Anantha Narayanan

As the recent England-India series unfolded, the win margins became bigger and bigger and by the time the series ended, one started hoping that India would have deemed to have climbed the Mt.Everest if they made England bat again. There were talks of this being India's biggest ever defeat. I had looked beyond that and had a fleeting suspicion that this could indeed be any team's biggest ever defeat.

So I started work on this hypothesis. I have embarked on a complex method of evaluating this and later on, as an additional analysis, linking with team strengths and series location. Let me emphasize that this analysis is based on the results and only results. The scorecard is the only document used. There may be many other factors responsible for the series results, to name a few, injuries, loss of form, non-preparedness, fitness, tiredness, selection issues, non-availability of key players, technical shortcomings et al. However these are outside the scope of this analysis. However it is my considered opinion that these would only have reduced the margin of series loss and match losses. If everything had worked for India, they might still have lost 1-2.

Each match is allotted 100 points. These are further allocated to the two teams based on the results. Not just the results but the numbers behind the results. The points secured by the two teams are averaged for the series. This is a very good indicator of the way teams have performed in the series. This method allows us to understand the difference between two series, both finishing 4-0, but one with very close well-fought matches and the other, like the recently completed one, huge-margin wins. As already explained, the methodology for the analysis is explained at the end.

Now let us look at the results.

I have selected only 4/5/6 Test series for multiple reasons. One is that I have kept the minnows out by this single decision. The other is that I want the teams' winning margins to be achieved over greater number of matches. My apologies to Sri Lanka since most of their series have been kept out. But this cannot be helped.

My surmise was correct. In the 210 4/5/6 match Test series played so far, the England win over India is the most comprehensive and devastating in history of Test cricket. That is what many experts are saying but this is now proved here with hard analytical conclusions. Let me add that there is one 3-Test series which has a wider Win margin than this one. That came in the Sri Lanka-Zimbabwe series, held during 2001. I am now happy that I excluded the 3-Test series from the analysis since I think a win against a weak team should not dilute this analysis.

The slightly better news is that, taken in context, taking into account the relative team strengths and the home advantage for England, this is not the most comprehensive defeat ever but is pipped by the South African white-wash of the 1970 Australians.

Let us look at the tables.

Ser Year Home  Away  Res  #  [...Win-margin...]

The first table is ordered by the raw Win-margin value. England won the 4-test series by the widest margin of 80.84-19.96. This is the equivalent of 4 innings wins. There was a huge innings win which compensated for the 196 run margin win. The summary of the top five series is given below.

The second biggest margin was inflicted by South Africa on Australia, during 1931. They were better by just a decimal point.

The third biggest margin was inflicted by South Africa on Australia, during 1970, just before the Apartheid break-down. They were better by nearly 1%. This also indicates the loss to the world cricket through the absence of the wonderful South African team of 1970. Before any one pounces on me let me say, through their own racial segregation policies. The boycott was 100% correct and essential.

The next one is the English whitewash of the 1959 Indian team. However the scores would indicate more of a fight by the weaker 1959 team. The fifth one is the 5-0 clean-out by the 2000 Australians against the transitional West Indians.

The best away performance is the 1984 clean sweep of England by the mighty West Indians. Their performance is ranked seventh in the table. Incidentally this is the only time in history of Test cricket that a home team has lost all 5 Tests in a 5-Test series.

Given below is a one-line summary for each series and the match points secured.

615 2011 ENG-Ind 196r(73.80),   319r(81.88),   I&242r(87.45), I&8r(80.25).
55 1931 AUS-Saf I&163r(85.02), I&155r(84.77), 169r(73.09),   10w(78.54),
I&72r(82.22).
169 1970 SAF-Aus 170r(72.09),   I&129r(83.97), 307r(80.85),   323r(79.97).
120 1959 ENG-Ind I&59r(81.82),  8w(75.84),     I&173r(85.32), 171r(70.81),
I&27r(80.83).
436 2000 AUS-Win I&126r(83.88), I&27r(80.83),  5w(72.40),     352r(84.66),
6w(72.52).
...
256 1984 eng-WIN I&180r(85.54), 9w(72.12),     8w(75.38),     I&64r(81.97),
172r(73.78).

Now for the second table, this time ordered by the difference in series Win margin and Team strength differential value.

Ser Year Home  Away Res # [...Win-margin..]  [TS differential-] WinIndex

I have embarked on a major project. This has been triggered by a few comments on performance of all-rounders in series. I have extended the scope of the same and will cover, over three articles, the performance of batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders in series. I am aware that Cricinfo statistics section gives you an insight into the runs scored and wickets captured in Test series. However those are raw numbers and also do not show the results by series types. Even Statsguru might not provide that. What I intend to do is to weight the individual player performances in series with various relevant parameters. It is necessary to recognize where players performed (home or away), how did the performance measure against those of the other bowlers, what were the quality of wickets captured, was there a critical series situation et al. That would let us judge performances at their true worth.

I have embarked on a major project. This has been triggered by a few comments on performance of all-rounders in series. I have extended the scope of the same and will cover, over three articles, the performance of batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders in series. I am aware that Cricinfo statistics section gives you an insight into the runs scored and wickets captured in Test series. However those are raw numbers and also do not show the results by series types. Even Statsguru might not provide that. What I intend to do is to weight the individual player performances in series with various relevant parameters. It is necessary to recognize where players performed (home or away), what type of bowling attack runs were scored off (great to poor), what level of support was received, what were the quality of wickets captured, was there a critical series situation et al. That would let us judge performances at their true worth.

1. Where the series was played: Home, away or neutral locations. Instead of penalizing home performances I have left the home runs at no additional weight and weighted runs scored at neutral locations at 5% and away at 10%. One could raise endless queries on the subjectivity or not of these weights. However there is no better solution on offer. As far as sub-continental flat tracks are concerned, the visitors might get the extra weight, playing away, but will lose out on the Pitch type. And vice versa.

2. Series situation: I leave the other Tests as they are. An additional weight of 5% is given for the deciders only. As far as I am concerned there is no dead rubber Test. Over the past 10 years every Test is important, because of Test Rankings. If it rains cats and dogs at Edgbaston, the fourth Test, technically, is a dead rubber. However the no.1 rank is at stake as also the pride of players. India would very much prefer a 1-2 result and England would go all out for a 3-0 result. So the idea of dead rubber will remain only in the minds of some cricket followers, not in this analysis.

3. Bowling quality faced: This is the weighted c-t-d bowling quality measure determined for each innings. The range is from 19 to 60. The weight ranges from 85% (for 60) to 115% (for 15). I have got the weight for this measure go below 100 so that runs scored against sub-standard attacks are weighted less and against strong attacks are weighted more.

4. Pitch type: This is determined by the Runs per Wicket value for the match. This value ranges from 10 to 100 and the weight ranges from 120% (for 10) to 80 (100). Here also I have got the weight for this measure to go below 100 so that runs scored on flat batting tracks are weighted less and on bowling paradises weighted more.

5. Support provided / % of score: This is to recognize that a 100 scored out of 200 with scant support is valued more than a 100 made out of 500 with ample support. There is no negative weighting and the maximum weight is 10%.

The overall effort is that the runs scored in each innings are weighted by the five factors leading to an overall weighting ranging from a theoretical low of around 75% to a theoretical high of 175%. However these are theoretical values and in practice, the range is from 90% to 130%. Stray innings might be weighted down or more. The results are, to say the least, stunning. The true value of batsmen performances in series unfolds before us.

The other decision I have taken is that the performances in a series is not going to be influenced by the number of Tests played. Whether a player was dropped or injured is outside the purview of this analysis. A 6-Test series is what it says, whether 4 or 5 Tests were played by a player. The other point is that a series has to have a minimum of 3 Tests to be included in this analysis. Also, the three Triangular tournaments, the 1912 one and the two Asian Championships are not included.

The tables are shown for 6, 5, 4 and 3-Test series. These are ordered on the base information, which is the runs scored. The weighting factor and weighted runs are also show. Later in the article similar tables are shown, this time ordered on the weighted runs. I have stayed away from superfluous information, at least for this analysis, of batting averages, highest score, hundreds and fifties. When someone scores 500 runs in a 3-Test series, it really does not matter whether the average was 120 or 150. It only depends on how often the batsman remained unbeaten. At the end I have also shown the top 5 and bottom 5, in terms of weighting, of the runs scored table (over 500 runs).

First the 6-Test series table. Those who have exceeded 600 runs in the series have been shown.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

Both Taylor and Lara scored mountains of runs in away series against England. This is reflected in the good weighting of their performances. Mudassar Nazar's compilation was done at home. The next three players also compiled their 700+ runs at home. However, out of these three, Gower and Chappell did this against much better bowling sides. There seems to be a difficulty in achieving peak level achievements in the six match series as evidenced by the fact that only 12 batsman have averaged over 100 runs per Test.

SNo Year Home  Away Batsman               # Runs  Wt  WtRuns

After a series of heavy analytical articles it is time for an anecdotal article or two. However let me assure the readers that this article also, as my other anecdotal articles have been, would be based on solid analysis and not just some subjective selection. This article has been on the anvil for the past two months.

This time I have had a look at the bowlers who dominated the first day. This is both easier and tougher than the batting analysis. Easier because the cut-offs are rather well-defined and it was easier to implement these. Harder because the bowling performances at the end of the day is not available in the Cricinfo scorecards and there was a need to do some interpretation of what could have been the final analysis based on perusal of individual scorecards. I request the readers to show the same level of enthusiasm and interest in coming out with alternative bowling performances. Since no one moved the world at Lord's today, this article is not affected.

During the past 134 years there have been over 1950 first days in Test cricket. The first day is the most important one in a Test match. The team which wins the first day goes a long way towards winning the Test. Stated in other words, the team which goes behind on the first day would always play catch up.

The basis for selection of outstanding first day bowling performances was not simple. Cricinfo does not store the day-end bowling performances and care has to be exercised in analysing this information, especially in incomplete innings. Each of the following situations is represented differently and has to be analyzed individually.

- Where an innings is incomplete. This is the toughest of all and might form the basis for most of readers' inputs.
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play.
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play and the other innings has started.
- Where two innings have been completed.

Now for selection of the performances. There have been three 9-wicket hauls on the first day. These get selected automatically, irrespective of the batting team. Anything which occurs once in 650 matches does not require any further vetting. Interestingly there is one instance of a bowler capturing all 9 wickets to fall during the first day. The other two have been in completed innings.

There have been eight 8-wicket hauls on the first day. Interestingly there is no instance of a bowler capturing 8 wickets in an incomplete innings. All 8 instances have been in completed innings. These performances do not get selected automatically. Six are included based on the quantum of top-order wickets captured and the quality of the batting team. So this is a question of checking whether there is sufficient justification for dropping the performance.

There have been 37 instances of 7-wicket captures on the first day. Most of these are in completed innings. Here this is a case of checking these performances if there is sufficient justification for inclusion. Various factors such as quantum of top order wickets captured, quality of the batting team and runs conceded are used to select performances. Ten 7-wicket performances are selected. I am confident that the readers would be able to push the claims of a few 7-wicket performances.

In summary, 2 of the 3x9-wkt captures, 4 of the 8x8-wkt captures and 21 of the 37x7-wkt captures have resulted in wins for the first bowling teams. This makes it 27 out of 48 and a much higher win % than the overall numbers.

It would indeed take an exceptionally good and memorable 6-wicket performance to be selected. Only one is considered worthy of inclusion. Maybe the readers might unearth a few gems.

Two second innings performances have been included in the selected 20. The second innings performance is a Hobson's choice. On the one hand, the bowler's task is difficult since he would be defending a relatively low total. The flip side is that the pitch is almost always a bowler-friendly pitch since there has already been a low-scoring first innings. So no special consideration has been shown for performing in the second innings during the first day.

The Wisden-100 table has also been used as a guideline. The final ordering is purely my own preference. The reader may not agree, but should refrain from overtly criticizing the selection or the order. Again, as normally happens, readers can send their suggestions, but with adequate supporting material. Just a single statement pointing out a certain bowling performance is unlikely to merit serious consideration. You have to take the trouble of a perusal of the Cricinfo (or alternate) scorecard and support your candidate.

1. Muralitharan: 39-18-51-9 (74) vs Zimbabwe 234/9 (30.62). Match 1583 (2002)

There are quite a few reasons why Muralitharan's performance against Zimbabwe is on top. He is the only bowler to capture all the wickets which fell on the first day, in relevant matches (7+ wickets). He went to the second day still with a chance to get the perfect 10. He bowled a maiden over. Then Olonga made sure that this would not happen by losing his wicket to Vaas at the end of the second over. Let me remind the readers that Zimbabwe were a good team, having the Flower brothers and Streak. Sri Lanka won by an innings. This is the only performance selected which is from an incomplete innings.

An explanation on the two numbers shown. The number 74 represents WPI (Wicket position index). This is just a batting-position-based number to measure the value of the wickets captured. This is not used for any analysis. Hence the batting averages are not used. Dismissal of the top six batsmen gets 10 points each, 7-11 are allotted 7, 4, 3, 2 and 2 respectively. Thus 76 is the maximum points. Muralitharan's WQI is 74 (6x10 + 7 + 4 + 3). The number 30.62 indicates the batting quality index, based on ctd values. 50+ is Don-driven, 45+ is outstanding, 40+ is very good, 35+ is good and 30+ is average, 25+ is fair and 20+ is poor.

2. S.P.Gupte: 34-11-102-9 (73) vs West Indies 222 ao (37.62). Match 0461 (1958).

Subash Gupte, that wonderful purest of pure leg-spinners. What magic he wove with the ball. None more than on a wintry evening at Kanpur. Against a strong West Indian team, he captured 9 wickets and helped dismiss the powerful line-up for 222. When compared with Muralitharan, he captured the no.10 batsman rather than no.8. This collection of wickets included Sobers at 4 and Kanhai at 0 and Butcher at 0. That India lost, after tying at 222 in the first innings, was a reflection of the strength of West Indians. Unfortunately Gupte was collared in the second innings.

3. Abdul Qadir: 37-13-56-9 (66) vs England (31.24) 175 ao. Match 1081 (1987).

Abdul Qadir, as much of a classicist as Subash Gupte. He wove a different type of magic, but magic all the same. One laments, where have all the classic spinners gone. At Lahore on a November day during 1987, the English batsmen had no answers. Not a great line-up, and all at sea. Qadir missed out on the wicket of Capel, who batted at no.6. Despite late resistance by Foster and French, who added 57 runs, Qadir captured the last two wickets and finished with an outstanding analysis. Subash Gupte is ahead only because of the quality of West Indian lineup. Pakistan won comfortably.

Three spinners at the top, and all on merit. They are also really the first amongst equals.

3.5. Barnes: 16.1-5-42-6 (112 ao) and 4 for 20 (45 for 5) vs Australia (37.82). Match 0066 (1902).

This is the only instance of a bowler capturing 10 wickets on the first day,. However this was spread over two innings. This excellent performance has been recommended by Arjun (thanks, Arjun). I thought since this was a unique performance I would add it to the main list itself. The second innings performance is an extrapolation. One of the five batsmen dismissed in the second innings was run out. I have not pushed this to the top since these are two very good performances, rather than one.

4. Croft: 18.5-7-29-8 (59) vs Pakistan (36.61) 180 ao. Match 0799 (1977).

Against a strong Pakistani line-up, Garner dismissed Majid Khan early. Then Croft captured the next five and the last three wickets. He was unplayable on that day at Port of Spain, as also evidenced by the few runs he conceded. Roberts went wicket-less and Garner went for plenty. This is the best analysis by a fast bowler on the opening day. It must be remembered that Croft bowled only 28% of the overs.

5. Valentine: 50-14-104-8 (67) vs England (31.98) 312 ao. Match 0323 (1950).

What an amazing day of Test Cricket at Old Trafford. A good England line-up takes the field. Valentine, on his debut, comes quickly as first change and captures the first five wickets to sink England to 88 for 5. Then Bailey and Evans add 161 runs and Evans leaves after scoring 104. Valentine gets two more wickets but the last two wickets are captured by Ramadhin. Note the high wicket-value figure of Valentine. He captured the top eight wickets.

I have done a different method of presenting the bowling performances. I have selected my top-5 already. Now I am going to present the next 5 performances in a group as I cannot identify anything to separate one from the other in a strong manner. Although I must say that there is some preference of mine in the order in which these five are presented. Finally I am going to present the next 10 performances as another group.

6-10. McDermott: 24-2-97-8 (63) vs England (37.08) 244 ao. Match 1163 (1991).

A top-drawer fast bowling performance by an under-rated modern fast bowler. McDermott captured the top 7 wickets before Hughes chipped in with two and McDermott finished off the innings with the last wicket. His performance is one of the best ever by a fast bowler on the first day. Australia won the match, played at WACA, comfortably.

6-10. Doull: 24-7-65-7 (61) vs India (42.35) 208 ao. Match 1435 (1998).

This spell of Simon Doull competes with Croft's as one of the best ever by a fast bowler mainly because he captured the first 7 wickets of a very good Indian line-up. Note the very high value of the WPI, for a 7-wicket haul. It was only the fact that his long spells necessitated replacements by the other bowlers did not let him take more wickets. New Zealand won a close match.

6-10. Ambrose: 18-9-25-7 (53) vs Australia (36.88) 119 ao. Match 1212 (1993).

This is almost a mirror image of the performance of the other giant, Croft. The only reason why this has been moved to the second group is the fact that two of the top three wickets were captured by Bishop and Croft captured 8 wickets. It was still a stunning performance by one of the greats at WACA. West Indies won comfortably, thanks to Bishop's excellent spell in the second innings.

6-10. F.Laver: 18-7-31-8 (54) vs England (36.27) 119 ao. Match 0104 (1910).

The only Laver we all know is the tennis legend. But this was the other Laver. 37 wickets in 15 Tests indicates a journeyman but this day was his 15 seconds of fame. Laver's is one of two second innings bowling performances. As I have already mentioned, this factor should not carry additional weight. Australia, batting first, were dismissed for 147 by Barnes and Blythe, who shared all the 10 wickets, for 147. Then Laver got into the act and finished with the best ever follow-up performance on the first day. After Macartney and Cotter got the first two wickets, Laver captured the next 8 wickets at a very low cost of 31 runs. England were dismissed for 119. The match was, however, drawn.

6-10. SF Barnes: 26-9-56-8 (65) vs South Africa (22.29) 160 ao. Match 0131 (1913).

Playing South Africa at Wanderers, Barnes captured the first six wickets before Hartigan and Ward steadied the innings. Rhodes and Woolley chipped in with a wicket each before Barnes finished off the innings with the last two wickets to finish with 8 for 56. It must be admitted that this was a fairly weak South African batting line-up. England won comfortably.

Now the 11-21 performances, in strict (reverse) chronological order.

11-21. Harmison: 13-7-19-6 (50) vs Pakistan (40.60) 119 ao. Match 1811 (2006).

This is the only 6-wicket haul in this collection. I have selected a modern giant who delivered less than what he promised. However on this day he was devastating. Only one of the six wickets was that of a late order batsman. His performance is one of the best by a fast bowler on the first day. Well supported by Panesar, Harmison helped England win comfortably.

11-21. Muralitharan: 34-9-87-8 (63) vs India 234 ao (32.39). Match 1559 (2002)

Muralitharan again, this time against the Indian team. Although it must be admitted that this team, sans Tendulkar, was a relatively inexperienced team. One reason why this performance, despite being a first day haul of 8 wickets has been moved into the third group. Vaas captured the wickets of Kaif and Harbhajan and Murali captured the rest. Sri Lanka won by an innings.

11-21. McGrath: 21-4-76-7 (63) vs England (31.56) 180 ao. Match 1377 (1997).

McGrath captured the first six wickets of a good English line-up. He finished with 7 for 87, dismissing England for 180. Australia had their dead-rubber blues and somehow managed to lose the Test by 19 runs. That should not take anything away from McGrath's first day effort.

11-21. Warne: 27-8-56-7 (54) vs South Africa (31.10) 169 ao. Match 1243 (1994).

This time it was Warne against his favourite opponents. South Africa were sitting comfortably at 110 for 3 when Warne, starting with Cullinan (who else), captured the next 7 wickets to help dismiss South Africa for 169. Not a surprise considering that this was at SCG. However South Africa, with that famous last day spell of de Villiers, had the last laugh, winning by 5 runs. Warne had a five wicket haul in the second innings also.

11-21. Border: 26-10-46-7 (54) vs West Indies (42.18) 224 ao. Match 1113 (1989).

A very unlikely bowling hero on the first day. A very strong West Indian batting line-up, Border outshone Alderman and Hughes, picking up the batsmen 3-9 for 46 runs. West Indies were dismissed for 224 and Australia duly won the match by 7 wickets. This is undoubtedly the best opening day effort by a non regular bowler.

11-21. Maninder Singh: 18-8-27-7 (52) vs Pakistan (30.93) 116 ao. Match 1073 (1987).

Against an average Pakistani lineup, Maninder bowled one of the best first day spin bowling spells in India. After Kapil Dev prised out the openers, Maninder captured the next 5 wickets and the last two to finish with outstanding figures of 7 for 27. Finally the Pakistani spinners proved more resourceful, despite Gavaskar's legendary 96, and won by 16 runs. This performance pipped Kumble's 7 for 48 against Australia mainly on wicket quality factor.

11-21. Ramadhin: 31-16-49-7 (60) vs England (31.84) 186 ao. Match 0439 (1957).

Lord Beginner's one little pal has already come in. So the other pal would not miss out. This was seven years later. A more experienced Ramadhin, sans Valentine, picked up 6 of the top 7 wickets against a reasonable English lineup. England were dismissed for 186 and looked like losing heavily when May and Cowdrey stepped in with a record match-saving stand. Finally West Indies struggled to save the test.

11-21. Bailey: 16-7-34-7 (53) vs West Indies (45.21) 139 ao. Match 0386 (1954).
11-21. Bailey: 21-8-44-7 (53) vs West Indies (43.06) 127 ao. Match 0440 (1957).

Bailey had two such 7 wicket performances on the opening day against West Indies during the 1950s. First one was the one referred to above. Three top order wickets quickly against a very strong West Indian lineup helped dismiss West Indies for 139 and eventual easy win. Three years later he performed a similar feat, this time taking 7 for 44, again leading to an England win. These two performances have been presented together as one entry since these two performances are virtually identical.

11-21. Faulkner: 27-4-84-7 (54) vs England (40.43) 176 ao. Match 0128 (1912).

This is the other second innings performance. South Africa were dismissed for 95 by Barnes and Woolley. Then Faulkner, bowling unchanged, kept them in the game by capturing 7 for 74, including 4 top order wickets and helped dismiss England for 176. Barnes was unplayable in his 8-wicket spell in the second innings and England won comfortably in the end.

11-21. SF Barnes: 22-6-60-7 (53) vs Australia (42.97) 137 ao. Match 0100 (1908).

This is the other bowling performance of Barnes against a very strong Australian lineup with almost all pre-war greats playing. Australia were dismissed for 137 but won the match in the end through Trumper and Saunders.

Just a final note. The two 8-wicket bowling performances not considered are 8 for 58 by Lohmann (0036) and 8 for 81 by Braund (0082). Lohmann's was against a very weak Australian side. Braund's was against a better team, but not so great a collection of wickets. Anyhow either could have come in.

Unrelated to the above article I am compelled to make a brief comment on the ICC all-time best XI selected by public. The all-time ICC best XI represents a paucity of clear thinking and inability on the part of the voters to consider the greats of the past, predominantly due to lack of knowledge and historic perspective. It would be interesting to see the demographic break-down of the quarter million voters. My guess is 80% from India and 80% of those below-35. I also feel it was somewhat fortuitous that Bradman was selected.

At some time in the future I will try and get a dialog going with the readers on the subject. One thing I do not associate with the readers of this blogspace is myopia, the inability to recognize greatness and lack of historic perspective.

Readers' selections

1. Fazal Mohd: 6/34 in 27 straight overs vs Australia 80 ao (0430/1956) Pawan.
2. Underwood 7/113 vs Aus 304 ao (0754/1975) Ruchir. 2nd day but no play on first.
3. MacGill 7/104 vs West Indies 256 for 9 (1527/2001). Ruchir.
4. C.Pringle 7 for 56 vs Pakistan 102 ao (1153/1990). Arjun.
5. McGrath 5 for 21 vs England 92 for 7 (1756/2005) Arjun. 2nd inns.
6. Blythe 8 for 59 vs South AFrica 110 ao (0094/1907). Alex. 2nd inns.
7. Lawson 7 for 78 vs Australia (incl hat-trick) (1645/2003). Arjun.
8. Ironmonger 7 for 23 vs West Indies (0205/1931). Tom/Alex.
9. Kumble 7 for 48 vs Australia (1714/2004). Pavan.
10. McKenzie 7 for 66 vs India (0625/1968). Arjun.
11. Old 6 for 48 vs Pakistan (0825/1978). Alex.
12. Tattersall 6 for 48 vs India (0346/1952). Ad.
13. Martin 6 for 54 vs Sri Lanka (1748/2005). Arjun.
14. Lance Cairns 7 for 74 vs England (0958/1983) Arjun/Gerry.
15. Garner 6 for 60 vs Australia (0983/1984) Gerry.
16. Ghulam Ahd 7 for 49 vs Australia 177 ao (0433/1956). Arjun/Alex.
17. Motz 6 for 69 vs West Indies 297 ao (0651/1969) Arjun.
18. Spofforth 7 for 46 vs England 101 ao (0009/1882) Ad. 2nd inns.
19. Imran Khan 7 for 52 vs England 272 ao. (0931/1982) Pallab.
20. Lever 6 for 38 vs Australia 152 ao (0755/1975) Arjun.
21. Worrell (6/38 - 82 ao) & Johnston (6/62 - 105 ao) (0343/1951) Arjun.
22. Donald 6 for 53 vs England 122 ao (1471/1999) Venkat/Gerry.

After a series of heavy analytical articles it is time for an anecdotal article. However let me assure the readers that this article also, as my other anecdotal articles have been, would be based on solid analysis and not just some subjective selection. This article has been on the anvil for the past two months.

The basis for selection of outstanding first day batting performances was not simple. Cricinfo stores the first day information in a particular manner and care has to be exercised in analysing this information. Each of the following situations is represented differently and has to be analysed individually.

- Where an innings is incomplete and two batsmen are batting at the crease.
- Where an innings is incomplete and one batsmen is batting at the crease (last ball dismissal).
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play.
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play and the other innings has started (again first two conditions).
- Where two innings have been completed.
- Where two innings have been completed and a third innings started.

In some cases the batsman score(s) have to be picked up from the Day 1 information, in some cases from scorecards with some intuitive working out of which batsmen have been dismissed and so on.

Now for selection of the performances. Only one innings is selected automatically. The 309 by Bradman, made on the first day. This is a performance that only a person with extreme guts, fuelled by bias, can keep out of the table. The chances that this effort would be repeated would probably be in between a bowler taking 10 wickets and a batsman scoring 400+ runs. While others have come close to achieving this aggregate in a day's play (Sehwag scored 284 on the second day against Sri Lanka), it is extremely unlikely that anyone would do so on the first day.

Regarding the other performances, the relevant factors, viz., the bowling strength, the number of wickets which fell, the support received et al have been considered and the performances selected. The Wisden-100 table has also been used as a guideline. The final ordering is purely my own preference. The reader may not agree, but should refrain from overtly criticizing the selection or the order. Again, as normally happens, readers can send their suggestions, but with adequate supporting material. Just a single statement pointing out a certain innings is unlikely to merit serious consideration. You have to take the trouble of a perusal of the Cricinfo (or alternate) scorecard and support your candidate.

1. 309* Bradman (Eng) 38.73

0196 (1930) - Australia 458/3 (Bradman 309*, McCabe 12*)

The only time a batsman has scored over 300 in a day's play. This was done by Bradman early in his career. There is no way this momentous innings can be anywhere but top of this list. Since the information on number of overs bowled during the day is unavailable, through extrapolation, I could say that this innings of 309 on the first day must have taken Bradman around 350-375 balls. The bowling attack was just passable. The match ended as a high-scoring draw.

(Revised on 22/05/11)

This article is a logical conclusion to the previous three articles. In these articles I looked at two teams which dominated the periods 1976-1995 and 1989-2008. I also looked at the batsmen who faced up these two outstanding sets of bowlers effectively. There was a discussion amongst the readers on the batsmen who faced up to strong bowling attacks, across years, effectively. It was also agreed that a composite single number indicating the weighted average bowling quality faced by a batsman across the career hides many truths.

Then Arjun Hemnani came out with a suggestion that I classify all bowling attacks into four groups and develop batting tables based on these groups. It seemed to be an excellent idea and I have created this article based on this idea. This is a quasi-rating work based on the most important of parameters, viz., the Bowling quality. I may do a similar exercise based on the Pitch conditions. Again some really tough work but at the end worthwhile.

I have summarized all relevant facts related to this analysis. First let me emphasize that this is not a Test innings Ratings analysis. There are many other relevant factors which would have to be considered in such an analysis. I have not done so in this analysis which is centred on Bowler quality. I would appreciate if the readers do not keep on repeating again and again that other relevant factors such as Pitch type, Innings status at entry, Result, Series status, Bowler recent form, Innings target et al, have not been included. That would be counter-productive.

1. As I have done in the Team strength calculations, I have considered only Tests played after 1900. It is impossible to fit in the Tests before 1900 because of uncovered pitches and many sub-20 averages. However we lose only 64 Tests.

2. The Bowling quality index (BQI) is based on Career-to-date values. This is the most dependable and accurate of the bowling measures. There is no situation where the Career-to-date figure is not the appropriate one. A bowler like Lee with a great start and tapering off towards the end or Muralitharan who had a poor start and wonderful finish will be taken care of equally well.

3. The BQI is based on the actual bowlers who bowled in the particular innings. This is very important. There is a Sri Lankan innings in which Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis bowled 14 overs each. That is all. This would have been a terrifying situation for the batsmen. Contrast this with an innings in which Akram and Younis bowled 50% of the overs.

4. The BQI is determined using the modified reciprocal method suggested by Arjun Hemnani which irons out the imbalance created by weak fifth bowlers. The career strike rate and career rpo are computed separately to arrive at the final BQI.

5. The BQI is determined for each innings. However in order to reduce wild variations, I will apply the BQI of the first innings to the second innings also in case the number of balls bowled in the second innings is less than 60. This is commonsense. This is explained through an example. Readers should know that this would not have much of an impact since no batsman is likely to score even 25 within the 10 overs.

Test # 1962: Win 231, Saf 346 (Win BQI 41.68), Win 161, Saf 49/3 in 8.4 overs (Win BQI 50.67).
In the above Test, the Saf second innings will be evaluated at 41.68 since fewer than 10 overs were bowled.

6. The BQI is reduced by 5% for Home games and increased by 5% for away games. Reader should remember that the lower the BQI, the more potent the attack is. There have been suggestions on increasing this quantum and on making this dependent on the specific country. I feel 5% either way is ample and the later requires some tricky work since I am not sure how to make it work. So that is for a later day. In general this concept is fine and works well in most cases.

It is possible that the visiting team has the right bowlers and can exploit the "away" bowling conditions. However there is no denying that, in most cases, the home bowlers would have the advantage of familiarity with and knowledge of local conditions.

The following italicised points are to be ignored in the current version.

7. The BQI is based on the Bowling average. However in order to recognize the importance of Strike rates in Test cricket is a special adjustment based on Strike rate. These concepts are explained in the examples.

8. The BQI is further modified by the Period related factor. The concerned table is given below. If the period average is lower than the all-time average of 31.76, it is a bowler-friendly age and the bowler/team averages are adjusted upwards. On the other hand, if the period average is higher than the all-time average of 31.76, it is a batsmen-friendly age and the bowler/team averages are adjusted downwards. I have adjusted the factor at a bowler level than spin/pace level since the later would have required a completely different way of working, at a player level. Even checking of results would have become very cumbersome and difficult. I also do not think that there is that much of a change.

Bowling average adjustment:  AMF - Average multiplying factor
Period       BowAvg     AMF
1877-1899     22.20    1.431
1900-1914     25.69    1.236
WW1-WW2       32.56    0.976
40s-50s       29.96    1.060
1960s         32.11    0.989
1970s         31.94    0.995
1980s         32.07    0.990
1990s         31.51    1.008
2000-2004     33.56    0.946
2005-2011     34.94    0.909
All Tests     31.76    1.000

Finally the bowling attacks are classified into 5 groups, as described below. The fifth group was necessary to separate the REALLY weak bowling attacks.

With the idea of short innings being tagged with the first innings, there have been 6837 qualifying innings until the West Indies - Pakistan Test which finished recently. The first cut-off has been fixed at 30 to have around 20% of the total innings into the top group. There may be a subjective element in this part of the exercise but that cannot be avoided. The basis on which we have decided that 30 will be the first cut-off point is not subjective. In fact Arjun's assertion that 20% means in a loose manner that at any time there are 2 really good bowling attacks makes eminent sense. The other cut-offs follow logically. The group cut-off details are given below.

Group  B Q I        # of Inns   % (out of 6837)

The last two articles on the two wonderful golden periods of West Indian and Australian domination were received very well and elicited over 300 comments. This blog almost became a forum for discussion amongst the interested readers. It is obvious that the bowlers were the key players during these periods of domination, more for the West Indies teams than the Australian ones. A number of readers also commented and initiated discussions on the batsmen who did well against these bowlers. So I have decided to complete this informative series of articles by doing an analysis on the teams and batsmen who performed well against the West Indian and Australian bowlers.

The cut-off Tests are more or less similar. For the West Indians, I have tweaked the cut-offs to start with Test # 764 (1975) in which Holding made his debut. This ensures that at least two of the selected bowlers are there. Similarly I have since modified the the cut-off at the end to Test # 1371 (1997), the one just before the 3-0 whitewash in Pakistan. In other words I have excluded those last few Tests in which only Walsh played.

The Australian cut-off starts with Test # 1121 (1989), the first Ashes Test. The last match is Test # 1879, during 2008, against West Indies. I have excluded those last Tests in which Johnson was the leading bowler.

I have weighted the runs scored by the batsmen with two relevant measures. The first is the Test venue, home/away as far as the batting team is concerned.

However more important, I have weighted the runs scored by the weighted bowling quality. This is an important adjustment and the relevant points are explained below.

- This is based on career-to-date figures.
- I have also used reciprocal method suggested by Arjun Hemnani, so as to reduce the impact of the weaker fifth bowler.
- The adjustment factor is based all-tests bowling average during the respective cut-off years.
- This works to 29.96 for the West Indian bowlers and 30.74 for the Australian bowlers.

The weighting with bowler quality is essential since the West Indian and Australian attacks have had 4, 3, 2, 1 and even 0 bowler out of the top bowlers. The last instances occurred during the World Series Tests.

Given below are examples of how these calculations have been done. I have presented these examples since these are quite compilcated and readers might be interested in knowing the workings.

Against West Indies

The response to the previous off-the-beaten-track article on West Indian pace bowlers was so good and the comments were so interesting that I decided to continue on a similar theme rather than move into the ODI domain. This time I have taken the Australian teams for analysis. I have read the readers' comments and have realized that I must include both batsmen and bowlers in the analysis. So this article is quite a different one to the previous one which was almost totally graphic. This one has only a single graph and many other tables.

I have selected the following 24 players who were the top Australian performers during these 22 years. Most of these players select themselves. There are 15 batsmen and 9 bowlers in this elite collection. Readers might want to add one or two to this list but I am sure none of these players will be taken out. I considered and discarded Alderman (only 70+ wickets after the cut-off), Border (since added), Reiffel (since added), Kasprowicz (quite average), Symonds (not enough batting impact), Watson (impact probably in future), Clark & Siddle (less than 100 wkts) et al.

Batsmen:

I am glad to resume my articles after a break of a month during which I was immersed in World Cup related work. I had done so much of WC related work that I decided that I would go back to Tests. My next article will be the comprehensive analysis of World Cup performances that I had promised before the beginning of the World Cup.

First, a graphic time-line of the careers of the 8 bowlers.

West Indies fast bowlers career summary
© Anantha Narayanan

The following facts are clear through a perusal of the time-line graph above. This is only for the purpose of gathering overall intelligence. The detailed by-Test graphs come later.

1. West Indian pace bowling saga of 28 years is comprised of two clear periods. The first one between 1974 and 1987 during which Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft held sway. Then the second period between 1988 and 2001 during which Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop held forte.
2. Ha!!! I can hear knives being sharpened. I can clearly see a mail saying that I have gone senile and missed, arguably, the greatest of all these bowlers, Marshall. No I have not forgotten the genial "giant". He is the connecting player across the two eras. Note the following.
- He is the only one to have straddled both periods almost completely.
- He has played with all the other 7 bowlers, at their peak. That is truly amazing. 14 years at the top, 376 wickets at 20.95, arguably, Marshall is the greatest amongst this collection of greats.
- He is the one bowler who defines clearly the West Indian pace supremacy. No wonder he is held in such high esteem.
3. Croft's career was a sub-set of Garner's career. Marshall's arrival hastened Croft's departure.
4. Roberts handed over the baton to Walsh.
5. Holding and Garner retired almost simultaneously and Ambrose took over from them.
6. Bishop had to retire quite early. Severe back injuries meant he had long breaks in his career twice. Just extend his career by another 5 years, at least until 2001, when Walsh retired. Think of the impact this would have had on West Indian cricket.

The detailed graphs have been split into three individual ones since it would be impossible to show all 226 tests in one graph. While these graphs have been split in such a manner that these cover approximately the same number of tests, some career date-lines have been followed.

The first graph covers the career of Andy Roberts and incorporates 74 tests. Roberts made his debut in Test# 734 (1974) and made his last appearance in Test# 972 (1983), 74 tests later. During this period, Holding, Garner and Marshall made their debuts and Croft completed his career.

West Indies fast bowlers period 1
© Anantha Narayanan

Roberts was alone for over 10 tests before Holding made his debut. Lance Gibbs and Holder were the two bowlers with whom he shared these 10 tests. Holding and Roberts, along with Gibbs and Holder, played for another 15 tests before Garner and Croft made their debut in the same Test. For some reason, Holding went off when these two made their debuts. It is possible that he was even dropped ??? The huge gap between Test$ 822 and 845 was the Packer period during which none of these four played. Marshall made his debut during the middle of these Packer tests.

In the post-WSC era, West Indies started by playing four top pace bowlers for the first time. This was the golden period for these four greats, although it meant that Marshall lost his place. Despite losing their hold over the World Cup, they were lethal and very potent as a Test team. They played in different combinations in a number of tests. Marshall took over from Croft. What is surprising is that even Holding has missed quite a number of tests during these years, even before the WSC absence. The level of competition for 3/4 places amongst these 5 top-quality bowlers must have been intense.

I have made another analysis of this period in terms of bowler combinations, results etc. These are shown at the end.

Now the second period during which six bowlers are present. This comprises of the later part of the Holding/Garner careers, the bulk of the Marshall career and the start of the Ambrose/Bishop careers. This was the most successful period for West Indies as the summary of results is shown at the end. Barring one series in the middle, they had an embarrassment of riches, the problem being who to leave out. Ambrose took over from Holding/Garner seamlessly and Bishop was potent. Marshall had retired well before the end of this period.

West Indies fast bowlers period 2
© Anantha Narayanan

The third period had the three bowlers, Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop. Walsh played in all but two of the tests during this period. Ambrose played in most of these tests. Unfortunately Bishop had to retire because of injuries. That was a blow to the West Indies from which they never recovered. Walsh and Ambrose struggled for a few Tests together, then Walsh alone for a few more and he also retired. The results, as expected, were quite mixed. Mervyn Dillon was the major support player to Ambrose and Walsh during these last few Tests.

West Indies fast bowlers period 3
© Anantha Narayanan

After Test# 1544, came the fall, and what a fall it was. It was left to the unfortunate Brian Lara to preside, more unsuccessfully than successfully, over this crumbling edifice. 10 years have passed and there is no light at the end of the tunnel, barring a lone completely unexpected success in the Champions' Trophy during 2004.

An analysis of the results is given below.

A number of readers had asked me to do a complete analysis of the Test team strengths. I had done some work on this earlier. However there is a need to throw out that lot and completely do this from scratch since the following related needs have been expressed at various times.

1. Completely integrate the career-to-date (c-t-d) values into the Team strength analysis.

2. Build in period based adjustments.

3. Allow no dilution into the process, especially the Bowling strength determination where a fifth weak bowler might completely distort the index values.

4. Give some weight for Bowling strike rates since these are Test matches.

1. Use only c-t-d values. Make adjustments during the early phase of the player's career. Essential for players like Mike Hussey, Brett Lee et al, whose first third of career was way better than the next two-third. I have been quite tough in this regard. During the first 50 innings or until 100 wickets have been captured, I have capped the c-t-d values at the career average, if it goes higher. Perfect example is Hussey. He had an average of 86.33 at the end of his 30th innings. But this has been capped at 52.50, which is his career average. Brett Lee had captured his first 50 wickets at 22.82. This has been increased to 30.82, which is his career average. I know it is quite tough on these players. However this has ensured that there are no spikes.

2. Determine the best 7 batsmen and use these batsmen figures to determine the Batting strength. This is to take care of night-watchman situations and genuine cases where the no.8 batsman in the batting order is better than the no.7 batsmen. The lower four batsmen are thus excluded. They might turn to be useful but do not really add to the strength.

3. After a lot deliberation I decided to do the Bowling strength determination with the best four bowlers only and not bring into consideration the fifth bowler. Traditionally most strong teams have had 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers. The fifth bowler only provided additional support but the team's bowling success really depended on their top four bowlers.

4. There is no separate weight for all-rounders since the top all-rounders would find their place into either the top-7 batting or top-4 bowling or both. If Imran Khan bats at no.7, he brings to the table a 37+ batting average and sub-23 bowling average. That is his strength and will be reflected in the team strength index.

5. Do a period-wise adjustment. This is the one area where I have done something radically different and a complete change to the existing process. Until now I had done adjustment based on the adjustment factor for the decade (or period) in which the Test was played in. I was aware that this had the following major shortcomings.

- The adjustment is done based on the decade/period the Test was played in. However the player could have played during that decade, the previous and in some cased the previous one. So the adjustments are not perfect.
- The adjustment factor is the same whether the batsman is Tendulkar (22 year-career), Dravid (16 years), Yuvraj Singh (8 years) or Raina (1 year). Not exactly good and has to be improved significantly.

As I sat for hours on end watching the WC simulations rolling by in the desktop, I kept on fiddling with ideas and then one day I had a spark. I kept looking at Peer comparisons and then suddenly discovered that I had the solution staring at me. Why not adjust each batsman's career-to-date values dynamically and independently, with his own peer values. It was a natural process to zero down to an adjustment based on the Peer value for the batsman himself, in other words, from his debut test to the current test.

Easier said than done. However I set about creating database segments containing data values, such as batting average and bowling average for all teams, for each batsman, for each test he played in. Needless to say, the Batting averages were only for the best 7 batsmen in each test. Also the adjustment for each player will kick in only after he has played 10 matches since there is insufficient data in the early stages. The adjustment is done by determining the ratio of 35.99 (the all-time average of the best 7 batsmen in each innings for 1989 tests) to the concerned batsman's C-t-d Peer average. If the C-t-d Peer average is higher than 35.99 then it has been a batsman-friendly x-tests era and the ratio would be below 1.000. If the C-t-d Peer average is below 35.99 then it has been a bowler-friendly x-tests era and the ratio would be above 1.000. A similar working for the bowlers, for whom the all-time bowling average is 31.76.

It was impossible to split the, already complex, players's c-t-d peer bowling average into Pace and Spin. Hence I have done this based on a composite bowling average and done the bowling type adjustment at a later stage. The spinners have their bowling averaged lowered by a fixed factor.

It has worked beautifully. This allows for the changes which take place during a player's career. If there was a glut of runs during a phase of 2/3 years, it would be reflected instantly.

6. In view of the importance of Bowling strike rates in Test cricket I have computed the Team strike rates for the four best bowlers separately and multiplied the Team Bowling index by a pro-rated value based on this.

7. The adjustments are done separately for Pace bowlers and Spinners.

The last but very important point. After hours, nay days of struggling to make an equitable adjustment and exasperation, I decided to bite the bullet and exclude 64 Test matches played before 1900. The problem was mainly with bowlers. The 1800s were downright crazy. 10 bowlers, who had captured 50+ Test wickets, had averages below 20 and this distorted everything else. However it must be mentioned that very relevant players such as Clem Hill (1896), Trumper (1899) and S.F.Barnes (1901) are included. The only serious players we would miss out are Lohmann, S.E.Gregory and W.G.Grace. Lohmann, with his 100+ at 10+ single-handedly wrecked all analysis. Based on numbers, Lohmann was the greatest bowler ever, by a few miles, may his soul rest in peace.

Finally a note on the tables. Teams like the 1945 Australians, 2005 Australians, 1990 West Indies would have multiple entries in the table since quite a few of these teams were quite strong. Now that I would be using Career-todate values there would be changes from match to match even if the eleven remains the same. Hence I have extracted one representative and best team amongst this group and presented here a unique team table. This means even if there are 25 Australian teams of 2005-06 era, having almost the same team combinations, I will select one amongst these 25. However the team selected will be a real life team from a played Test. In other words there would be only one 1948 Australian team, one 2005 Australia team and so on. At the same time if two West Indian teams had radically different bowling line-ups, say 1980 and 1990, both have been included. Of course the complete table contains all the entries and can be downloaded.

While selecting the teams out of this collection of teams, I have followed the common-sense based principle that two bowling teams which have two of the four bowlers changed and the batting team which had 3 of the batsmen (out of seven) changed, will be considered different teams. The selection had to be manually done by me. While I have tried to be careful, it is not certain that I have included all teams qualifying. If readers note any misses, they are requested to inform me so I could include the same. I had also to do quite a bit of cutting and pasting. Hence there might be minor errors.

I have used two further criteria in selecting these teams. One is that the selected team should be in the top-100 in the concerned table. The other is that there should be a rough correlation to the population of teams in the top-100 while looking for as much representation as possible.

Let us now look at the tables. First the top-10 Batting teams of all time.

1. Australia:    49.81
MtId: 1661-2003      CtdAvg PeerAvg  Adj  FinalAvge
Gilchrist A.C         58.80  36.92  0.975  57.31
Hayden M.L            52.01  35.86  1.004  52.20
Waugh S.R             51.07  35.90  1.002  51.19
Ponting R.T           51.12  36.01  0.999  51.09
Martyn D.R            46.38  35.89  1.003  46.51
Langer J.L            45.86  35.90  1.002  45.97
Lehmann D.S           44.95  36.39  0.989  44.45