5 level indicating how tough it is to get a high value in this revised index. Just out of interest, Amla (57.81/0.922/0.21) hits the ceiling with a stupendous Index value of 11.2. de Villiers has an imposing 7.8 and Kohli, an equally good 7.4.

The average batting position is self-explanatory. The only additional information needed is that both openers are assigned 1 as the batting position. Thus the batsmen who spent the better part of their careers opening the batting, such as Gilchrist, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar have Avge Batpos values below 2.0. The lower the value, the more often the batsman has opened. The best batting position numbers are based on runs scored. There could be other positions in which the batsmen could have averaged more. There is no surprise. Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Mark Waugh and Gilchrist have excelled in the opening positions. Dhoni and Bevan in position number 6. And the others in the middle-order positions (3/4/5).

This is again based on a request from a few readers. They asked me to do a table for runs made in positions 3 and 4 also. This would round up the batting analysis since I have already covered opening, 5 and 6 positions. It is obvious that 3 and 4 are the key positions usually occupied by the best batsmen: Richards, Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara et al. I decided to combine the 3 & 4 into a single analysis.

Look at Richards. An average of 52 when he bats in these pivotal positions, at a strike rate of 89 leads to an Index value of 39. He is far ahead, to the tune of 30%, of the next best significant players, Ponting and Lara, clocking in at just above 30. Ponting, however, has scored millions of runs at these key positions. Dhoni's numbers are high, but too few innings have been played.

This is a straight-forward % of player numbers out of total team numbers. More important than the numbers are the ratios between the two numbers. This gives a clear idea of the % of out-performance for each player. Richards out-performed his team mates by 24%. Jayasuriya, by 14% and Gilchrist, by 11%. Kallis and Bevan are at the other end of the table. It should be noted that for want of complete data on when the batsman was dismissed, this analysis is based on the total team score. Hence please apply some caveats when using this.

This analysis looks at the performances of batsmen while batting first or second. Nothing is gained by looking across batsmen. It is necessary to look within batsman. Richards, Mark Waugh, Jayasuriya, Ponting et al have performed better setting up the target than while chasing. Gilchrist, Martin Crowe, Bevan, Miandad et al have done better while chasing. I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions. Richards has the biggest positive difference and Gilchrist, the highest negative difference.

This is a location-based analysis. The matches are split into Home, Away and Neutral locations since many matches are played in neutral locations and many World Cups have two outside teams playing. It is interesting to note that most batsmen play more outside their home location. Tendulkar was the best performer at home, closely followed by Inzamam and Dhoni. Pietersen, albeit in very few innings, was masterful in neutral locations, followed by Tendulkar, in nearly 150 innings. Richards was the king in outside locations. Ponting was also quite good. Look at the magnificent strike rates of Gilchrist everywhere, Jayasuriya on neutral and away grounds and Richards in outside locations.

Wins are achieved by teams. However this analysis completes the huge exercise. It is certain that the winning RpI values for all these batsmen would be much higher than the RpI in losing matches. The difference ranges from very little for Pietersen (3% difference) to very high for Lara (98% difference).

I have created 16 tables for these selected 15 batsmen. Many readers have suggested that other batsmen should have been considered. Ganguly has had quite a few votes. Hence I will select 8-9 tables out of these, based on readers' responses. I will then do the analysis across all batsmen, subject to a minimum number of innings or runs, and come out with an ordered set of tables. This will ensure that there is fair representation across all players and it would be a performance-centric article.

Any doubts in deciding on the best ODI batsman have been clearly dispelled. The leading position of Viv Richards in many of these tables indicates that he is, unarguably, the best ODI batsmen of all time. This is supported by the fact that there is considerable gap between Richards and the next batsman in many measures. All this was done when the rest of the world scored at around 70 and the target for most teams was 250. He also did not have any powerplays assisting him. Not just the "Master Blaster" but the "Master".

Any number of IPL matches, with coloured clothing, Bollywood stars, million-dollar players, imported cheerleaders and umpteen numbers of sixes cannot match those last 15 minutes at Eden Park, Auckland. Those dot balls were far more important than many a six hit. Who cares if Prior does not have an IPL contract? He can hold his head high. Panesar faces 5 balls, probably more important than many a wicket he has captured. Test Cricket lives, and how! And from next week onwards, the sublime to the big-brash-bash.

And my fervent prayers go to Jesse Ryder to get well soon. A great character with undeniable talent, with a special fascination for the Indian attack: all three of his hundreds were scored off the Indian bowlers.