Anantha Narayanan

This table is a summary of the Match rating points secured by teams. Even though Australia's overall results are slightly inferior to South Africa, their comprehensive innings wins have helped them move to the top of the table. During the year, on an average, they were 65-35 against opponents. South Africa were slightly behind. Pakistan and West Indies also performed creditably and finished on the positive side. The other six sides finished on the negative side.

The geographic distribution of responses has been given at the end.

Methodology

1. All the valid entries were placed in a text file. I wrote a custom program to tally the reader selections to create a Player-Reader matrix. Each set of fifteen players was assigned a weighted index using a complex algorithm to pin down identical selections. Then I created multiple Excel files. One for the number of reader votes received. Another for the number of selections by each reader that made into the final XV. Which brings us here.

2. I imposed certain restrictions on the selection of each XV. I did not want the reader to specifically exclude any period whatsoever. This was essential to have a fair field of selection across the years. Another restriction was that a reader had to specifically confirm if Bradman was excluded. Only one reader, out of such three, reverted with a series of convincing explanations. The other two simply did not bother, hence their entries were not included.

3. A few readers had raised the possibility of other readers misusing the system to put in multiple entries. I had always been aware of such attempts and set up diverse steps to locate and exclude such attempts. These steps have been documented in the form of a MS Word document. But why start with the unsavoury??? A link to that document provided at the end of this article.

4. The final selection is strictly bases on 'one reader, one vote' system. Be it Martin Crowe, Rajesh, Madhu or me, we all get one vote each. However I would have given slightly more weight to these selections to resolve a tie but it was not required.

Summary of numbers

No of valid entries received: 205
No of players selected:       119
No player was selected by all readers
Highest selection :           204 (Bradman-99.5%)
No of players with single selection each: 31
The votes gathered by the top 15 players: 2210-72.5%

Top 30 selections

7 players were selected by over 75% readers, 13 by over 50%, 18 by 25% or more and 24 by just over 10%. The 30th best selection, Hayden, received 17 votes (less than 9%). 40 players have 10 or more votes. There are big drops after Gavaskar (#12 with 133 votes), McGrath (#13 with 115 votes), Hadlee (#16 with 86 votes), Kallis (#18 with 62 votes) and SF Barnes (#20 with 40 votes).

The Readers' XV

The following final XV has been selected strictly based on votes received. There is no doubt that this is an excellent group of players. While there could be individual differences of opinions from readers, there is no doubt that this is an all-time best XV representing countries and eras in a very fair manner.

There are 5 West Indians, 4 Australians, 2 Indians, 2 Pakistanis, 1 Englishman and 1 Sri Lankan in this elite list of fifteen players.

Bradman is in with a record 99.5% votes. It may resemble the ballot to elect the President of a banana republic. Well, Paul Sime need not fear any reprisals from the President's secret service. He had clearly explained his selections. My estimate is that if we had received 1000 votes, Bradman would have got 99.94% selection (Thanks, david !!!). The lily needs no gilding. And before someone comments that it is absurd to destroy the lily because melting is an essential step for gilding, let me include the original quote by Shakespeare - ''To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet,... Is wasteful and ridiculous excess." (Milind, thanks!!!). So let us move on.

I must admit that I was startled by the second highest selection. While I expected Sobers at this position, to my pleasant surprise, it is Shane Warne who garnered 92.7% of the votes. This indicates the very very high opinion of informed readers in considering Warne as the best spinner of all time and a genuine match-winner.

He is, as expected, followed by Sobers who secured 86.2% votes. I am bewildered by the rather high 14% exclusion. I feel Kallis edged out Sobers in some selections while a few top batsmen may have elbowed out Sobers for the batting spot.

Gilchrist is next with 82.8% votes. Once again I am amazed that over 17% did not choose Gilchrist. I think Andy Flower, no less a keeper-batsman, took away quite a few votes. Possibly the solidity of Flower was preferred by some (nearly 9%). It is also possible that keepers with better keeping ability (on what basis, I cannot understand) like Knott may also have got the nod.

In fifth position is the undoubted master of aggressive pace bowling, Marshall with 82.3%. Quite on the expected lines. A true match winner and the best fast bowler amongst all the greats.

My two favourites, Muralitharan and Lara, appear next. Muralitharan just edging out Lara by two votes. Two wonderful champions, crowd-pleasers, fighters, elegant performers: all rolled into single packages. No real surprise that over 3 out of 4 readers selected these two players' players.

The next three positions are held by Hobbs, Tendulkar and Wasim Akram, with just under 70% of votes. It is a measure of the readers' understanding of the game that similar numbers have selected two maestros who played nearly 100 years apart. Hobbs and Tendulkar were masters of flawless technique and extremely consistent. That Hobbs received more votes than Tendulkar is a testament to the very fair manner in which the readers had approached this task.

Viv Richards, Gavaskar, McGrath and Ambrose occupy the next four positions. I expected a slightly higher position for Richards and Ambrose. But they are comfortably in. These 14 players were in my selection of 15 players

The last position was a closely fought one. Imran Khan finished comfortably ahead of Hadlee by 7 votes and secured the 15th spot. Maybe a different demographic distribution of readers might have got Hadlee in, as also couple of other batsmen like Kallis or Chappell.

I am extremely happy with the 15 selected and take pride in the fact that Imran was in my XV until the very late stages and Hadlee just about edged him out. At the same time I am happy at Imran's selection since most of the concerns were raised at his exclusion.

In summary, I am surprised that Warne and Kallis got higher votes than expected, and Sutcliffe received fewer. I am saddened that Greg Chappell and Ponting did not get more votes.

The 13 readers who selected 14 of the final XV

No selection matched the final 15. Apart from me, 12 others included 14 out of these 15. It can be argued that my selection closely resembles the final list solely because most readers relied on my list and altered a few spots but a glance down the most commented article reveals the thought behind these selections, The table below lists all these and the selection changes from the final list. KC (from US) matched my selection. Jay and Kaushik had identical selections as also Arnab and Rohith. That is all. These 6 are the only identical choices amongst the 200+ selections. Madhu, Cricinfo Stats wizard, got 14 correct while Rajesh, Cricinfo Editor, got 13 correct. Martin Crowe, who selected the wonderful quartet of Lillee, Hutton, O'Reilly and SF Barnes, matched the other eleven. These four find a place in the second XV.

The 4 readers who selected 1 and 2 players of the final XV

Now the other end. One reader, Mike (from Australia), succeeded in selecting only Bradman out of the final XV. However since his selection encompassed all the eras and countries it is fine. Pete, Dennis and Sam39083 selected two players each. All three selected Bradman and Sobers and 13 other players.

The Second XV

The second XV has been selected mostly based on numbers but also with a bit of tweaking to get the team balance correct. It would be silly to just go by the numbers. It may be a good idea if the readers do not come out with comments like "A has got 1 vote more than B, why was B selected?". It would be totally counter-productive.

Hutton
Barry Richards
Sutcliffe
Kallis
Greg Chappell
Graeme Pollock
Dravid
Andy Flower (wk)
Hadlee
Lillee
SF Barnes
Holding
Waqar Younis
O'Reilly
Bedi

The overwhelming number of votes given for Warne and Muralitharan meant that the other spinners got very few votes. Still the numbers at least were reasonable. It is possible that one could have gone for Kumble over Bedi or Ponting over Dravid/Chappell. But those selected were thoroughly deserving of their inclusions. I am certain that this team would give the Top XV a run for its money. They would certainly win a Test or two in a 5-Test series.

Readers should remember the magnitude of the task I have completed. Cutting and pasting teams sent by readers in different formats, correcting spellings (how many 'Marshal's), affixing Viv or BA as warranted, affixing RG or SM as warranted, following up and effecting changes, tracking all below-15 and above-15 selections and validating these, checking for duplicate entries, taking care of multiple changes to teams and finally the special work to weed out suspicious entries and so on. All these with a 83.5% physical condition.

So please accept that there could be a few errors. However I am certain that these errors would not cause any change to the final selection. Frankly the only votes that matter are those to Imran and Hadlee. Imran is 7 ahead and is very unlikely to be caught up, on account of my errors. And many of the entries rejected had Imran. Even if you point out some errors please do not expect me to rush in and correct those.

So this is our real cut-off Test. So one can say that the cut-off is data-driven than law-implementation-driven especially as the 1983-87 period is a grey area. Milind's query to MCC on this has resulted in a vague unclear answer. The only assumption, and a valid one, is that where wides/no balls have been shown against a bowler analysis, these are included in the bowling analysis runs.

Arijit's idea was that this single law change had a profound influence on the Bowling averages of bowlers over the past 25 plus years and that I should study this in depth. This seemed an excellent idea and I have been working on it for the past month. It turned out to be a complex exercise, because of the reasons outlined below.

This analysis concentrates almost totally on the post-1985 period, or more correctly the post-T1029 period. For the pre-T1029 period, I will present a single summary of the wides/no balls which would have been debited to the bowlers. This will give an idea of the possible increase in bowling averages.

For the first 1028 Tests the total number of wides/no balls stands at 15353 and the number of bowler wickets at 31727. This leads to a notional increase of 0.48 runs per wicket. For the next 1027 Tests the total number of wides/no balls stands at 29118 and the number of bowler wickets at 31449. This has led to an increase of 0.93 runs per wicket. This clearly shows a doubling of the number of wides/no balls post-T1029. This may be due to the stricter interpretation of extras-related rules, stricter handling of short balls, significant law changes and the increase in declaring a ball wide owing to the influence of ODIs.

Before anything, let me be clear that the overriding consideration in all these adjustments is simply that Team wides/no balls are king. These would remain sacrosanct. All adjustments will be done only with the bowler level wides/no balls. With this guiding principle I have ensured that the Team scores remain untouched. The salient points of this analysis are outlined below.

1. All scorecards, including the Cricinfo ones, do not include full information about the number of deliveries that were declared wide/no ball and how many runs were scored off these deliveries. When 5 wides are conceded, 5 runs are added properly to the team score, extras total, no balls tally in the team extras line and bowler runs conceded. However, somewhat inconsistently, this is shown as only 1 wide delivery against the bowler. Same is true for the rare case where 5 runs are scored off a no ball. As an example, please peruse the very last innings scorecard. Test # 2055, India-New Zealand Test at Bangalore. In the Indian second innings, Southee bowled a 5-ball wide in the team's second over. The extras shows 5 wides, team total and bowler runs are increased by 5 runs but only 1 wide is shown against Southee in the bowling analysis.

2. Even after Test # 1029, there are matches in which no wides and no balls are shown against the bowler analysis even though there are team wides and no balls. Nothing can be done about these and such Test matches are kept out of these calculations.

3. There are matches in which the team wides/no balls are less than the sum of the bowler wides/no balls. The adjustment here is simple. Reduce the bowler wides/no balls proportionately to match the team wides/no balls. Very logical and correct. If there is something wrongly done, I would rather assume that all mistakes are restricted to the bowler figures rather than the team numbers.

4. Now comes the difficult part. The team wides/no balls are higher than the sum of the bowler wides/no balls. This is a highly nuanced situation. There are many types of differences so I had to use a different method for each adjustment.

• Situations such as team line showing 5/6/7/8... wides/no balls and only one bowler 's analysis showing 1/2/3/4... wide/no ball. No problems since these are similar to the Southee situation. Just make the specific bowler's wides/no balls as 5 or 6 or whatever. Could as well be team showing 10 wides and bowler showing 2 wides. The key is an exact difference of multiple of 4 wides/no balls.
  
• Situations where the difference is x wides but more than one bowler has bowled the wides. I have taken a logical, if not the most accurate approach that the difference will be attributed to the bowler who has bowled most wides. For instance, if the team has 5 wides and two bowlers have bowled 1 and 2 wides, the additional 2 wides are allotted to the bowler who has captured 2 wides. May not be perfect but there is a good chance that it is correct.
  
• Sometimes there is no pattern. Team has been debited 8 wides and the bowler total is 3 wides. Nothing can be done about it and it is left as it is.
  
• For recent matches there was the option of perusing the commentary. However it is a thankless option and there is no way I could have done it because of the difficulty and the time required. 130 overs are shown in three screens and perusal of each delivery was needed. Browser search of wide is useless because of the "wide of point" type of commentary.
  
• In a few cases I have perused the scorecards and taken an intuitive and informed decision. By now I had got a clear idea of the bowler characteristics.

In view of my own physical condition, I am not going to offer detailed comments on the tables. I will present all the tables and at the end, summarise what I perceive are the key points. Readers can always contribute their bit and make this a discussion forum. Let me also say that I will publish many more comments without any response from me. I have to necessarily cut the amount of work I do. More often than not, I have to let my silence speak.

Since it is not possible to identify the wides/no balls conceded by the pre-T1029 bowlers, it is not possible to increase their averages. So the only fair method of comparison will be a notional reduction of the post-T1029 bowlers' averages.

75+ wickets bowlers ordered by reduction % of bowling average

200+ wickets bowlers with over 2.0% reduction % of bowling average

Top bowlers in order of wickets

Bowlers who have conceded most wides/no balls per Test

General Comments

1. Probably the most significant bowling average change is one for Curtly Ambrose. The already very low average of this great bowler has been further reduced to below-20.0, 19.93 to be exact, making comparisons with Syd Barnes possible.

2. The next two significant reductions are for two very dissimilar bowlers, Brett Lee and Shaun Pollock. Their bowling averages have been reduced by over 6%. Pollock's average has been reduced to a wonderful figure of 21.62. They have bowled over 600 wides/no balls. What may be the reason for an accurate bowler like bowling so many no balls?

3. Similarly two totally dissimilar bowlers head the % reduction: Malinga and Reiffel. A real paradox. One a tear-away slinger and the other, a seemingly accurate medium-pacer.

4. Look at Swann's tally of wides/no balls. He has bowled a single wide in his 5 year career. That was in the 2011 Birmingham Test against India. That must have been a momentous occasion. And the icing on the cake: these were 5 wides.

5. If Swann is so accurate, how does one explain Muralitharan's 388 no balls? Warne, on the other hand, seems to have bowled only 163 no balls.

6. Not just Murali. Why do so many top bowlers bowl so many no balls. Surely some of these resulted in loss of a wicket.

7. Look at Waqar Younis' accuracy, only 52 wides/no balls and compare the same with Wasim Akram's 400 wides/no balls. The faster bowler has far fewer wides/no balls.In fact Waqar Younis has the lowest wides/no balls per Test amongst the top pace bowlers.

8. Saqlain Mushtaq and Muralitharan have the highest average of wides/no balls per Test, for spinners, either side of 3.0. If we conclude that unconventional off-spin is the reason, then Harbhajan seems to have excellent control with only 0.22 wides/no balls per Test.

9. Now for the maximum number of wides and no balls bowled by a bowler in an innings. These are either from the raw unadjusted scorecard data or where the changes are 100% correct (1 wide in analysis line for a single bowler and 5 wides in team extras line).

• No Balls: Unusually high numbers are present. Wasim Akram, in Test # 1283 against South Africa (1995), conceded 21 No balls. Ambrose's analysis in Test # 1363 shows 21 No balls, but this is wrong since the bowler total is in excess of the Team totals. Hence only Wasim Akram's is the correct figure indisputably.
  
• Wides: There are two candidates. In Test # 1809 Pak against Eng (2006), Umar Gul conceded either 10 or 14 wides but not very clear. In Test # 1836 against Eng (2007), Collymore conceded either 10 or 14 wides but not very clear. I could peruse the commentaries to sort this out but it would amount to too much work for very little gains.
  
• Total WDs/NBs: There are two 22s and 23s each but in unclear situations. Hence the total high must be allotted to Wasim Akram, with 21 No balls and Vaas, in Test 1592 against Pak (2002) who conceded 1 wide and 20 no balls.

One final summary. I have given below the top-10 of the current Bowling average tables, for bowlers who have captured more than 150 wickets.

Barnes, Davidson, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Laker, Trueman, McGrath, Donald, Hadlee.

Now the same table with the wides/no balls removed for post-T1029 bowlers.

Barnes, Ambrose, Davidson, Marshall, McGrath, Garner, Laker, Trueman, Pollock, Donald.

The most significant change is Shaun Pollock moving from no.15 to no.9. Ambrose moves from 5 to 2. McGrath moves from 8 to 5. Muralitharan remains at no.11 in both tables.

Warne & McGrath            1001 wkts
Muralitharan & Vaas         895
Walsh & Ambrose             762
Wasim Akram & Waqar Younis  559
Willis & Botham             476
Donald & Pollock            397
Chandrasekhar & Bedi        368
Hadlee & B Cairns           337.

I have used my discretion only in two cases: South Africa and India. Pollock and Kallis have captured more wickets than Donald & Pollock. However I felt that I needed a real top quality bowling pair and have opted for the latter combination. Pollock & Ntini was another possibility. But I have gone with my heart in this selection as well as that of the Indian pair.

As far as India is concerned, I have not plumped for Kumble & Harbhajan against Chandrasekhar and Bedi even though the former pair has captured well over 100 wickets more. This is both nostalgia and a recognition, that these bowlers turned India into a force for the first time, albeit only at home. I am sure no reader would have any serious objections to the selection of this wonderful duo. My apologies to Kumble & Harbhajan.

Now for the two remaining pairs.

I decided that I would select an additional pair each from the two most successful bowling countries in history, viz., West Indies and Australia. For West Indies, I wanted a pair from the eighties even though Sobers & Gibbs are second, in terms of wickets. Ignoring repeats, the next best was Holding & Garner. But I bit the bullet and went for Garner & Marshall since I cannot think of any bowler analysis without Marshall. Anyhow Garner & Marshall have captured 322 wickets between them as against Holding & Garner, with 331.

Australia presented a few problems. Combinations involving Warne or McGrath were ruled out automatically. That presented me with two pairs: Benaud & Davidson with 346 and Miller & Lindwall with 345. It was an easy decision to select Miller & Lindwall, the pair from late-40s. That completes the top-10 bowling pairs.

Lillee, Thomson, Grimmett, O'Reilly et al did not meet the 100-wkts criterion. There was a case for Kumble & Harbhajan or Prasanna & Bedi or Pollock & Ntini, but the reasons have already been given. Imran & Qadir had 332 wickets but were way behind the great W-pair. Holding and Davidson just missed out.

I have considered each pair separately and presented a huge collection of data elements. It is going to be impossible to comment on all. I will only make comments on the special characteristics of each pair. The readers should download the huge table and do their own sub-analysis. I am sure there would be a comment or two that all these are available in Cricinfo and there is nothing new. That is fine.

Whoever made the debut earlier is named as the first bowler in each pair. All Tests between that debut and the retirement Test of latter constitute the overall range for various analyses. For the pair level analyses the range is strictly between the first and last Tests the pair operated together and only those in which they played together. Each pair has one graph and an exhaustive table. I have also distributed the comments across the pairs.

I have introduced two new concepts here. It is better that I explain these two now before moving on to the Pair details. Like the Form-Dip in the Lara article, these are the starting points and can be refined as we go on. Comments on these two will be very valuable to will fine-tune the ideas.

The first one is an analysis of the Pair-successes. I have considered only those innings in which the team captured 5 or more wickets. I consider that the pair has succeeded if they capture 50% or more of the team wickets. Examples are 3+ out of 5 & 6, 4+ out of 7 & 8 and 5+ out of 9 & 10. The idea is that since these were the premier pairs in their respective teams, they are expected to contribute at least 50% of the team wickets. Fairly subjective I agree, but there are some interesting results. The bar is set quite high but that is the way it should be.

The second is how the individuals performed within these pairs. For this analysis, I have considered only those innings in which the pair captured 5 or more wickets. The dominant bowler within the pair is identified as the one who leads 4-1 (and obviously 5-0) when 5 wickets are captured by the pair. Similarly, in case of 6 wickets captured by the pair, the dominant bowler is the one with 4-2 split (and the wider gaps).

This can be extended to 5-2 (and wider) for 7, 6-2 (and wider) for 8, 6-3 (and wider) for 9 and 7-3 (and wider) for 10 wickets. Again early days. But the idea is worth exploring.

The % of top-order wickets (1 to 6) is very close for all pairs and oscillates on either side of 60%. It is amazing that the % of top order wickets (1-6) is around 60% which is 6/10. I expected this figure to be around the 65% mark. Let me finish this discussion here itself. Only two pairs have this % figure around 66%: Donald & Pollock and Miller & Lindwall. However the big surprise is that Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis have a figure of 57.2%, the lowest amongst these pairs. Seems quite intriguing.

Similarly I will complete the discussion on the team against which the pairs captured their highest number of wickets at this point. Barring two pairs, the other eight pairs have captured their highest number of Tests against England, indicating the frequency of Tests played against England. Warne & McGrath lead with 267 wickets against England. The two other pairs are Akram and Younis, who reserved their best against West Indies and Willis & Botham, who, for some strange reason I cannot comprehend, failed to capture a single wicket against England, reserving their best for Australia.

The graphs, 10 in all, cannot be too big and show all information. Hence I have concentrated on showing relative average values and wins, especially away from home.

Warne & McGrath

P01. Warne 513 @ 24.88 & McGrath 488 @ 21.38 Total: 1001 @ 23.17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Warne       : 1181(1992)-1826(2007) 513 @ 24.88 (195 @ 26.83) 92.7%
McGrath     : 1235(1993)-1826(2007) 488 @ 21.38 ( 75 @ 23.35) 91.6%
Pair Career:  1235(1993) to 1826(2007)
All matches:          177      Wins: 111 (62.7 %)
Pair matches:         104      Wins:  71 (68.3 %)
Pair Home matches:     54      Wins:  43 (79.6 %)
Pair Away matches:     50      Wins:  28 (56.0 %)
Non-Pair matches:      73      Wins:  40 (54.8 %)
Non-Pair Home matches: 43      Wins:  25 (58.1 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 30      Wins:  15 (50.0 %)
Matches on their own  Warne: 41  McGrath: 20
Pair   Home wkts:  504 @ 24.40  Away wkts:  497 @ 21.93
Others Home wkts:  472 @ 27.24  Away wkts:  340 @ 32.29
Team Wkts:        1813 @ 25.94  WpT: 9.62  Pair %: 55.2
TeamPeerWkts:      812 @ 29.35
AllPeerWkts:     14765 @ 31.22
Top Order Wkts:    597 (59.6%)  Low Order Wkts:  221 (22.1%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 308 (61.1%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 289 (58.1%)
Highest vs England:  263 @ 21.97
Team wkts-5+: 183  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 118 (64.5%)
Pair wkts-5+: 118 Shared: 74 Warne-dominant: 23 McGrath-dominant: 21

Most figures are self-explanatory. Let me explain Warne's "513 @ 24.88 (195 @ 26.83) 92.7%" further. Warne captured 513 wickets at 24.88 when playing with McGrath and 195 wkts @ 26.83 without him. 92.7%, i.e. a figure below 100%, indicates that Warne's average improves when he plays with McGrath.

The pair-successes % stands at 64. A perusal of the remaining pairs shows that there are other pairs with better figures. That is understandable since those pairs might have constituted over 75% of the bowling strength of their respective teams, which is not true of Warne & McGrath. They also seem to have been fairly similar in the bowler-dominance numbers.

As expected this pair has highs in the overall win % and wickets per Test. Both of them have performed similarly, at just over 90%, when operating individually, indicating the good support available elsewhere. It is also surprising, but not unexpected, that the pair has performed better away than at home. They have also out-performed their own team-mates by well over 50%, away from Australia.

It is indeed very surprising that in their illustrious career Warne & McGrath have never captured all 10 wickets in an innings. Their best innings performance has been Test # 1590 against South Africa at Wanderers during 2002 when they captured 9 for 65 (4 for 44 & 5 for 21). Their best match performance has been 18 wickets (11 and 7) in Test # 1558 against England at Oval during 2001.

Conundrum of Test # 1313. I know there is a story behind it. There are a few instances of Miller not bowling a single ball in a Test when playing with Lindwall and that is understandable. But how does one explain the Hobart Test against Pakistan during 1995. In a match in which Australia bowled 150 overs, Warne did not bowl a single ball. Mark Waugh bowled 20 overs. Is it possible that Warne was injured since he did not bat in the second innings?

Summary of bowling career of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath
© Anantha Narayanan

Muralitharan & Vaas

P02. Muralitharan 586 @ 22.05 & Vaas 309 @ 28.01 Total: 895 @ 24.11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Muralitharan: 1195(1992)-1964(2010) 586 @ 22.05 (209 @ 24.40) 90.4%
Vaas        : 1267(1994)-1927(2009) 309 @ 28.01 ( 46 @ 40.11) 69.8%
Pair Career:  1270(1994) to 1909(2009)
All matches:          155      Wins:  59 (38.1 %)
Pair matches:          94      Wins:  41 (43.6 %)
Pair Home matches:     50      Wins:  27 (54.0 %)
Pair Away matches:     44      Wins:  14 (31.8 %)
Non-Pair matches:      59      Wins:  18 (30.5 %)
Non-Pair Home matches: 25      Wins:   5 (20.0 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 34      Wins:  13 (38.2 %)
Matches on their own  Muralitharan: 36  Vaas: 16
Pair   Home wkts:  534 @ 20.97  Away wkts:  361 @ 28.76
Others Home wkts:  317 @ 35.86  Away wkts:  226 @ 44.92
Team Wkts:        1438 @ 29.97  WpT: 9.52  Pair %: 62.2
TeamPeerWkts:      543 @ 39.63
AllPeerWkts:     16239 @ 31.40
Top Order Wkts:    544 (60.8%)  Low Order Wkts:  187 (20.9%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 310 (58.1%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 234 (64.8%)
Highest vs England:  139 @ 23.22
Team wkts-5+: 145  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 115 (79.3%)
Pair wkts-5+: 116 Shared: 69 Muralitharan-dominant: 40 Vaas-dominant: 7

As expected, this is a pair with wide differences, especially in bowling averages. Muralitharan has dominated their successful innings in a big manner: 40-7. But as a pair they have succeeded a huge 79% of the times, the highest in this analysis.

Readers can see how much they have out-performed their own team bowlers in almost every measure. The bowling averages show a 60% difference. The win % drops substantially. As a pair, they captured 62% of the team wickets: the highest in this analysis. But here the story also is also about how dependent was Vaas on Muralitharan. With Murali, he averaged 28 and without Murali the average went up to 40. Murali himself seems to have gone his own merry way, with or without Vaas, with averages of 22 and 24.

Murali & Vaas have captured all 10 wickets in the innings no fewer than 4 times. Their best innings performance has been Test # 1755 against West Indies at SSC during 2005 when they captured 10 for 51 (6 for 36 & 4 for 15). Their best match performance has been 17 wickets (11 and 6) in Test # 1567 against West Indies at Gale during 2001. They also captured 17 wickets (3 and 14) in Test # 1572 against West Indies at SSC during 2001. Both Tests were played during the series with the unlikely combination of 3-0 and 688 losing runs. The series is also a special one in a way: almost the only series in which Vaas out-performed Muralitharan.

Summary of bowling career of Muttiah Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas
© Anantha Narayanan

Walsh & Ambrose

P03. Walsh 373 @ 24.29 & Ambrose 389 @ 21.12 Total: 762 @ 22.67
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Walsh       : 0997(1984)-1544(2001) 373 @ 24.29 (146 @ 24.82) 97.9%
Ambrose     : 1095(1988)-1509(2000) 389 @ 21.12 ( 16 @ 17.88) 118.1%
Pair Career:  1095(1988) to 1509(2000)
All matches:          142      Wins:  59 (41.5 %)
Pair matches:          95      Wins:  42 (44.2 %)
Pair Home matches:     50      Wins:  24 (48.0 %)
Pair Away matches:     45      Wins:  18 (40.0 %)
Non-Pair matches:      47      Wins:  17 (36.2 %)
Non-Pair Home matches:  8      Wins:   3 (37.5 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 39      Wins:  14 (35.9 %)
Matches on their own  Walsh: 37  Ambrose: 3
Pair   Home wkts:  379 @ 23.06  Away wkts:  383 @ 22.29
Others Home wkts:  400 @ 31.41  Away wkts:  329 @ 32.53
Team Wkts:        1491 @ 27.19  WpT: 8.02  Pair %: 51.1
TeamPeerWkts:      729 @ 31.91
AllPeerWkts:     10257 @ 30.32
Highest vs England:  287 @ 21.92
Top Order Wkts:    474 (62.2%)  Low Order Wkts:  153 (20.1%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 233 (61.5%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 241 (62.9%)
Team wkts-5+: 147  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 87 (59.2%)
Pair wkts-5+: 90 Shared: 56 Walsh-dominant: 14 Ambrose-dominant: 20

This is not necessarily the most successful West Indian pair. However they did capture over 750 wickets.

Ambrose has dominated the pair slightly, as shown by the 20-14 division in the dominance analysis. They have also succeeded nearly 60% of the times, indicating a lack of great bowling support.

That they bowled during the waning period for West Indies is shown by the win % values, which are all in the 40+ region. However as a pair they averaged 22.67 which is the third best in this analysis. Ambrose picked almost all wickets, barring 17, while bowling with Walsh. Their WpT is a not-too-great 8 and they have captured around half the team wickets.

Walsh & Ambrose have captured all 10 wickets in the innings once. This was in Test # 1188 against South Africa at Bridgetown at Wanderer's during 1992 when they captured for 10 for 65 (6 for 31 & 6 for 34). Their best match performance has been 16 wickets (5 & 11) in Test # 1257 against England at POS during 1994.

Summary of bowling career of Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose
© Anantha Narayanan

Akram & Younis

P04. Akram 282 @ 21.33 & Younis 277 @ 22.93 Total: 559 @ 22.12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Akram       : 1010(1985)-1584(2002) 282 @ 21.33 (132 @ 28.51) 74.8%
Younis      : 1127(1989)-1637(2003) 277 @ 22.93 ( 96 @ 25.39) 90.3%
Pair Career:  1127(1989) to 1584(2002)
All matches:          143      Wins:  54 (37.8 %)
Pair matches:          60      Wins:  28 (46.7 %)
Pair Home matches:     22      Wins:  10 (45.5 %)
Pair Away matches:     38      Wins:  18 (47.4 %)
Non-Pair matches:      82      Wins:  26 (31.7 %)
Non-Pair Home matches: 22      Wins:   7 (31.8 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 60      Wins:  19 (31.7 %)
Matches on their own  Akram: 43  Younis: 26
Pair   Home wkts:  223 @ 20.27  Away wkts:  336 @ 23.35
Others Home wkts:  142 @ 32.46  Away wkts:  272 @ 32.68
Team Wkts:         973 @ 26.58  WpT: 9.32  Pair %: 57.5
TeamPeerWkts:      414 @ 32.60
AllPeerWkts:     11463 @ 30.37
Top Order Wkts:    320 (57.2%)  Low Order Wkts:  145 (25.9%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 130 (58.3%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 190 (56.5%)
Highest vs West Indies:  104 @ 21.22
Team wkts-5+:  96  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 67 (69.8%)
Pair wkts-5+: 66 Shared: 45 Akram-dominant: 12 Younis-dominant: 9

Ah we now come to probably the most colourful bowling pair which ever took the red cherry. Two totally different individuals and bowlers, yet together they became arguably the most fearsome and feared bowling pair ever.

The first thing that strikes is the difference in the two bowlers when they bowled together and separately. Waqar was quite effective bowling alone, operating at around 90%. However Wasim was lost without Waqar. Most of these matches were during the early years. Wasim was acting at only around 75% of his pair averages when he was bowling alone. In fact it can be seen that this is by far the lowest figure amongst all pairs for one bowler.

The pair captured had a success rate of nearly 70%. Akram was slightly more dominant than Younis by a 12-9 margin. Their win %s were all below 50. They had an excellent WpT figure of well over 9 together.

Akram and Younis have captured all 10 wickets in the innings twice. Their best innings performance has been Test # 1257 against Sri Lanka at Kandy during 1994 when they bowled unchanged on the opening day and captured 10 for 66 (4 for 32 & 6 for 34). Their best match performance has been 17 wickets (8 & 9) in Test # 1207 against New Zealand at Hamilton during 1993. In addition, they have captured 16 wickets thrice and 15 wickets 6 times. Imagine: 15 or more wickets in a match captured an astonishing 10 times!

Summary of bowling career of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis
© Anantha Narayanan

Willis & Botham

P05. Willis 222 @ 24.63 & Botham 254 @ 25.67 Total: 476 @ 25.18
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Willis      : 0676(1971)-0991(1984) 222 @ 24.63 (103 @ 26.44) 93.2%
Botham      : 0806(1977)-1190(1992) 254 @ 25.67 (129 @ 33.78) 76.0%
Pair Career:  0806(1977) to 0991(1984)
All matches:          223      Wins:  61 (27.4 %)
Pair matches:          60      Wins:  25 (41.7 %)
Pair Home matches:     33      Wins:  17 (51.5 %)
Pair Away matches:     27      Wins:   8 (29.6 %)
Non-Pair matches:     162      Wins:  36 (22.2 %)
Non-Pair Home matches: 91      Wins:  16 (17.6 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 71      Wins:  20 (28.2 %)
Matches on their own  Willis: 30  Botham: 41
Pair   Home wkts:  288 @ 23.43  Away wkts:  188 @ 27.87
Others Home wkts:  227 @ 29.69  Away wkts:  224 @ 29.03
Team Wkts:         927 @ 27.22  WpT: 7.93  Pair %: 51.3
TeamPeerWkts:      451 @ 29.36
AllPeerWkts:      4559 @ 30.16
Top Order Wkts:    299 (62.8%)  Low Order Wkts:   93 (19.5%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 180 (62.5%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 119 (63.3%)
Highest vs Australia:  183 @ 25.24
Team wkts-5+:  92  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 55 (59.8%)
Pair wkts-5+: 55 Shared: 28 Willis-dominant: 9 Botham-dominant: 18

Unlike Akram, Willis' figures do not drop off at the start of the career possibly because he had a good set of bowlers bowling with him, led by Snow during his early years. However Botham, without Willis at the other end, was as spent a force as Akram. His average increases by over 30%. Their pair-success value is around 60. The RpT value is below 8. However Botham was the more dominant bowler by a big margin of 18-9 in those situations where they succeeded.

Willis & Botham have captured all 10 wickets in the innings no fewer than three times. Their best innings performance has been Test # 826 against Pakistan at Lord's during 1978 when they captured 10 for 60 (2 for 26 & 8 for 34). Their best match performance has been 16 wickets (5 and 11) in Test # 830 against New Zealand at Lord's during 1978.

Summary of bowling career of Bob Willis and Ian Botham
© Anantha Narayanan

Donald & Pollock

P06. Donald 208 @ 22.02 & Pollock 189 @ 21.66 Total: 397 @ 21.85
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald      : 1188(1992)-1590(2002) 208 @ 22.02 (122 @ 22.66) 97.2%
Pollock     : 1312(1995)-1860(2008) 189 @ 21.66 (232 @ 24.31) 89.1%
Pair Career:  1312(1995) to 1582(2002)
All matches:          155      Wins:  72 (46.5 %)
Pair matches:          47      Wins:  23 (48.9 %)
Pair Home matches:     28      Wins:  17 (60.7 %)
Pair Away matches:     19      Wins:   6 (31.6 %)
Non-Pair matches:     107      Wins:  49 (45.8 %)
Non-Pair Home matches: 30      Wins:  13 (43.3 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 77      Wins:  36 (46.8 %)
Matches on their own  Donald: 25  Pollock: 60
Pair   Home wkts:  242 @ 20.79  Away wkts:  155 @ 23.49
Others Home wkts:  217 @ 29.14  Away wkts:  148 @ 34.64
Team Wkts:         762 @ 26.41  WpT: 8.45  Pair %: 52.1
TeamPeerWkts:      365 @ 31.37
AllPeerWkts:      6800 @ 30.22
Top Order Wkts:    265 (66.8%)  Low Order Wkts:   80 (20.2%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 163 (67.4%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 102 (65.8%)
Highest vs England:  116 @ 22.76
Team wkts-5+:  78  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 46 (59.0%)
Pair wkts-5+: 44 Shared: 36 Donald-dominant: 3 Pollock-dominant: 5

Look at how close Donald's and Pollock's figures are. The averages are all around 22, the best in this analysis. Donald bowled as effectively without Pollock while Pollock needed the pace of Donald a bit more. Pollock has played many more matches without Donald than any other bowler in this 20 bowler collection. Look at the dominance analysis. They have the highest shared % of all pairs. Very few innings in which either bowler has dominated: only 3-5. A very high level of top order batsmen scalps. And very impressive away averages for the pair.

Donald & Pollock have captured all 10 wickets in the innings twice. Their best innings performance has been Test # 1471 against England at Wanderer's during 1999 when they captured 10 for 69 (6 for 53 and 4 for 16). Their best match performance has been an unprecedented 19 wickets (10 and 9) in the same Test. This is the only instance of one of these pairs capturing 19 wickets in a match.

Summary of bowling career of Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock
© Anantha Narayanan

Chandrasekhar & Bedi

P07. Chandrasekhar 184 @ 28.71 & Bedi 184 @ 27.22 Total: 368 @ 27.96
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandrasekhar: 0552(1964)-0851(1979) 184 @ 28.71 ( 58 @ 33.05) 86.9%
Bedi        :  0612(1967)-0854(1979) 184 @ 27.22 ( 82 @ 32.05) 84.9%
Pair Career:   0612(1967) to 0837(1978)
All matches:           87      Wins:  21 (24.1 %)
Pair matches:          42      Wins:  11 (26.2 %)
Pair Home matches:     20      Wins:   7 (35.0 %)
Pair Away matches:     22      Wins:   4 (18.2 %)
Non-Pair matches:      45      Wins:  10 (22.2 %)
Non-Pair Home matches:  9      Wins:   2 (22.2 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 36      Wins:   8 (22.2 %)
Matches on their own  Chandrasekhar: 16  Bedi: 25
Pair   Home wkts:  191 @ 25.09  Away wkts:  177 @ 31.07
Others Home wkts:  109 @ 36.02  Away wkts:  123 @ 47.26
Team Wkts:         600 @ 33.38  WpT: 8.76  Pair %: 61.3
TeamPeerWkts:      232 @ 41.98
AllPeerWkts:      5835 @ 30.23
Top Order Wkts:    224 (60.9%)  Low Order Wkts:   77 (20.9%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 111 (58.1%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 113 (63.8%)
Highest vs England:  162 @ 26.40
Team wkts-5+:  60  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 46 (76.7%)
Pair wkts-5+: 45 Shared: 33 Chandrasekhar-dominant: 7 Bedi-dominant: 5

The romantic era of the 60s-70s when spin was king, queen and everything else.

Indian wins were not too many during this era and this pair did well, especially at home. They both bowled very well together and fell off by 15% when bowling separately. Look at their very decent away performance: an average of 31. And look at the awful away figures of the other bowlers even though there was one Prasanna in that group. And when India captured 5 wickets, these two were successful a huge 75%. They also seem to have shared the wickets fairly equitably amongst themselves.

Each was lost without the other. In three matches, Bedi had figures of 1 for 163, 1 for 152 and 1 for 146 without Chandra. He did quite well when Chandra joined him in between.. In between the latter two expensive 1-wicket hauls, this time Chandra on his own, captured 2 for 102.

Chandra & Bedi have captured all 10 wickets in the innings no fewer than three times. Their best innings performance has been Test # 812 against Australia at MCG during 1978 when they captured 10 for 110 (6 for 52 & 4 for 58). In the same match they also captured 18 wickets (12 and 6).

Summary of bowling career of Bishen Singh Bedi and BS Chandrasekhar
© Anantha Narayanan

Hadlee & Cairns

P08. Hadlee 207 @ 22.02 & Cairns 130 @ 32.58 Total: 337 @ 26.10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hadlee      : 0710(1973)-1147(1990) 207 @ 22.02 (224 @ 22.55) 97.7%
Cairns      : 0730(1974)-1031(1985) 130 @ 32.58 (  0 @  0.00)  0.0%
Pair Career:  0730(1974) to 1031(1985)
All matches:          100      Wins:  22 (22.0 %)
Pair matches:          42      Wins:  12 (28.6 %)
Pair Home matches:     23      Wins:   9 (39.1 %)
Pair Away matches:     19      Wins:   3 (15.8 %)
Non-Pair matches:      58      Wins:  10 (17.2 %)
Non-Pair Home matches: 11      Wins:   1 ( 9.1 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 47      Wins:   9 (19.1 %)
Matches on their own  Hadlee: 44  Cairns: 1
Pair   Home wkts:  188 @ 23.48  Away wkts:  149 @ 29.40
Others Home wkts:  137 @ 32.07  Away wkts:  127 @ 39.46
Team Wkts:         601 @ 30.28  WpT: 8.02  Pair %: 56.1
TeamPeerWkts:      264 @ 35.63
AllPeerWkts:      7911 @ 30.35
Top Order Wkts:    204 (60.5%)  Low Order Wkts:   71 (21.1%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 118 (62.8%)  Top Order Away Wkts:  86 (57.7%)
Highest vs England:   72 @ 27.76
Team wkts-5+:  59  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 38 (64.4%)
Pair wkts-5+: 38 Shared: 22 Hadlee-dominant: 14 Cairns-dominant: 2

This is the only pair in which one bowler, Cairns, has got all his wickets, bowling with the other bowler. He bowled, by himself, in one match (#758) and got 0 for 44. As expected Hadlee dominates by a huge factor of 14-2. I myself am interested in knowing about those two occasions. In match # 958, Cairns took 7 for 74 and Hadlee 0 for 44. A few matches later Cairns captured 7 for 143 and Hadlee, 2 for 97. That is all.

They did quite well at home and held their own away from home. There is no doubt Hadlee was the mainstay but Cairns played the supporting role very effectively.

Hadlee & Cairns have never captured all 10 wickets in an innings. Their best innings performance has been Test # 875 against West Indies at Christchurch during 1980 when they captured 9 for 143 (3 for 58 & 6 for 85). Their best match performance has been 14 wickets (11 and 3) in the earlier match of that series, Test # 873 at Dunedin. A rare win for New Zealand over the mighty West Indies.

Summary of bowling career of Richard Hadlee and Lance Cairns
© Anantha Narayanan

Garner & Marshall

P09. Garner 152 @ 21.38 & Marshall 170 @ 22.02 Total: 322 @ 21.72
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Garner      : 0797(1977)-1072(1987) 152 @ 21.38 (107 @ 20.40) 104.8%
Marshall    : 0837(1978)-1175(1991) 170 @ 22.02 (206 @ 20.06) 109.8%
Pair Career:  0880(1980) to 1072(1987)
All matches:          117      Wins:  56 (47.9 %)
Pair matches:          36      Wins:  20 (55.6 %)
Pair Home matches:     18      Wins:  12 (66.7 %)
Pair Away matches:     18      Wins:   8 (44.4 %)
Non-Pair matches:      81      Wins:  36 (44.4 %)
Non-Pair Home matches: 14      Wins:   5 (35.7 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 67      Wins:  31 (46.3 %)
Matches on their own  Garner: 22  Marshall: 45
Pair   Home wkts:  161 @ 21.09  Away wkts:  161 @ 22.35
Others Home wkts:  149 @ 27.46  Away wkts:  140 @ 27.13
Team Wkts:         611 @ 24.36  WpT: 8.94  Pair %: 52.7
TeamPeerWkts:      289 @ 27.30
AllPeerWkts:      4687 @ 31.27
Top Order Wkts:    192 (59.6%)  Low Order Wkts:   69 (21.4%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 102 (63.4%)  Top Order Away Wkts:  90 (55.9%)
Highest vs England:  141 @ 19.30
Team wkts-5+:  60  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 39 (65.0%)
Pair wkts-5+: 38 Shared: 25 Garner-dominant: 5 Marshall-dominant: 8

The first of the two special selections. These two greats might very well have warranted the top selection on their own. Look at their numbers. All pair values are around the 22 mark, almost the same as Donald & Pollock. The surprise is the overall win % mark. I would have expected a slightly higher figure, somewhere around the 60-65% mark. But does not matter. A wonderful away average and an out-of-the-world performance against England mark this pair's achievements.

As expected, Garner & Marshall have never captured all 10 wickets in an innings. Their best innings performance has been Test # 991 against England at Leeds during 1984 when they captured 9 for 90 (2 for 32 and 7 for 53). Their best match performance has been 13 wickets (5 and 8) in Test # 988 against Australia at Kingston during 1984.

Summary of bowling career of Joel Garner and Malcolm Marshall
© Anantha Narayanan

Miller & Lindwall

P10. Miller 150 @ 23.69 & Lindwall 195 @ 22.48 Total: 345 @ 23.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller      : 0275(1946)-0430(1956) 150 @ 23.69 ( 20 @ 17.65) 134.2%
Lindwall    : 0275(1946)-0487(1960) 195 @ 22.48 ( 33 @ 26.30) 85.5%
Pair Career:  0275(1946) to 0430(1956)
All matches:           78      Wins:  44 (56.4 %)
Pair matches:          51      Wins:  28 (54.9 %)
Pair Home matches:     26      Wins:  17 (65.4 %)
Pair Away matches:     25      Wins:  11 (44.0 %)
Non-Pair matches:      27      Wins:  16 (59.3 %)
Non-Pair Home matches:  4      Wins:   1 (25.0 %)
Non-Pair Away matches: 23      Wins:  15 (65.2 %)
Matches on their own  Miller: 4  Lindwall: 10
Pair   Home wkts:  180 @ 20.84  Away wkts:  165 @ 25.36
Others Home wkts:  278 @ 26.02  Away wkts:  218 @ 30.72
Team Wkts:         841 @ 26.00  WpT: 6.76  Pair %: 41.0
TeamPeerWkts:      496 @ 28.08
AllPeerWkts:      3406 @ 29.41
Top Order Wkts:    229 (66.4%)  Low Order Wkts:   63 (18.3%)
Top Order Home Wkts: 119 (66.1%)  Top Order Away Wkts: 110 (66.7%)
Highest vs England:  174 @ 22.39
Team wkts-5+:  85  Pair-Successes (50% of Team or more): 33 (38.8%)
Pair wkts-5+: 32 Shared: 17 Miller-dominant: 4 Lindwall-dominant: 11

Lindwall & Miller have very good figures but these were good years for bowling. Good win % values indicate the superiority of Australia during the 1946-55 period. Their Wickets per Test is the lowest amongst these pairs and does not even reach 7. This is also reflected in the low % of pair successes. They have always been quite consistent at home or away.

Since Miller & Lindwall were never the dominating bowling pair in the attack, they have never captured all 10 wickets in an innings. Their best innings performance has been Test # 408 against West Indies at Kingston during 1955 when they captured 8 for 171 (6 for 107 & 2 for 64). Their best match performance has been 14 wickets (7 and 7) in Test # 341 against West Indies at SCG during 1952.

Summary of bowling career of Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller
© Anantha Narayanan

Please peruse the following few lines. This is worthy of a special comment. Two wonderful bowlers, almost working like Siamese twins together. I wish I had got them in. At least I have given them a belated salute.

Statham 141 @ 25.72 & Trueman 143 @ 25.76 Total: 284 @ 25.74
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Statham    : 0332(1951)-0596(1965) 141 @ 25.72 (111 @ 23.74) 108.3%
Trueman    : 0351(1952)-0592(1965) 143 @ 25.76 (164 @ 17.93) 143.7%
Pair Career: 0380(1954) to 0547(1963)
Pair wkts-5+: 34 Shared: 28 Statham-dominant: 3 Trueman-dominant: 3

The summary table with key data elements is displayed here. No special comments are needed.

1. How does one handle the six-year voids which were caused by the two World Wars? The careers of some great players like Barnes and Verity were curtailed and the careers of top players such as Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, Compton et al got disrupted. I had to find a satisfactory methodology which handled this effectively.

2. This is predominantly a performance analysis: hence the decade has to be strictly defined. At the same time the careers of Pietersen (Twitter-gaffes notwithstanding), Cook, Gambhir et al, which might fall short of the qualifying ten-year periods, have to be recognized.

3. The peer adjustment has to be crisp and clear and has to make a telling impact. While the bowling comparisons have to be across the board, the batting peer comparisons have to be restricted to the Top-7 batsmen.

Keeping these in mind, I have worked on the following criteria and methodology.

1. The decade is strictly and exactly defined, match to match. There are very few exceptions to the 10-year requirement which are explained below.

2. The war-years, as far this analysis is concerned, are just wiped off. How I wish I could move the clock back and do it in real life. Millions of lives could have been saved!!! Enough of this wishful thinking. Tests 134 and 135 are, in real life, around six-plus years apart. As do the Tests 274 and 275. But this period is reduced to nothing as far as this analysis is concerned. In other words, the period 1908-1922 becomes eight years or thereabout. Similarly 1938-1954 is equivalent to ten years.

3. S.F.Barnes played his last Test during 1914 and did not play thereafter. And his best years were between 1907 and 1914. Hence the period of seven years has been accepted for him. Verity played his last Test in 1939 and then died on the battle-fields. His entire career lasted eight years from 1931 to 1939. Hence this has been considered valid. Note the subtle differences between the careers of these two great bowlers.

4. It was indeed fortunate that Bradman's best decade was between 1929 and 1939. So no problems. However the best years for Hobbs, Hammond and Hutton, spanned the wars and their "decades" are allowed to go past 10 years.

5. For the best performance analysis, no concession is given to anyone else, including the recent players. However for the total runs/wickets analysis it really does not matter if the career has lasted below 10 years.

6. The Top-7 Batting average for the specific range of Tests is considered for peer comparisons. This is compared to the all-time Top-7 Batting average of 35.92 and then adjusted. Couple of examples will explain this.

The average for Kallis is a very high 66.13, between 2001 and 2011, when the T7-Avge for all players, other than Kallis, was 39.03. So his average is adjusted to 60.86 (66.13 x 35.92 / 39.03). On the other side, Harvey averaged 54.40 between 1948 and 1958 when the T7-Avge for all players, except Harvey, was 33.80. So his average is adjusted to 57.82 (54.40 x 35.92 / 33.80).

7. For peer comparisons the all-inclusive Bowling average for the specific range of Tests is taken. This is compared to the all-time all-inclusive Bowling average which is 32.0. This is necessary because the wickets are captured across all batting positions.

Harbhajan's best decade average was a somewhat high 29.92 between 1999 and 2009 when the Bowling Avge for all bowlers, sans Harbhajan, was at a higher level of 34.08. So his average is adjusted to 28.09 (29.92 x 32.0 / 34.08). On the other hand, Laker averaged 18.56 at his peak between 1949 and 1959, a bowler-dominated decade, during which the Bowling Avge for all bowlers, other than Laker, was a low 29.4. So his average is adjusted to 20.20 (18.56 x 32.0 / 29.4)

Batsman best decade analysis: Based on adjusted average

Bradman's best decade was between 1929 and 1939, as expected. The adjusted batting average is 103.93 (unadjusted avge 104.02), which is around 4% above his career batting average. This indicates that virtually any decade of Bradman is likely to produce a number around 100. Sobers, whose adjusted average is a magnificent 73.75 (73.04), between 1958 and 1968 is in second place. It is the first time a player, over a long period of 10 years, comes within 30% of Bradman. Hobbs, with a best decade spread across the WW1 (1912 to 1926) is next with 70.65 (65.21). Walcott and Weekes follow, with adjusted averages either side of 65.

Tendulkar, with a best decade of 1992 to 2002, appears next in the list with 63.19 (62.45), followed by the old-timers, Barrington, Sutcliffe and Hutton, comfortably in excess of 60. Jacques Kallis rounds off the top-10 with an adjusted average of 60.86, between 2001 and 2011, seriously adjusted downwards from 66.13. He is in fact third in the unadjusted table. This confirms the significant impact of adjusting against peer values.

Bowler best decade analysis: Based on adjusted average

For obvious reasons I have ignored Lohmann who had a best decade with 100+ wickets at 10+. These were days about which we really cannot come to a decision and are not comparable with later periods. Hence the cut-off is 1900.

There is a real, real surprise at the top. This should make people sit up and take notice. Imran Khan, between 1979 and 1989 had an adjusted bowling average of 18.37 (18.26). He gained almost nothing through peer adjustment. Who could have imagined that Imran Khan would have leapt over many other fancied bowlers? He captured 250 wickets during this period and improved his bowling average from 31.72 to 22.21. That single sentence is sufficient.

Barnes comes in second with an average of 18.57 (16.46). There was a significant adjustment for the period. Readers should note that the period for Barnes has been accepted at seven years owing to the WW1 intervention. Muralitharan, between 1997 and 2007, captured 575 wickets at 18.60 (19.53). Hadlee, who captured 293 wickets at 19.07 (19.17) between 1979 and 1989 follows next. Marshall completes the top-5 with 316 wickets at 19.09.

The next five bowlers represent the very best bowling talent that ever played the game - McGrath, Ambrose, O'Reilly, Laker and Garner. These 10 are probably on anyone's list of the top dozen bowlers. Laker's average has had a major downward adjustment. Wasim and Waqar follow in 11th and 13th positions.

Batsmen best decade analysis: Top Run-scorers in a decade

This is a simple run-based analysis. As such there are no restrictions and the current players also qualify. After all if Cook accumulates over 6000 runs in 6 years and counting, why should he not get ahead of Gooch who accumulated nearly as many runs in 10 years?

Ponting is the only batsman in history to accumulate over 10000 runs in 10 years. This is a stand-out achievement and has to be recognized. He did this between 2000 and 2010. Kallis accumulated 9318 runs between 2001 and 2011. Dravid, Lara and Sangakkara amassed either side of 9000 runs in 10 years.

Hayden accumulated 8365 runs, but in 9 years. This was after his break and return. Hence 9 years is fine. Then Tendulkar and Jayawardene follow.

Cook leads in the matter of Runs per year, having accumulated 6555 runs in 6 years at an average of 1092. Pietersen is the only other batsman to average more than 1000 runs per year along with Ponting.

Readers should realize the difficulty in maintaining a 1000 runs per year average over 10 years. Mohammad Yousuf had the greatest of years during 2006 when he scored 1788 runs but could accumulate only 5000 runs during the other 9 years of his best decade. In three years, 2003, 2005 and 2006, Ponting accumulated nearly 4500 runs, but had to bat outstandingly well to compile 5500 runs in 7 years.

Bowler best decade analysis: Top Wicket-takers in a decade

Muralitharan had a golden decade from 1998 and 2008 during which he accumulated 588 wickets at an average of over 58 per year. He is followed by the wonderful bowling pair of Warne and McGrath who accumulated 480 odd wickets between around 1995 and 2005. Kumble is next with 430 wickets in the decade beginning 1998. Pollock, Ntini and Harbhajan appear next in this list. Botham is the only non-modern bowler, indicating the recent profusion of Test matches.

Let us think for a second. In a period of 10 years, Muralitharan captured nearly 600 wickets in 10 years. Only 42 bowlers in 135 years have captured more than Muralitharan's average of 58.8 wickets per year. The highest tally is by Warne, during 2005, with 96 wickets, followed by Muralitharan, with 90 wickets in 2006.

The top batsmen in a decade

Graph of adjusted averages for batsmen (best decade)
© Anantha Narayanan

The graphs are self-explanatory. The idea is not to show the relative position of the averages but rather the positioning across the years. The 1950s-60s seem to be the golden years of batting since there are four batsmen present in the top-10 with high averages.

The top bowlers in a decade

Graph of adjusted averages for bowlers (best decade)
© Anantha Narayanan

It must be remembered that the Y-axis is not really to exact scale in view of the close bunching of players with similar values. The bowling decades are the 1980s-90s.

In order to get a reasonable number into the analysis set, I lowered my initial qualification criterion of 100 dismissals to 75. 48 keepers qualify and this seems to be a fair number. On an average this represents a lower limit of 20-30 Tests, which is a Test career between 3 and 5 years.

1. Total Dismissals (All tables current upto Test 2054 (Ind-Nzl First Test))

This is the base table and is ordered on the number of Dismissals. This is not just a longevity based achievement. To play over 100 matches, as a top-flight keeper, is something incredible and has to be recognized. An important fact to be noted is that the number of Tests shown are the Tests in which the players played as wicketkeepers. For two players, Sangakkara and Alec Stewart, this distinction is significant since they have played a number of Tests as batsmen. Andy Flower and Parore have also played a few Tests as batsmen. This table lists the keepers who effected over 200 dismissals.

The table is topped by the peerless South African keeper, Boucher, and then come three top keepers from Australia. Dujon follows next and then Knott and Stewart. The top-10 is rounded off by Bari and Dhoni.

Readers are likely to come in with comments that the misses by keepers are not included. This is true because the data is not available. Cricinfo might have the data for the past few years or so but not for over 75% of the Tests. And I will not make any guess-work. My analysis is based 100% on the available verifiable data.

2. Dismissals per Test

This is a performance measure. Dismissals per Test is a very important parameter to measure the keepers' contribution to the team. Only two keepers have effected more than 4 dismissals per Test, which works out an average of 30% of the team dismissals. Readers might argue that the bowlers create the opportunities for dismissals. However that is only partly true. The keepers have to gauge the bounce and stand in the correct position and posture. It is my belief that only one-in-three catches travel straight to the keepers. The other two have to be caught well. Anyhow 4+ dismissals per Test goes a long way in influencing the result in the team's favour. 3.06 is the overall average.

In the top-9 keepers, Langley, with a figure of 3.77 belongs to the 1950s and Marsh, with 3.70, belongs to the 1970s. The others all are current or recently retired. Why I wonder. More opportunities? Better techniques?

At the other end, we have Ames from way back, Khaled Mashud and Engineer. The last two have fewer than 2 dismissals per Test. Why should Engineer's numbers be so low, almost matching the numbers of top slip fielders. Possibly many of the spinners' wickets would have been effected through catches to close fielders, rather than keeper.

3. Dismissals as % of similar team dismissals

This is a nice-to-view table and is not used in any Ratings work. Alexander of West Indies had a hand in 44% of his team's similar dismissals. And look at Kamran Akmal: he has had a hand in over 44% of his team dismissals. That is something. Saleem Yousuf has a similar 40-plus % figure. Gilchrist makes it to the top-10, with an impressive figure of 37.2%. One-third seems to be the overall average.

At the other end, Engineer clocks in with a very low 21.1%, as expected.

4. Byes/Test

The Byes per Test is a measure of the keeping quality. Somewhat indirectly, would it also have a correlation with the chances missed? Downton is somewhere in the stratosphere with an average of only 2.8 byes per Test. Richardson, the current CEO of ICC, also has a very low figure of 3.5, matched by Khaled Mashud. A few other not-so-well-known keepers have low byes/Test figures of around 5.0. 7.0 byes/match seems to be an above average performance level. 6.9 byes/match is the overall average.

The last three have all conceded more than 10 byes per Test. Ames probably has a high figure because of the way England bowled during the 1930s.

5. Stumping %

Number of stumpings and the % of total keeper-dismissals is another nice-to-have information. It really has no bearing on evaluation of a keeper performance: rather, reflects the way the bowling attacks were formed. Oldfield, keeping to Grimmett and O'Reilly, has got 40% of his dismissals as stumpings. No surprises there. Same with Ames. Lilley was a pre-WW1 keeper. Note Prasanna Jayawardene's high share of 23%, no doubt due to Muralitharan's presence and recently Herath. Two Indian keepers of old and Imtiaz come in afterwards.

At the other end are couple of West Indian keepers and the CEO of ICC. They probably did not keep to any quality spinner. Less than 2% means stumpings for these keepers were as rare as Haley's (or more aptly, here, Healy's) comet.

6. Total Runs

Now we come to the batting measures. First the simple measure of Runs scored. Readers should remember that these are only the runs scored when the player played as a keeper. So Sangakkara, Stewart et al will have lower figures. Gilchrist leads with a tally of 5570 runs, but in only 96 Tests. Boucher has a slightly lower figure, but in 51 more Tests. Stewart and Flower, the batsmen-keepers, are next. Knott follows afterwards. Dhoni is likely to accumulate quite a few runs and may very well usurp Gilchrist from the top spot before his career is over. Sangakkara is unlikely to add any runs since he is unlikely to resume wicket-keeping duties in tests. Prior and McCullum could add a few.

The average Batting position is also shown. As expected most keepers have this figure well in excess of 6, other than Stewart, Flower and Sangakkara. This indicates that they batted in positions 7 and higher. One reason why I have not done the compilation of the runs added by the keepers with the lower order. Since they seem to have batted at no.7 and afterwards, most of the runs scored would have been with the late-order batsmen.

7. Runs/Test

This is a great performance measure. I have gone on the less used Runs per Test measure than the Batting average since the latter figure is likely to be inflated seriously with many not outs since the keepers, traditionally, are late order batsmen. How many runs per Test, in addition to the dismissals, is a far more important measure of a wicketkeeper's quality than whether he remained not out. Andy Flower is the runaway leader in this regard, with 80 runs per Test, a figure in excess of many a specialist batsman. Sangakkara follows with 67. Then comes the explosive Gilchrist with 58 runs per Test, often in crunch late-order situations. Engineer, with an otherwise poor set of keeping numbers has a decent 56 runs per Test. The average is 38.7, indicating that any 40 plus figure should be considered above-average.

8. Opening Runs

These are the runs scored by keepers in the opening positions. Engineer is the only keeper with a tally in excess of 1500 runs. No one else has even scored 1000. Imtiaz is the second and Mongia who opened for India in a few Tests, follows next. We have to recognize this facet of Engineer's career, especially as his wicket-keeping returns are below-average.

9. Keepers as Captain

Dhoni is the leader in this measure, having captained India in well over half the Tests he has played. Alexander was the captain in most of the Tests. Then come Flower and Stewart.

10. Wicketkeeper Ratings

Finally I have decided to do a Test Wicketkeeper Ratings work. This is fraught with pitfalls and I must be ready for the bouquets and brickbats to come in alternately. But I realize that if I do not venture out, I (and the readers) would not gain anything and here we go. I am sure readers would have their comments. My only request is for readers to note that this is a first attempt and fine tuning is always possible. The measures which would be used in Test WK_Ratings are explained below. These are detailed in the order of importance.

1. Number of Dismissals per Test: This is a pure performance measure and carries the maximum weight. 10 points are given per dismissal per Test. The overall weight is around 50%.
2. Number of Runs per Test: The second most important measure. The batting contributions are second only to the basic dismissals per Test measure. The value to the team, especially as the runs are normally scored in the late order, is undeniable. The points are determined by multiplying the Runs per test measure by 0.3333. The overall weight is around 22%.
3. Number of Byes per Test: This is an important measure since this indicates wicket-keeping quality. The overall weight is around 13%.
4. Number of Dismissals: This is the only longevity-based measure. It is very essential to reward the keepers who have maintained their fitness and skill levels for many years and Tests. The allocation is one Rating point per 40 dismissal so that the maximum is 15 points. The overall weight is around 8% but there are keepers who go above 15%.
5. Number of Top order dismissals per Test: Again a specialized performance measure. There is a clear separation amongst wicketkeepers and this has been included since it means that much more to the team. The overall weight is around 3.5%.
6. Number of Tests captained: The additional responsibility of captaining has to be incorporated in the Ratings. However it must be noted that keepers have captained their teams in around 5% of the Tests played. The final weight is only around 0.7%. But the concerned keepers get allocated much higher level of points: Dhoni gets around 8%.
7. Number of Test runs in opening position: This is to recognize the keepers who, in 10 minutes flat, changed their gloves and pads and started an equally difficult task. However let me add that this measure, like the Captaincy measure, also has an overall low weight of around 0.4%. Fewer than 4% of the runs scored by keepers are in the opening position. But the concerned keepers get allocated much higher level of points: Engineer gets around 6%.

The final ratings results are as expected.

Adam Gilchrist is the undisputed no.1. I am not sure whether anyone could dispute this honour, especially since the scoring rate has not even been factored in. He has achieved this through an outstanding keeping performances and above-average batting performances. Mark Boucher is in the second position. His is more due to the keeping abilities. Andy Flower, a top-flight batsman, very good keeper and a born leader, is in third position. Let us forget the poor Tests he might have had: Kamran Akmal's performances have been outstanding and he fully deserves his no.4 position. Dhoni, assisted strongly by the captaincy duties, completes the top-5. This is a reflection of the overall value to the team. Subjective factors such as quality of keeping, keeping stance, method of catching etc do not (and should not) come in. The legendary Marsh and Healy are in the top-10 positions.

11. A BCG Chart of Test wicketkeepers

BCG chart of wicketkeepers showing runs per Test and dismissals per Test
© Anantha Naryanan

Ah I am back to my favourite BCG charts. This is a perfect set of data elements to do a BCG chart and classify wicketkeepers into keeping-centric or batting-centric roles. The X-axis represents the more important measure: C-St per Test. The Y-axis represents the batting measure: Runs per Test. It can be seen that both are performance measures. Longevity does not come in. To make sure that we get in only players who have had a reasonably long career I have selected only keepers who cross the dual barrier of 100 dismissals and 1000 runs. 35 keepers qualify.

The top right quadrant contains the real top-fliers: those keepers who have done well both as keepers and batsmen. The quadrant is led by Gilchrist, followed by Kamran Akmal, Haddin, McCullum, Dhoni and Prior. All these are modern keepers and are here because they are all top quality batsmen.

The bottom-right quadrant is heavily populated and houses the top keepers who do not have great batting figures. This pack is led by Boucher and has Jones, Richardson amongst the modern players and Marsh, Dujon, Healy amongst the older players. Russell and Murray just about make it.

The top-left quadrant has the players who have batting figures comparable to any top batsmen but lag behind in keeping numbers. Andy Flower leads this group and other prominent players are Sangakkara, Stewart and Knott. The last is a surprise.

The bottom-left has a set of keepers who do not really make the cut. Average keeping returns and average batting returns. Kirmani, More, Oldfield, Evans, Mongia, Smith are in this lot.

Please note that the quadrant division is a subjective one and this graph is only a tool for visual separation. The Wicketkeeper Ratings table is far more in-depth one and incorporates all relevant measures.

12. 12 top innings played by Test wicketkeepers

Gilchrist - 149 (163) Pak 1469 1999 - Huge match-winning/saving stand with
Langer
Gilchrist - 144 (212) Bng 1797 2006 - Match saving/winning innings
Gilchrist - 138 (108) Saf 1593 2002 - Match-winning inns in close match
A Flower -  232*(444) Ind 1517 2000 - Possibly the best match-saving innings
in India
A Flower -  199*(470) Saf 1562 2001 - Another defensive classic
(142 in first innings)
Ian Smith - 173 (136) Ind 1139 1990 - Attacking match-saving inns
(from 131/7 to 391)
Rod Marsh - 110 (173) Eng 800 1977 - Priceless match-winning inns in
close centenary Test
K Akmal -   109 (154) Ind 1738 2005 - Match-saving away classic (from 243/6)
J Dujon -   139 (158) Aus 997 1984 - Match-winning first inns (From 186/6)
A Knott -   135 (210) Aus 806 1977 - Match-winning first inns (From 82/5)
N Mongia -  152 (366) Aus 1335 1996 - Match-winner while opening the innings
Imtiaz Ahd- 209 Nzl 414 1955 - All-time classic, coming in at 111/6 and
taking score to 561.

This has been presented in no particular order and based my own, often subjective, perusal of scorecards. I have also used the Hallmark-100 ratings numbers as a guideline. It was indeed tough to leave out Gilchrist's 102 in 59 balls, Engineer's 121, Sangakkara's 230, Healy's 161 et al. But let the readers come out with their suggestions.

13. A combined table of Test and ODI dismissals

One day Boucher might be quite happy to have stopped at 999 international dismissals since that is likely to be talked about more than if he had reached 1000, a la 99.94. One is a longevity based achievement and the other is performance-based one. It is unlikely that either achievement would ever be surpassed. Gilchrist follows closely with 900 plus dismissals and this mark is also almost unreachable. Healy follows, after a couple of miles, with 628 dismissals. This clearly shows the gap between the top-two and the rest.

Gilchrist leads both formats in the key CST per match measure. There is no combined CSt per match measure since the scale of the numbers is quite different for different formats.

At the end of this long article, I am as tired as the keepers might have been, after a tough 7-hour day in the office, except that they were baking in the sun. May their tribe flourish.