Anantha Narayanan
A comparison of batsmen career strike rates with the strike rates of the rest of the team in the matches played by the batsman indicates how quickly he scored compared to his team-mates
Whenever we compare measures across years we always have problems since the relevant period strategies, pitch/ground conditions, quality of bowling (or batting), prevailing laws etc vary significantly. Shahid Afridi's 100+% strike rate cannot be blindly compared to Viv Richards' sub-90 strike rate since everything has changed over the years.
I have created a new factor comparing the Batsman career strike rate with the rest of the team's strike rate, in the matches played by the batsman. The great thing with this measure is that this stands firm across decades, across different types of pitches/conditions and across different types of bowling skills and strategies.
The analysis has also evolved. My first idea was to compare the batsman's career strike rate to the team's overall strike rate. Then I changed to the concerned match strike rate of the team but this had an element of overlap since the player's own performance is embedded in the team's performance. Finally I came out with the idea of taking into account the other players' strike rates. This has worked out very well.
Now let us look at the tables. The criteria is that the concerned batsman should have scored a minmum of 2000 ODI runs. Even this means that there is a sample size of 146 batsmen. This table is current upto match no. 2855, the fourth ODI between West Indies and India.
Table of Career strike rates to Concerned match team strike rates
SNo Batsman Cty Mat Runs Balls S/R OBRuns OBBalls S/R BSRFNote: The OB figures reflect the aggregate of the runs/balls of the other batsmen who batted in all the innings in which the concerned batsman has batted. If the concerned batsman did not bat at all, the figures for that innings are not included in the aggregate.
1.Shahid Afridi Pak 276 5642 5083 1.110 52937 65461 0.809 137.3% 2.Kapil Dev N Ind 225 3783 3979 0.951 35676 49298 0.724 131.3% 3.Powell R.L Win 108 2085 2157 0.967 18941 24678 0.768 125.9% 4.Richards I.V.A Win 187 6721 7451 0.902 28195 38757 0.727 124.1% 5.Sehwag V Ind 205 6592 6472 1.019 40230 46569 0.864 117.9% 6.Wasim Akram Pak 356 3717 4224 0.880 55541 73789 0.753 116.9% 7.Jayasuriya S.T Slk 431 13151 14443 0.911 77876 97706 0.797 114.2% 8.Klusener L Saf 171 3576 3978 0.899 27976 35034 0.799 112.6% 9.Gilchrist A.C Aus 287 9619 9923 0.969 56114 64341 0.872 111.1% 10.Flintoff A Eng 141 3393 3819 0.888 22790 28419 0.802 110.8% 11.Chappell G.S Aus 74 2331 3088 0.755 11416 16449 0.694 108.8% 12.Pollock S.M Saf 303 3519 4059 0.867 43168 54126 0.798 108.7% 13.Cairns C.L Nzl 215 4950 5879 0.842 36554 47167 0.775 108.6% 14.Zaheer Abbas Pak 62 2572 3216 0.800 9520 12863 0.740 108.1% 15.Tikolo S.O Ken 117 3213 4214 0.762 18721 26291 0.712 107.1% 16.Gower D.I Eng 114 3170 4222 0.751 19486 27765 0.702 107.0% 17.McCullum B.B Nzl 153 2984 3353 0.890 24937 29918 0.834 106.8% 18.Pietersen K.P Eng 92 3127 3576 0.874 15244 18585 0.820 106.6% 19.Botham I.T Eng 116 2113 2816 0.750 19731 27866 0.708 106.0% 20.de Silva P.A Slk 308 9284 11497 0.808 51495 67537 0.762 105.9% 21.Rhodes J.N Saf 245 5935 7310 0.812 42228 54993 0.768 105.7% 22.Trescothick M.E Eng 123 4335 5086 0.852 21661 26647 0.813 104.9% 23.Symonds A Aus 198 5088 5504 0.924 34568 39054 0.885 104.4% 24.Tendulkar S.R Ind 425 16684 19481 0.856 76047 92266 0.824 103.9% 25.Moin Khan Pak 219 3266 4011 0.814 37111 47228 0.786 103.6% ... 40.Gibbs H.H Saf 244 8038 9647 0.833 45073 54128 0.833 100.0% ... 142.Yasir Hameed Pak 56 2028 3029 0.670 11363 12777 0.889 75.3% 143.Wessels K.C Saf 109 3367 6057 0.556 16626 22456 0.740 75.1% 144.Tillakaratne H.P Slk 200 3789 6544 0.579 31601 39951 0.791 73.2% 145.Mudassar Nazar Pak 122 2653 5067 0.524 19282 25900 0.744 70.3% 146.Marsh G.R Aus 117 4357 7721 0.564 20183 24649 0.819 68.9%
As expected Shahid Afridi is at the top. He has out-scored his team-mates by an amazing margin of 37.3% although his team-mates themselves score at a fair clip, 80.9. This underscores his value to the team. He outperforms his team-mates by such a wide margin, I fail to understand how the selectors could ever drop him, I am not even referring to his bowling.
Look at the second entry, also a proof that this measure cuts across years with ease. Kapil Dev has outperformed his team-mates by over 26%. His team-mates have been sluggish. However this understandable since those were the times. It was outstanding performance by Kapil Dev to score at a great strike rate of over 90% during those days when 70 was the norm.
Third player in the table is Ricardo Powell, who has out-scored his team-mates by over 25%. Whatever happened to Powell.
Now comes two interesting entries. Viv Richards' value to his team cannot be exemplified more than by this measure. He has outscored his team-mates by over 21%, day in and day out. This, coupled by the achievements of those mean and fiery fast men, was primarily responsible for the West Indian successes of the 1970s/80s.
Then comes the modern great, Sehwag. His team, India itself, has scored at a pretty good rate, 86.4. Sehwag has still managed to outscore his team-mates by 18%. This single factor has been one of the main reasons for the Indian team's recent successes.
In the next 5 places we have Wasim Akram, Jayasuriya, Kluesener, Gilchrist and Flintoff who have all outscored their team-mates by over 10%. All are great strikers.
Tendulkar has managed to outscore his team-mates by around 4%, mainly because the rest of the team, with a number of attacking batsmen, including Sehwag, Yuvraj et al, have scored at a good rate of 82.4. But his contributions, in the opening position, have been outstanding. Note the relatively lower placement of Symonds, just over 4%, indicating, a la Tendulkar, the higher scoring rate of his team-mates, in this case a very high 88.5.
Gibbs is the only batsman who has almost exactly mirrored his team-mates' achievements.
At the other hand we have mostly defensive batsmen of olden years, led by Geoff Marsh whose team-mates have outscored him by over 30%. The only modern batsman is Yasser Hameed who has scored at an amazing 25% below his team-mates, accepting that this group includes Afridi.
To view the complete list, please click here.
The above table includes the team extras in the runs scored. Thus the rest-of-the-team strike rates is slightly higher. I have given below the same table, this time excluding the team extras. No major changes.
SNo Batsman Cty Mat Runs Balls S/R OBRuns OBBalls S/R BSRF
Test Bowler Analysis
I have given below a brief write-up on the Test Bowler Analysis. If you want to send in your comments on this, please do so, as a separate comment, titling the same, "Test Bowler Analysis".
1. Period Separation: These periods have been identified with lot of thought and deliberation with inputs from a few interested readers. Many related factors have gone into this process. Separate tables will be prepared for different periods. I have considered, and rejected, a separation of Pace and Spin since there will be too many tables and we will not have the charm of a Murali/Warne vs Hadlee/Lillee comparison.
- The bowling era: 1877-1914 (134 Tests and 370 players)
- The batting era: 1920-1969 (535 Tests and 980 players)
- The balanced era: 1970-2009 (1251 Tests and 1220 players).
2. Match Performance: This is a very important aspect of any such analysis. Many readers have completely forgotten that this is not career-based and takes into account every ball bowled and wicket captured weighted by the match conditions and the opposition. Those who are shouting at the rooftops that the career-end figures are not favourable to one player over the other should take the trouble of understanding this aspect of analysis carefully. This will incorporate the following factors.
- Wickets captured (Base)
- Balls bowled (Base) - to recognize long spells
- Batsmen dismissed - based on his score at time of dismissal (Base)
- Overall quality of batting team - primarily top-7 batsmen
- Bowling accuracy - relative to the innings scoring rate
- Own team's bowling quality (to take care of very strong bowling sides)
- Match-related pitch characteristics
- Match situation (incl first day spinners' performances, defending low/high totals in innings 2, innings 3 situation, levels of fourth innings totals defended, win margins et al.
- Home/Away - incorporating relative team strengths
- Result - incorporating relative team strengths.
3. Career Achievements: This is an equally important aspect of any such analysis. It also encompasses aspects of bowling which do not require consideration of the match conditions or situation. The only longevity measure is the "Career wickets captured" measure with no more than a 10% weight. This will incorporate the following factors.
- Career Wickets captured
- Bowling Strike rate (BpW)
- Bowling accuracy (RpO)
- Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD batting average
- Type of wickets captured - Top order / Middle order / Late order
- % of wickets with own efforts - Bowled/Lbw/C&b (Still undecided on this).
Once again reminding the readers to send separate comments on this topic.
After looking at all comments to my previous article on best Test batsmen, I have come up with a revised set of tables which are a great improvement and should satisfy most readers
These changes are given in order of importance and the impact on the original submission.
1. The Match Performance points are divided by the number of innings played rather than the matches played. This will impact the calculations significantly and benefit players such as Richards who have played the second innings infrequently.
2. The Scoring rate measure has been dropped. This is again a significant change since it gets all the batsmen on an equal keel and is fair to all.
4. The weight for %-Team Score has been reduced from 10 to 5. This is fair to players who have played in relatively stronger teams. To those who have questioned this measure, for flimsy reasons, let me say that the highest value in this measure is that of Bradman, batsman extraordinary, in very strong Australian teams.
5. In Match Performance calculations, the Bowling quality measure is now Career-to-date instead of final career figures. This is also quite significant since the early Test figures for many bowlers is quite different to their career-end figures. The other benefit is that the Ratings figures calculated do not vary during subsequent calculations.
6. The Bowling quality is determined by a combination of Bowling Average and Strike Rate. This is based on Arjun Hemnani's excellent suggestion. This is fair to bowlers such as Waqar Younis, Marshall, Donald et al who are great strike bowlers but concede runs.
7. The Pitch Index calculations have undergone a very significant change. Now I am determining the Pitch index, not from the team scores and wickets, but using only the scores of the top 7 (or applicable) batsmen of each innings. This ensures that both the teams make their contributions to the index value. Also that the late order wickets do not distort the picture. I have also used the RpI rather than RpW. Makes lot more sense.
8. I had taken into account the relative team strengths in the Result parameter. Now I have extended this to the Home/Away parameter also. It means that instead of giving the benefit to the Away team automatically, now I take into account the relative team strengths. In other words, if Australia or India tour Bangladesh they will not automatically get the Away bonus. For Bangladesh touring, say, Sri Lanka, the Away bonus will be suitably increased.
9. "The Runs added with late order batsmen" measure's weight has been reduced from 1.00-1.30 to 1.00-1.20. This has been done to ensure the correct weight for the more important measures such as Pitch type, Bowler's quality et al.
10. Finally I have introduced a new measure called R-Factor. More on this later.
Consistency Index:
The Consistency index has been calculated as follows.
The career of each batsman was split into 5-Test slices. His 5-Test performance (Runs per innings used rather than Batting average so that the impact of not outs is negated) was measured against the Career RpI figures and the number of below-average performance slices (below 75%) used to determine the more significant part of the Consistency Index. 5-Test slices have been used since these represent a reasonable number to determine consistency. There is sufficient slack within 5 Tests to recover from bad form.
The other part of the Consistency index is based on the % of single digit dismissals. Together these two determine the Consistency record of the batsman.
The most consistent batsman is Alistair Cook of England, who has had no below-average slice and only 17.9% of single-figure dismissals. He gets an Index value of 4.28. Ross Taylor of New Zealand is also very consistent as, surprisingly, is Afridi. Amongst top batsmen, Hobbs and Sutcliffe are right at the top.
At the other end are Karthik, with 1.79 points, Wishart with 1.88 points, Richie Benaud with 2.05 points et al.
Separate tables for different eras:
I have also separated the tables into two independent ones. The first is for batsmen who started their career before 31 December 1959 and the other for batsmen who started their career after 1 January 1960. These dates have been decided after a lot of deliberations, summarized below.
I had earlier decided on 1 January 1940 as the cut-off date. Unfortunately very few Tests had been played upto that point (274 out of 1920) and there are not enough batsmen. Even 1 January 1960 cut-off does not give us enough Tests. However 483 Tests out of 1920 is a far better share.
The other key factor is that the 1950s (and some might say, the 1960s) really belonged to the old fashioned method of playing Test cricket and a Hutton or Barrington or Hanif Mohommad or Vijay Hazare would very easily fit in with the first era. Anyhow whatever date I take for cut-off there would be objections and this is a good enough point. It is also 50 years back.
I have also followed the separation very strictly, with debut match as the only criterion, knowing fully well that some players might have made their debut in 1958-59 but played most of their matches after 1960. Jarman who made his debut in Test no 483 (started on 19 December 1959) is placed in the first era while Durrani who made his debut in Test no 484 (started on 1 January 1960) is placed in the second era, and so on. I have to work on certain guidelines and have to be true to those. The number of players in the first era is a healthy 1124. The second era contains 1435 players.
I have also implemented another one of Arjun's suggections. That is to give a simple ratio between 2.0 and 0.0 against each batsman, based on a suitable mean, so that their position can be determined instantly and comparisons become easier. For this a value of 35.0 has been used as the notional mean (it does not matter what this figure is). Readers will instantly note the value of this single figure when they peruse the tables.
Let us now look at the revised tables.
The best Test batsmen: 1960-2009
No. Cty Batsman Ratio Total Match Bat Runs Cons %-TS R-Factor Pts Perf Avge Pts Idx Pts
My review of the World Twenty looks at the areas not covered by Cricinfo's stats pages and by S Rajesh's review
The first three tables relate to the best Batting and Bowling performances during the World Cup. These are based on the Ratings calculations. As I have already explained, these Ratings calculations are totally different to the Test/ODI Ratings. There I have adopted the bottom-up approach insofar as I determine base points based on runs scored or wickets captured and then apply various multiplicative indices on these base points.
In T20s, I have adopted a top-down approach. The Par Score is determined for each innings, be it the target-setting one or the chasing one. Then the team performance is worked out, to what extent the target score has been exceeded or fallen short, the extent of resources (runs and balls) used and the result. Afterwards, the batting and bowling function contributions are worked out and these allotted points further allotted amongst the batsmen and bowlers of each team. This is the basis for the Maruti-Cricinfo Ratings and more details are available there.
Top 20 Players during the T20 World Cup 2009
No Player Ctry M RtgPts Batting Bowling
There is no doubt that Shahid Afridi was the most influential player, by a few miles, during the World Cup. He is ahead of Dwayne Bravo by over 200 points. Umar Gul is third and Dilshan is fourth, followed by kallis. The award to Dilshan was probably a sympathy vote. It cannot be justified otherwise.
This table is a subsequent addition based on a reader comment and should have rightfully been there at the beginning itself.
1. Top 20 Bowling performances during the T20 World Cup 2009
No MtId Year Player Name For Vs <-Analysis-> RtgPts
A detailed analysis of the Twenty20 internationals played so far
Given below are some interesting facts. Detailed tables for these can be viewed using Cricinfo's Statistics section.
1. McCullum is the leading run-scorer with 582 runs.
2. Symonds has the highest strike rate amongst batsman who have scored 100 runs. He has a strike rate of 169.35 while scoring 337 runs.
3. Jayasuriya has secured 5 MOM awards.
4. Umar Gul has captured the maximum wickets, 24 in all.
5. Ray Price (Zimbabwe) has the best economy rates among bowlers who have bowled 10 overs. His economy rate is 3.25.
6. Gayle is the only batsman to have scored a century. His score was 117.
7. Yuvraj's innings of 58 in 16 balls is the fastest in T20s.
8. Gillespie (New Zealand) has the best bowling figures, 2.5-0-7-4.
9. Cusack (Ireland) has the most accurate bowling analysis in T20s, 3.0-1-3-2.
10. Anderson (England) has the most expensive bowling T20 bowling spell ever, 4-0-64-1.
11. Sri Lanka has scored the highest total in T20s, 260 against Kenya.
12. Kenya, in addition to above, also has the lowest innings total against Ireland, a paltry 67.
13. South Africa chased a total of 205 made by West Indies.
14. Ireland defended a total of 43 (9 overs) against Bermuda.
For the 2007 World Cup, the significant top performers are listed below.
1. The maximum runs were scored by Hayden with 265.
2. The best Runs per Innings figure was Hayden's 44.17 in 6 innings, including 4 x 50s.
3. The best strike rate was Yuvraj Singh's 1.947 (148 runs in 76 balls).
4. Umar Gul captured the maximum wickets, having accounted for 13 dismissals.
5. The best bowling average was achieved by Chigumbura of Zimbabwe who captured 7 wickets at 7.29.
6. Vettori bowled most economically with a RPO figure of 5.33 in 24 overs.
2. A re-look at the Par Score
Sometime back I had a look at the Par Score for T20s in which I had suggested a Par Score as 165. I had increased this to 170+ for the sub-continent. I have looked at this again, only for the 25 matches of the World Cup. Looking at the 12 teams which scored 160 and above, 8 teams won defending such totals while 4 totals were chased successfully. This gives a very reasonable 66.7% winning chance and 160 can very well be taken as a Par Score for this World Cup, which will be played in England. On the other hand, increasing the Par Score to 165 gives the teams a chance to win in 7 out of 8 (87.5%). So I would say that the Par Score should be between 160-165. 160 should be sufficient, the few extra runs increase the chances of winning significantly.
3. T20-Intls: Analysis of 20-over runs conceded and wickets captured
Ov Num Runs Max Avge SD SEM Wkts Avge SD SEM # Overs
a. There is a spurt in the second over, indicating that the first over was used to get the bearings. There is marked spurt in the 5th over, possibly because the batsmen take couple of overs to familiarize themselves and cut loose in anticipation of the removal of the fielding restrictions.
b. There seems to be no significant change between the 10th and 11th over since there is no artificial commercial break after the 10th over.
c. There seems to be a steady move in the later overs. However the 14th over shows an unexpected dip. Why, I cannot tell.
d. There is a major move in wickets lost between 5th and 6th overs, a clear case of batsmen chancing their arms. The significant increase in the 20th over is again understandable.
4. T20-Intls: Comparison of 20-over figures between First and Second inns
Ovr First Innings Second Innings First Inns Second Inns # Runs Runs Wkts Wkts
One may love or hate IPL but certainly cannot ignore it
Cricinfo provides a comprehensive statistical section on IPL. In addition Rajesh has come out with an excellent statistical overview of IPL2. I have tried to make sure that I do not overlap any of the tables available in these two segments. What is given below is also a look into the future of T20 analysis. This has to be different to traditional Test/ODI analyses.
Over Num Runs Avge SD Sd/M Max Min Wkts Avge SD SD/M # Overs Runs Ratio Wkts Ratio
- The drop in number of overs for the 5th over is caused by the D/L finish in 4.5 overs by Delhi. Similarly early finishes cause drops in later overs, after 9.
- The first over has been the most economical of all. This is understandable since the batsmen are yet to find their feet.
- Not surprisingly the seventh over is also as economical as the first. Immediately after the fielding restrictions are removed there is a lull in the scoring rate.
- Note also the sharp drop in scoring rate in the 10th over possibly indicating that the batsmen are playing carefully in anticipation of the strategy break. So it looks as if the strategy break, while filling the IPL/Sony coffers, is proving to be a dampener in scoring.
- Afterwards the rate builds up to a high 10+ runs per over in the 20th overs.
- Can anyone throw a light on the significant dip in the 19th over. It is not because quite a few matches finished in the 19th over since the calculation is based on exact number of balls rather than no of overs. Possible reason might be that very few runs are needed for a win and teams do this carefully.
- The Standard Deviation/Average ratio seems to be quite high during the first 6 overs indicating significant variations. Then it seems to settle to similar levels. However it should be noted that the later overs have high averages.
- The first over has seen a few more wickets fall than the next 14. Again possibly the bowlers are getting the batsmen before they find their feet.
- The 8th over wickets per over value is the lowest at 0.15. Possibly because the teams are still in a Power Play mood in the 7th over and take an over to settle down.
- The 16-19 overs are approximately similar until there is an explosion of wickets in the 20th over, all particularly understandable.
2. IPL2: 20+ Runs overs bowled
No MtId Player Name For Vs Over
There were a number of useful suggestions to my previous article on Test batsmen, and I am considering incorporating a number of these suggestions
The weighted bowling quality measure, which has been shown as the last column in all the tables, has been derived by using the career-to-date values as suggested by many readers. There is no major difference. However there is no doubt that this is the correct method. The real difference is with the lesser bowlers. For the great bowlers with 300+ wickets in their career, the CtD averages do not show any significant variation once a certain stage of career has been crossed.
Aus Ponting R.T 2000s 8864 @ 59.89 36.00 Saf Kallis J.H 2000s 8428 @ 58.94 37.69 Aus Hayden M.L 2000s 8365 @ 52.94 36.23 Ind Dravid R 2000s 8125 @ 53.45 37.62 Ind Tendulkar S.R 2000s 6932 @ 52.92 37.74 Slk Jayawardene D.P.M.D 2000s 6581 @ 56.25 38.81 Win Lara B.C 2000s 6380 @ 54.07 34.43 Saf Smith G.C 2000s 6343 @ 50.34 38.70 Win Chanderpaul S 2000s 6342 @ 53.29 35.04 Ind Laxman V.V.S 2000s 6115 @ 49.72 36.61
It is my pet theory that it does not matter which bowler the captain bowls in T20
It is my pet theory that it does not matter which bowler the captain bowls in T20.
If the batsman sets his mind, any bowler will go for plenty. This has been substantiated by the happenings in the IPL. The bowlers who have gone for plenty (around 20 runs) are the experienced bowlers such as Flintoff (twice), Agarkar, Vettori (19), Sreesanth (thrice), Ishanth Sharma, Vaas (the 23-run last over) et al. The lesser bowlers also did go but not like this. Hence I decided to put this, possibly unsound, theory to test.
This analysis pertains to T20 International matches. Reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that the IPL is not going away and am building my data base. So the IPL analysis will follow later. I may not be a great fan of IPL, but that entity is a treasure-trove for analysis.
Again the selection criteria plays an important part. I have set the criteria as players who have bowled in a minimum of 3 matches. Since the maximum number of matches for a bowler is 17, this represents a sub-20% lower limit. Initially I set 5 matches as the criteria but enough bowlers did not come through. These and the "all bowlers" data is also summarised later. This is the only criteria I have set. The measure used for classification is Balls per (Bowler) match.
The BpM measure ranges from 24.0 for a few bowlers to around 10.0 for some others. 141 bowlers satisfy this criteria (bowled in 3 or more matches) and are available for analysis. Out of these, 65 bowlers have bowled 21.0 balls or more indicating that these are very regular bowlers. 14 bowlers have bowled 15 balls or less. The middle group, between 15 and 21 balls per match can be termed as somewhat regular bowlers. These limits are used only for some form of classification and are not set in stone. Now let us look at how these bowlers, as a group have performed.
BpM Bow Balls Runs Wkts St/Rt RpO
This is one of the most awaited analyses and has been in the pipeline for long
1. There has to be equal weight given to Match performances and Career achievements. The match analysis should deal with the specific match-related measurable situations only.
2. The batsman's longevity related measure such as career runs scored has to be recognised, but at a lower weighting level, no more than 15-20% of the total.
4. The batting average should be considered the most significant of the career-related measures. However this has to be adjusted based on the par batting average(s) of the period(s) spanned by the batsman's career. A pre-WW1 batsman's average has to be adjusted upwards for the low batting averages prevalent during these period while a current batsman's average has to be adjusted downwards in view of the high batting averages prevalent. If a batsman's career spans multiple periods, there has to be proportionate adjustment.
5. The batsman's career strike rate has become an important measure. This should be recognized, if available. For those batsmen whose strike rate information is not available, this parameter will not be included. If the strike rate is available for part of the batsman's career, it will be considered for that part only. This is explained in detail later. There is a case for the innings strike rate to be incorporated in the Match Performance calculations. However this revised methodology necessarily requires the strike rate to be a career-based calculation rather than match innings based.
6. Non-measurable cricketing factors such as bouncers, helmets, uncovered pitches et al cannot be incorporated. Nice for healthy discussions, but not beyond.
A lengthy introduction, however the weighty topic required this. Now let us look at the details.
First a minimum criteria is to be established. I have decided to keep the minimum runs required at 2000 runs so that great batsmen such as George Headley, Greame Pollock, Ponsford, Macartney, Hazare, O'Neill, McCabe et al would come in for consideration. If I had raised the bar to 3000 runs, all these wonderful players would have missed out. It is also true that in a different era and political situation they would have played more Tests.
Now for the Ratings methodology.
The Match Performances would carry a weight of 50 points, based on the methodology explained below. Career Achievements will carry a weight of 50 points, based on methodology explained later.
Match Performances:
The following factors are considered.
Base for calculation will be Runs scored. Other factors are explained below. Each of these is a multiplicative parameter, ranging either side of 1.00. For certain parameters such as result, home/away, runs added with late order et al, there would not be a below 1.00 value.
1. Pitch type.
2. Quality of bowling - weighted by actual balls bowled by each bowler.
3. Position at batsman entry (5 for 1, 100 for 2, 24 for 3, 325 for 4 et al).
4. Runs added with late order batsmen (no. 8 onwards).
5. Innings type (1/2/3/4, Score faced, Target et al).
6. Match result, taking into consideration relative team strengths.
7. Match location (Home/Away).
8. Match importance (Series status).
The points for each innings are computed, summed and divided by the number of matches played to arrive at the Match Performance Ratings value. The highest Match Performance Ratings value is 40.03 achieved by Bradman. George Headley is the next best in this category with 28.48 points followed by Lara with 27.31 points. Thus the limit of 50 we set has worked out well.
Career achievements:
The points allocation, totalling to 50 points, is explained below.
1. Batting average: 20 points (for an adjusted average of 100.00).
Adjusted by the years spanned by the batsman career and the average Batting Average during the period. The adjustment is done proportionately. Most of the adjustment has been downward, between 1% and 6% (for the 2000s batsmen). The highest adjustment has been 20%, for batsmen such as Hill, Trumper whose entire career has been before Pre-WW1.
The highest adjusted average is that of Bradman, whose average of 99.96 has been adjusted down to 96.75. He gets 19.35 points and is followed by Hobbs (61.68) with 12.34 points and Weekes (61.06) with 12.21 points.
2. Runs scored: 15 points (for scoring 15,000 Test runs).
Away runs are given a slightly higher weight as explained. Scoring 1050 home runs gets one point for the batsman while 950 away runs will be enough to get one point. The differential of 10% seems very reasonable. This is the only longevity-based measure and carries a weight of only 15%.
This is a straight-forward calculation. Tendulkar is the highest and gets 12.85 points followed by Lara with 11.93 and Border with 11.16 points.
3. Scoring rate: 10 points (for a scoring rate of 100).
The full 10 points (and a total of 100 points) will be the base for batsmen like Sehwag, Hayden et al, whose career strike rate is available in complete. For batsmen such as Bradman, Hobbs et al, there will be no points taken, consequently the total points for consideration of the Ratings points % will be 90. For batsmen such as Lara, Tendulkar et al, proportionate points, out of 10, will be considered, consequently the total points for consideration of the Ratings points % will be between 90 and 100. This delicate tweak was suggested by Shyam (Ananthanarayan).
Among those whose complete data is available, Gilchrist leads in this measure with 8.20 points followed by Sehwag with 7.87 points and Pieterson with 6.32 points.
4. % of Team runs scored: 5 points (for scoring 25% of team runs).
Bradman is the leader in this measure, having scored 24.98% of the team runs. He gets 4.99 points, followed by Headley with 4.32 points and Lara with 3.79 points.
Now for the Top-20 table.
The best Test batsmen of all time
No.Cty Batsman Mat Total Rating Match BatAvg Runs BatSR %-TS Max Pts Pts Perf Pts Pts Pts Pts Pts
There is something romantic about teams recovering from totally disastrous situations to post respectable totals since invariably the late order batsmen come into play
The script was thrown out right at the beginning. Bangladesh lost to Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe lost to Sri Lanka and, with their backs to the wall, Bangladesh defeated Sri Lanka and the two teams qualified for the final.
In the final, Sri Lanka dismissed Bangladesh for 152 and everyone must have thought, "Ok, we are back to norrmalcy". Sri Lanka would win comfortably with many overs to spare. But, 30 minutes later, the score was 6 for 5 (or the Australians would have called 5 for 6). Jayasuriya went first ball, then Tharanga, Jayawardene, Kapugedara and Thushara were dismissed by the 8th over for 6 runs. Were we going to see Sri Lanka dismissed for the lowest total ever or Bangladesh win by over 100 runs. Slowly but surely Sri Lanka stabilised, still slumped to 114 for 8 but won through Muralitharan's heroics by two wickets.
I thought it would be a nice idea to look at such ODI recoveries over the years. There is something romantic about such recoveries from totally disastrous situations since invariably the late order batsmen come into play. There is also a wonderful innings played in most of these recoveries.
Let us first look at the criteria for selection of matches. The fun in this exercise is in setting up of the criteria for selection, which is very different to what I normally do. I have worked on the following criteria. The criteria has been decided after a few trial-and-error steps. At this stage the result is immaterial and is not one of the selection criteria.
1. From <20 for 4 to 200+ or 2. From <25 for 5 to 200+ or 3. From <30 for 6 to 150+ or 4. From <50 for 7 to 150+ or 5. From <50 for 8 to 150+ orThe results are tabulated below. Quite an interesting collection of matches. There are overlapping situations in couple of matches which have been marked.
2005 2273 Ind 44 for 8 to 164 all out ( 4.21) vs Nzl Lost
A number of readers had raised queries requesting me to answer those
1. Test teams with maximum number of 10+ / 15+ / 20+ Batting averages:
There was a query from WPHE about Test teams where all eleven players have had a career-to-date average in double figures.
I did a simple analysis and as I expected there are many teams, over 600, with this level of all cumulative batting averages exceeding 10. For instance most recent Indian, Australian and South African teams have even the no.11 batsman with a 10+ average.
However, this query intrigued me quite a bit especially as the late order batsmen have improved drastically of late. I did some more work on this very interesting query and the results are posted below.
First I raised the bar to 15.00 thinking that it would reduce the list to a manageable one. Good reduction, but not enough. 59 teams qualified. That is a lot. So I took the plunge and set the bar at 20.00, fully expecting a list with no entries. I was surprised to see 3 teams with all players having a career-to-date average exceeding 20.00. The teams are given below.
All batsmen exceeding career-to-date average of 20.00
The first is a very early English team. Tylecote, the keeper, had an average of 20.29. Briggs, although a bowler, had an average of 22.50. Lohmann made his debut in the previous Test and had a score and average of 32.00. To readers who complain that only one innings had been played, take it easy, this is only a quixotic analysis.
The third team, also India, has peculiar similarities to the first English team. Kiran More, the wicketkeeper batting at no.8, was a good batsman. Raju had a career-to-date average of 21.00 in 5 innings. Srinath, who made his debut in this Test, scored 21 in the first innings, hence having a career-to-date average of 21.00. Needless to say that both these bowlers finished with career averages way below 20.00. However the rules have been satisfied.
The second team, the Indian team of 1962, is the only team to have all genuine averages exceeding 20.00 since all the eleven batsmen also finished with averages exceeding 20.00. This team had Borde (3061 at 35.59) at no.8, Durrani (1202 at 25.04) at no.9, Nadkarni (1414 at 25.71) at no.10 and Kunderan (981 at 32.70) at no.11. All these four also had career-to-date average exceeding 20.00. To boot, all these four have career Test centuries to their credit. This is the only team in Test history to have such a collection of good averages. The fact that they lost to a strong West Indian team is incidental.
The underlined sentence made me think that there is something unique. If the last four in the batting order have a Test century to their credit, does this team have 11 centurions (career, not career-to-date). Alas, the Indian propensity for weak top order batsmen spoiled that. Vijay Mehra has a highest Test score of 62 and Rusi surti has a heart-breaking highest Test score of 99. So there are only 9 centurions in this team.
2. Test teams with maximum number of centurions:
The threads seem to go on. What, then about other teams with 9 or 10 Test centurions.
One more program written and the results are set out below. I set the bar at 9 centurions. Well the table hit the ceiling, with 267 entries. So I raised the limit to 10 centurions and the table is presented below.
List of teams with 10 centurions
It is of interest that the only case of a genuine top-order batsman spoiling the "Perfect 11" is Adam Bacher. The others are bowlers. It is also of interest that in many of these matches, bowlers such as Wasim Akram, Saqlain Mushtaq, Vettori, Kumble et al have scored their 100s, before or after the concerned match.
The most interesting set is the one containing the last 4 matches. The way Harbhajan Singh bats nowadays, it is only a matter of time before he reaches 100, in which case, all these four teams would reach the "Perfect 11".
3. Test teams with career-to-date double centurions:
Chandran had raised a query on Test teams with 6 batsmen who had scored double centuries. I had analysed this and presented two teams, one Pakistani and another Australian, which had seven double centurions. However, Keyur has correctly pointed that two of the double centuries in both matches had been scored after the concerned match. As such the India - South Africa match referred to by Chandran becomes the first match in which 6 batsmen have had double centuries to their credit. Great little idea and my thanks to Chandran, Agni and of course Keyur.
4. Test teams with all 11 players having captured wicket(s):
The idea of looking at teams which had all players with at least one test wicket to their names came to me as a logical extension to the batsman queries which I have been doing. In reality it is the batsmen who determine this list.
Teams with all 11 players capturing wicket(s)