Anantha Narayanan

The top two players are, as with Ananth's scheme, Tendulkar and Richards, with the former enjoying a significant lead over the latter. Seven of Ananth's top ten are in our top ten. But whereas Ananth has Haynes, Javed Miandad and Symonds, we have Hussey, Lara and Kallis. Two notable absentees in Ananth's top 30 who rank quite highly in ours are Pietersen and Dhoni, 11th and 13th respectively.

Given that limited-overs cricket is all about scoring runs, and scoring them quickly,a much simpler algorithm to arrive at the best ODI batsmen is to multiply the batting average by the scoring rate, and divide the product by 1000 to reduce the magnitude of the result. This requires a minimum qualification of (in this case) 50 matches, otherwise the well known Canadian, Rizwan Cheema, heads the list after only three ODIs! This method will favour modern players because of increased scoring rates in modern times, but we find that Zaheer Abbas and Viv Richards still make the top eleven:

Let me deal with these one by one. The last point is automatically taken care of by the tweaks.

1. Wins weightage and avoiding double weightage:

Ultimately winning has to carry some weightage in any analysis. Why do we respect and admire the 1980s West Indian teams. Not just because they had great players but because they won more than a fair share of the matches played. The recent Australian team might not be as admired as the earlier West Indian teams. However they are certainly respected, by peer players and viewers alike. I have looked at this carefully and have decided not to do any changes. The Win% does not seem to have any problems. The actual Wins had some comments but that carries only 5% weightage.

2. Possible cap on runs scored weightage and adjusting for the paucity of matches played during the early 10 years.

I have combined these two points. First I considered putting a cap on the runs scored weightage. The problem is that whatever figure I choose as the cap, it will only affect the very few players above that cap. For instance if I fix the cap at 10.0 points, only the 7 batsmen who have scored above 10,000 runs will be affected. That seems too arbitrary and discriminatory to me. The purpose would only be to put down a few players which is wrong.

The better alternative would be to leave the runs scored weightage as it is and adjust the early players' runs scored points upwards by an acceptable factor. This also means that we would increase certain players' rating points, for a valid reason, and not penalise a few.

After a few trials and errors, I have come out with the following formula which, I feel, would be acceptable to most readers and critics. This is a linear and simple formula.

No. of years played by the batsman: YEARS

Total number of matches played during these years: MATCHES

A brief description of each factor and the weights given to each parameter is outlined below. The total points add up to a nice round sum of 100.

1. Total runs scored (20 points)

This is a recognition of the longevity of the player. There is no doubt that the runs scored has to be given decent weightage. At the same time care has been taken to see that the olden era players such as Richards, Greenidge et al do not suffer unduly. My belief is that it is very unlikely for any batsman, including Tendulkar, to exceed 20000 runs. Hence the limit seems correct. The formula used is

• TRS = Total runs scored / 1000.

2. Batting Average (15 points)

This is a straightforward calculation. We need not worry about not-outs since there is a separate factor for that. Since the batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 60.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is

• AVGE = Batting average / 4.0.

Note: David Barry is doing some simulation work with a view to establish a correlation between Average and Strike Rates. It is too early to incorporate these first level findings. Hence at this stage I have taken the simple, easily understandable method of separating the Average and Strike Rate measures with individual weightages. Similarly Jeff Grimshaw's ideas about treating balls played as a resource and giving credit for the same is quite good. However I do not want too many overlapping parameters. Already I have Average and RPI.

3. Runs per Innings (5 points)

This is to mitigate the factor of a high number of not-outs, especially for middle-order batsmen. Again a straightforward calculation. Since the Batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 50.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is

• RPI = Runs per innings / 10.0.

Note: I briefly toyed with Abhihjeet Dongre's excellent suggestion of excluding from the total number of innings the innings in which the batsman has finished not out at a score below his batting average. This redresses the balance towards middle order batsmen slightly. However I have finally rejected this tweak since I feel that they have already got the full benefit of not outs while calculating the Batting Average. The purpose of separation of these two factors will be lost if I do not use the full complement of innings played.

4. Strike Rate (25 points)

I consider this factor as the most important measure and that is reflected in the weightage. However much we talk about the importance of scoring runs, it is essential that these are scored at a reasonable pace. It does not mean that every century should be a run-a-ball one. However, it is true that many a match has been lost because the batsmen have not moved up the scoring rate at the right time.

However a major tweak has been done. The actual strike rates have been adjusted up or down based on the decade scoring rates pro-rata. In other words, if Viv Richards played between 1975 and 1991, his actual scoring rate has been adjusted pro-rata for the three decades, viz., 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In general this will mean that the older players will get a slight benefit since the scoring rates were lower, as indicated in the table below.

AllMats   1970s   1980s   1990s   2000s

Matches played 2759 82 516 933 1228 Batsmen innings 47947 1418 8838 16266 21425 Runs scored 1142018 30292 202884 386508 522334 Balls bowled 1473233 46208 277516 505727 643782 Runs per ball 0.775 0.656 0.731 0.764 0.811 % of all-matches avge 100.0% 84.6% 94.3% 98.6% 104.7% The actual and adjusted strike rates for a few top players is given below. All these adjustments seem very reasonable. The only clear cases are for batsmen such as Pietersen and Dhoni who have played all their matches in the current decade and hence have the same adjustment of -4.4%. The others are pro-rata. For instance, Tendulkar's and Lara's strike rates have been adjusted much less since they have played during 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Zaheer Abbas gains the maximum since his career spanned 1975-1985, the low-scoring years.

Batsman         Prev SR   Adj SR   % chg

2. The best 10-innings stretch

Bradman's best 10-innings stretch was during 1937-46, when he scored 1236 runs at an average of 154.50

The scores were 212, 169, 51, 144*, 18, 102*, 103, 16, 187 and 234.

Also relevant here is "Alex"'s comment, reproduced below.

Also, regarding the 'best 10-innings stretch'. Bradman scored 1370 runs in 10 innings during 1930 and 1931: 131, 254, 1, 334, 14, 232, 4, 25, 223, 152. There were no not-outs during this period however, so his average was 'only' 137.0.

Legend: P-Peaks (above 150%), T-Troughs(below 50%), A-Above Batting avg (100-150%), B-Below Batting avg (50-100%).

Border was consistency personified with two peaks and no troughs. Steve Waugh was just the opposite. Quite a few peaks and troughs. Sachin Tendulkar was somewhat more predictable than Steve Waugh. The surprise is Lara - only one peak and no trough. It shows a facet of his batting which has not been appreciated. Surprisingly Gavaskar's and Tendulkar's distributions are identical. Michael Atherton is somewhat like Lara, with no great variations.

Kallis is similar to Steve Waugh, lots of variations. Surprisingly Inzamam is prone to more losses of form. However this is made up by a very high number of stretches which are above average. Richards has twice as many below-average stretches as above average. Possibly a reflection of the carefree batting he practised.

Finally note Mahela Jayawardene's distribution. He has no peak and no trough. He and Don Bradman are the only batsmen in this list with such consistent batting records.

To view the complete list, please click here

Part 2: Analysis of high stretch averages and low stretch averages

This analysis is totally different to the first one. The methodology is briefly explained below.

1. The batsmen are selected on the same basis. This time also 299 batsmen are selected.

2. Each innings played by the qualifying batsman is taken as the base and the rest of the career analysed. For each of these innings, the best stretch average is determined. With a minimum of ten innings as a valid stretch, the running averages are computed and the selection is done. Averages above 100.00 and below 10.00 are tabulated.

3. These tables are studied and because of overlapping stretches, appropriate non-overlapping stretches selected and sequenced.

5. Table of high average run scoring stretches

1.Sangakkara K.C  105 114 10 4 1185 197.50
{100*,156*,8,6, 200*,222*,57,192,92,152}

2.Sobers G.St.A    29  38 10 4 1115 185.83
{365*,125,109*,14, 27,25,142*,4,198,106*}

3.Tillakaratne H.P 95 105 11 7  721 180.25
{136*,10*,105*,87, 7*,204*,96,37,3,19*,17*}

4.Kallis J.H       81  90 10 6  711 177.75
{51,157*,42*,189*, 68,21*,24,89*,5,65*}

5.Bradman D.G      50  59 10 2 1236 154.50
{212,169,51,144*, 18,102*,103,16,187,234}

6.Kallis J.H      118 127 10 3 1065 152.14
{158,44,177,73, 130*,130*,92,150*,40,71}

7.Hammond W.R      88  97 10 4  889 148.17
{87*,29,63*,65, 167,217,5*,0,25,231*}

8.Bradman D.G      18  28 11 2 1327 147.44
{223,152,43,0, 226,112,2,167,299*,0,103*}

9.Vengsarkar D.B  133 142 10 6  584 146.00
{1*,37*,126*,33,61, 102*,38,0,22*,164*}

10.Bradman D.G      63  72 10 3  984 140.57
{56*,12,63,185, 13,132,127*,201,57*,138}

Sangakkara's phenomenal run is the best ever and is of recent vintage. Sobers blossomed once he scored his first Test century, which turned to be the world-record breaking one. Tillakaratne had the benefit of quite a few not-outs. But his run was wonderful for a journeyman batsman. Bradman has three distinct stretches. With a career average of 99.96 it is not surprising to see him exceeding 140 three times in his career. There are many overlapping stretches during which Bradman has exceeded averages of 120. Kallis is the only other batsman who has had two separate 140-plus stretch averages. Dilip Vengsarkar is the only Indian batsman in this elite list.

6. The career-best best stretch averages for a few other famous batsmen is given below.

Lara B.C       164 173 10 1  851  94.56
{68,60,209,10, 80*,29,1,191,1,202}

Tendulkar S.R  105 114 10 3  736 105.14
{124*,18,126*,15, 44*,217,15,61,0,116}

Ponting R.T     10 119 10 2  928 116.00
{169,53*,54,50, 242,0,257,31*,25,47}

Dravid R        65  74 10 3  835 119.29
{28,41*,200*,70*, 162,9,39,25,180,81}

Gavaskar S.M     1  10 10 3  831 118.71
{65,67*,116,64*, 1,117*,124,220,4,53}

Richards I.V.A  27  36 10 0 1093 109.30
{177,23,64,232, 63,4,135,66,38,291}

Javed Miandad   23  32 10 5  654 130.80
{154*,6*,35,100, 62*,81,160*,26,30,0*}

Gilchrist A.C   35  45 11 5  715 119.17
{83*,7,22,30*, 34,204*,138*,24,91,16,66*}

Flower A        82  94 13 4 1243 138.11
{183*,70,55,232*, 79,73,23,51,83,45,8*,142,199*}

Lara is the only one who has not exceeded 100. Primarily because he remains not out very few times. Gavaskar's is his debut stretch. Andy Flower has a 13-innings stretch in which he averages 138+. Playing in a weak team, this is a remarkable achievement. Richards has exceeded 100 even though he was dismissed in all 10 of the innings.

7. Table of low average run scoring stretches

1.Reid J.R          8  17 10 0   36   3.60
{0,3,6,1,9,7,6,0,3,1}

2.Bannerman A.C    27  39 13 1   57   4.75
{8,5,2,15*,4,2,2,0,0,13,5,1,0}

3.Wishart C.B       6  15 10 0   52   5.20
{3,2,25,0,10,0,7,3,0,2}

4.Healy I.A       167 176 10 0   56   5.60
{0,14,5,12,0,6,10,0,3,6}

5.Vettori D.L      13  23 11 1   57   5.70
{0,14*,1,3,16,0,20,0,0,0,3}

6.Kapil Dev N      38  47 10 0   60   6.00
{19,2,7,5,0,0,9,0,4,14}

7.Fletcher K.W.R   19  29 11 1   64   6.40
{4,2,1,28*,1,0,5,2,0,16,5}

8.Knott A.P.E      69  78 10 1   65   7.22
{2,0,0,21,4*,5,0,21,5,7}

9.Atapattu M.S      1  10 10 0   73   7.30
{0,0,0,1,0,0,25,22,0,25}

10.Nadkarni R.G     52  62 11 1   73   7.30
{0,7,14*,9,0,3,15,17,2,0,6}

John Reid's stretch is the worst by any batsman in Test history. Ten consecutive single-digit scores is something, a record no recognised batsman has achieved. Ian Healy's poor scoring stretch is towards the end of his career. He has averaged 8.12 in a 17-innings stretch. Atapattu's stretch is on his debut. Fletcher, with an average of 6.40 early in his career, is one of the three recognised Test batsman to have had very low stretches.

I have implemented Daniel Cotton's suggestion of 10 dismissals instead of 10 innings and the results are tabulated below.

Table of Peaks, based on 10 consecutive dismissals, by % of Batting Average

Certain criteria have been laid down. Consider the following matches:

• MtId 1138. Ind: 358 for 9, Nzl: 178 for 1.
• MtId 0696. Win: 451 for 3, Nzl: 543 for 7.
• MtId 1094. Nzl: 512 for 2, Eng: 183 for 6.

Very few wickets have fallen and lots of runs have been scored. How does one rationalise between batting and bowling. In the first match, Atul Wassan took the only wicket to fall. Surely he cannot be credited with 100% of the bowling effort. It is essential that a fair number of wickets are captured.

Hence I will consider only matches in which 20 wickets have fallen. The limit of 20 wickets has been decided after a lot of deliberation. 20 wickets represents two completed innings and there is a fair chance that the match would have gone a reasonable distance. There would be either two completed innings or a third innings. In addition matches in which over 1000 runs are scored are also included to make sure that the really high-scoring matches will be considered.

Just to pre-empt readers who rush to print, let me add that 1769 out of the 1879 Test matches fall under this category. This works out to a very satisfactory 94%.

The only match in which fewer than 20 wickets have fallen and there has been a result is Test # 1483 in which only 16 wickets were lost. This was the Test match with the contrived result and I have left the match in with a lot of reluctance.

Of course, if there is a match with the following [imaginary] scorecard, it would not be included. I can live that. I am sure any reader could.

• Team 1: 100 for 9, Team 2: 400 for 0, Team 1: 200 all out.

I do not want to limit this analysis only to matches in which there have been results. This will keep out some great individual performances in drawn matches.

Now for the difficult task of normalising batting and bowling points.

First the batting. Let us use the batting as the base and assign a point for each run scored. Fairly easy. The only problem is that the batsmen do not have an opportunity to play as much of a dominant role in an innings or match as the bowlers do. The table given below is an eye-opener. The best performances by players as a proportion of their team's performances are outlined below.

Highest share of team performance - Batting
	Innings: A.C.Bannerman 165 (245 all out) - 67.3%
	Match:   Tharanga 165 & 71 (316 & 120)   - 54.1% (Both innings played)
Highest share of team performance - Bowling
	Innings: Laker & Kumble 10 (out of 10)   - 100%
	Match:   Laker          19 (out of 20)   -  95%

In view of the above, which clearly indicates that no batsman can ever hope to score more than two-thirds of his team total in a match, the individual batting points are increased by a factor of 25%, since changed to 40% on 23 July 2008..

Next the bowling. Here only the wickets captured have been considered. Overs bowled is another factor. However, if the batting team score is 400 all out, it is difficult to give any weight to a spell of 40 overs for no wicket against 40 overs for eight wickets. It is quite possible for a bowler to monopolise 100% of his team's bowling effort. Hence no adjustments, similar to the batting adjustments, are done. I will wait for the reader responses to decide whether to give a small weightage, say 10%, to the overs bowled.

It is interesting to note that a bowler has captured 10 wickets or more (50% of or more of the bowling effort), in 361 of the 1879 Test matches.

Look at the following two matches.

• Test # 0028: Aus 116 ao & 60 ao, Eng 53 ao & 62 ao.
• Test # 0137: Aus 354 ao & 582 ao, Eng 447 ao & 370 ao.

Both are similar in many ways. 40 wickets have fallen in both and there has been a result. However in the first match, 291 runs have been scored and in the second, 1753 runs have been scored. Clearly it was very easy to pick up wickets in the first match and very difficult to pick up wickets in the second match.

Hence while computing the value of a wicket the bowling and batting figures, for a single match, in terms of runs are equalised. In other words, the value of a wicket in the first match is approximately equivalent to 7 runs and in the second, 46 runs. This will make sure that the proportionate allocation for bowlers is done equitably.

First, the batting and bowling points for a single match are equalised. Then the proportionate allocation takes place.

Now for fielding. Since run-out records are available for very few matches, that is not taken into account. Each catch taken or stumping effected by a player is alloted 20% of the value of a wicket. This figure of 20% is not arbitrary. It has been determined that an average of around 5-6 catches are taken in a match and the total allocation for fielding per match is around a single wicket value, which is very reasonable.

It must be remembered that all calculations are within a single Test match only to determine the contribution of the 22 players involved. Since all these contributions are reduced to % values, there is no chance of wide variations. A batsman scoring 50 out of 100 and another, 250 out of 500 are considered equal. Similarly for bowling.

Finally a recognition that winning is [if not everything] something. Hence the winning team's player points are increased by a nominal 5% and drawing team's player points are increased by 2%.

Summary:

• 1. Only matches in which 20 wickets have been captured or 1000 runs have been scored.
• 2. Bowling and Batting points are equalised for the match.
• 3. Per wicket points are computed by dividing total runs by total wickets.
• 4. Batting points = Runs scored x 1.40 (changed from 1.25).
• 5. Bowling points = Wickets captured x Per wicket points.
• 6. Fielding points = No of C/St x (Per wicket points x 0.2).
• 7. Total points = Batting points + Bowling points + Fielding points.
• 8. Player contribution = Total points / Team Total points.
• 9. Win factor - 105%, Draw factor - 102%.

Detailed explanation of the calculation - using the top performance.

Match # 1380, India vs England, 1980. Match total: 785 runs & 30 wickets. Per Wkt points - 26.166. England: 296 all out and 98 for no loss. (Batting points - 394) India: 242 all out and 149 all out (England: Bowling points - 20 * 26.166 = 523) Total England points: 394 + 523 = 917. Ian Botham Batting: 160 points (114 runs). Bowling: 340 points (13 wkts). Fielding: 0. Total: 500 points. Indexed by 5% for win. Total: 525 points. % of Team total: 525/917 = 57.20%, which reflects Botham's outstanding contribution.

I want to emphasise that the batting and bowling equalisation takes place only at the match level and not at the team level. This is done to make sure that the overall match conditions are reflected in this analysis. It is also done to ensure that there are no way-out allocations in completely one-sided matches. An example is given below, the match which can be billed "Brian Lara vs Sri Lanka".

Match # 1572, Sri Lanka vs West Indies, 2001. Match total: 1306 runs for 29 wickets. Per Wkt points - 45.03. West Indies: 390 all out and 262 all out (Batting points - 652) Sri Lanka: 627 for 9. (West Indies: Bowling points - 9 x 45.03 = 405). Total West Indies points: 652 + 405 = 1057. Brian Lara. Batting: 491 points (351 runs). Fielding: 0. Total: 491 points. No indexing since West Indies lost. % of Team total: 439/1057 = 46.48%, which seems very fair.

Note that the West Indian bowlers get less points since they captured only 9 wickets. That allows the batsmen like Lara [and Andy Flower against South Africa] who fought valiantly to get their due.

Now for the tables. Only the Top-10 are listed below.

No Year MtId For Player            RunPts      WktPts  FlPts Total (Team) % Cont
(Runs)      (Wkts)
1.1980 0874 Eng Botham I.T         160(114r) & 340(13w)  0f 525p ( 917t) 57.20 Won
2.1899 0059 Saf Sinclair J.H       154(110r) & 143( 9w)  0f 297p ( 529t) 56.08 Lost
3.2001 1562 Zim Flower A           477(341r) &   0( 0w) 11f 489p ( 903t) 54.12 Lost
4.1964 0568 Aus Simpson R.B        193(138r) & 105( 4w)  5f 310p ( 580t) 53.40 Draw
5.1883 0011 Eng Bates W             77( 55r) & 262(14w)  0f 356p ( 668t) 53.25 Won
6.1985 1029 Nzl Hadlee R.J          76( 54r) & 592(15w)  8f 709p (1342t) 52.83 Won
7.1974 0734 Eng Greig A.W          242(173r) & 304( 6w) 10f 568p (1078t) 52.68 Draw
8.1962 0523 Nzl Reid J.R           283(202r) &  88( 3w)  0f 370p ( 705t) 52.53 Lost
9.1956 0428 Eng Laker J.C            4(  3r) & 474(19w)  0f 502p ( 958t) 52.40 Won
10.1952 0352 Ind Mankad M.H         358(256r) & 192( 5w)  0f 550p (1074t) 51.26 Lost
...
15.2000 1513 Pak Saqlain Mushtaq     45( 32r) & 392( 9w)  0f 445p ( 924t) 48.23 Draw
29.1966 0608 Win Sobers G.St.A      244(174r) & 261( 8w)  0f 530p (1152t) 45.97 Won
Legend: r-Runs, w-Wkts, f-Fielding pts, p-Player pts, t-Team pts.

Botham's all-round performance is, not surprisingly, the best in Test history. If any reader says that he knew about this all along and there was no analysis needed, the next few entries will show the importance of analysis since there are from different era and less-heralded players.

Botham's performance is closely followed by Sinclair's all-round performance. Remember South Africa lost the match.

The purely batting back-to-the-wall effort, albeit in a losing cause, by Andy FlowerAndy Flower's great batting performance is now in third place, followed by Simpson's all-round performance. Then come the (predominatly bowling) performances by Bates and Hadlee. Greig's all-round performance is followed by John Reid's batting effort, Lakers's 19-wkt haul and Mankad's predominantly batting effort at Lord's.

There are 3 bowling performances, 4 all-round performances and 3 batting performances in the top-10, restoring the balance between batting and bowling. We have got 6 specialist performances in the Top 10. It will take a truly great specialist performance to get into the top-10/top-20, which is true of Laker's or Hadlee's or Andy Flower's performances.

There are 4 wins, 2 draws and 4 losses. Again no one should have a complaint.

Saqlain Mushtaq just edges Imran Khan's great match-winning effort against India in Lahore for the best Pakistan' performance. Let me add that I myself feel that Imran Khan's 14-wicket haul against India is a far superior performance. However, having laid down parameters I cannot trample over them, just because I do not agree with the results. Sobers' all-round efforts are the best by a West Indian.

Just for information, Gooch's 333 plus 123 at Lord's during 1990, which is the highest compilation of runs in a match, pegged in at around 36.5%.

To view the complete list, please click here.

The brief scores for the concerned matches are given below. Only the concerned players' performances are shown.

==================================================================
Test # 874. India vs England.
Played on 15,17,18,19 February 1980 at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai.
England won by 10 wickets.
India: 242 all out            (Botham I.T     22.5  7  58  6)
England: 296 all out          (Botham I.T     114)
India: 149 all out            (Botham I.T     26.0  7  48  7)
England: 98 for 0 wkt(s)      (Botham I.T     dnb)
==================================================================
Test # 59. South Africa vs England.
Played on 1,3,4 April 1899 at Newlands, Cape Town.
England won by 210 runs.
England: 92 all out           (Sinclair J.H   12.0  4  26  6)
South Africa: 177 all out     (Sinclair J.H   106)
England: 330 all out          (Sinclair J.H   31.2  8  63  3)
South Africa: 35 all out      (Sinclair J.H   4)
==================================================================
Test # 1029. Australia vs New Zealand.
Played on 8,9,10,11,12 November 1985 at Woolloongabba, Brisbane.
New Zealand won by an innings and 41 runs.
Australia: 179 all out        (Hadlee R.J     23.4  4  52  9)
New Zealand: 553 for 7 wkt(s) (Hadlee R.J     54)
Australia: 333 all out        (Hadlee R.J     28.5  9  71  6)
==================================================================
Test # 11. Australia vs England.
Played on 19,20,22 January 1883 at Melbourne Cricket Ground.
England won by an innings and 27 runs.
England: 294 all out          (Bates W        55)
Australia: 114 all out        (Bates W        26.2 14  28  7)
Australia: 153 all out        (Bates W        33.0 14  74  7)
==================================================================
Test # 428. England vs Australia.
Played on 26,27,28,30,31 July 1956 at Old Trafford, Manchester.
England won by an innings and 170 runs.
England: 459 all out          (Laker J.C      3)
Australia: 84 all out         (Laker J.C      16.4  4  37  9)
Australia: 205 all out        (Laker J.C      51.2 23  53 10)
==================================================================
Test # 131. South Africa vs England.
Played on 26,27,29,30 December 1913 at Old Wanderers, Johannesburg.
England won by an innings and 12 runs.
South Africa: 160 all out     (Barnes S.F     26.5  9  56  8)
England: 403 all out          (Barnes S.F     0)
South Africa: 231 all out     (Barnes S.F     38.4  7 103  9)
==================================================================
Test # 1423. England vs Sri Lanka.
Played on 27,28,29,30,31 August 1998 at Kennington Oval, London.
Sri Lanka won by 10 wickets.
England: 445 all out          (Muralitharan M 59.3 14 155  7)
Sri Lanka: 591 all out        (Muralitharan M 30)
England: 181 all out          (Muralitharan M 54.2 27  65  9)
Sri Lanka: 37 for 0 wkt(s)    (Muralitharan M dnb)
==================================================================
Test # 734. West Indies vs England.
Played on 6,7,9,10,11 March 1974 at Kensington Oval, Bridgetown.
Match drawn.
England: 395 all out          (Greig A.W      148)
West Indies: 596 for 8 wkt(s) (Greig A.W      46.0  2 164  6)
England: 277 for 7 wkt(s)     (Greig A.W      25)
==================================================================
Test # 568. India vs Australia.
Played on 17,18,20,21,22 October 1964 at Eden Gardens, Calcutta.
Match drawn.
Australia: 174 all out        (Simpson R.B    67)
India: 235 all out            (Simpson R.B    28.0 12  45  4)
Australia: 143 for 1 wkt(s)   (Simpson R.B    71)
==================================================================
Test # 1562. Zimbabwe vs South Africa.
Played on 7,8,9,10,11 September 2001 at Harare Sports Club.
South Africa won by 9 wickets.
South Africa: 600 for 3 wkt(s)
Zimbabwe: 286 all out         (Flower A       142)
Zimbabwe: 391 all out         (Flower A       199)
South Africa: 79 for 1 wkt(s)
==================================================================
Test # 1513. Pakistan vs England.
Played on 15,16,17,18,19 November 2000 at Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore.
Match drawn.
England: 480 for 8 wkt(s)     (Saqlain Mushtaq 74.0 20 164  8)
Pakistan: 401 all out         (Saqlain Mushtaq 32)
England: 77 for 4 wkt(s)      (Saqlain Mushtaq 10.0  2  14  1)
==================================================================
Test # 352. England vs India.
Played on 19,20,21,23,24 June 1952 at Lord's, London.
England won by 8 wickets.
India: 235 all out            (Mankad M.H     72)
England: 537 all out          (Mankad M.H     73.0 24 196  5)
India: 378 all out            (Mankad M.H     184)
England: 79 for 2 wkt(s)      (Mankad M.H     24.0 12  35  0)
==================================================================
Test # 608. England vs West Indies.
Played on 4,5,6,8 August 1966 at Headingley, Leeds.
West Indies won by an innings and 55 runs.
West Indies: 500 for 9 wkt(s) (Sobers G.St.A  174)
England: 240 all out          (Sobers G.St.A  19.3  4  41  5)
England: 205 all out          (Sobers G.St.A  20.1  5  39  3)
==================================================================

PS: 1. I have another complex method of measuring the (batting) innings and (bowling) innspells using 12 parameters. In reality that is the ideal method of measuring a player contribution in a Test match. That method is the one used to bring out the Hallmark-TS-100 (earlier called Wisden-100) tables. However I have to lay a proper foundation explaining all the parameters and methodologies used before doing an analysis. Since that will take a complete article or two, I have reserved it for a later date.

2. This analysis emphasises only the relative contributions of players and not the absolute contributions. However readers may be interested in knowing who has compiled the highest absolute points on the basis of the parameters used in the analysis. Hence I have given below the top-10 players based on absolute values. Please remember that this table has no real intrinsic value.

Year MtId For Player         RunPts      WktPts  FlPts Total (Team) % Cont
(Runs)     (Wkts)
2004 1680 Ind Kumble A             0(  0r) & 839(12w)  0f 855p (2034t) 42.05 Draw
1976 0781 Win Holding M.A         45( 32r) & 754(14w)  0f 838p (1945t) 43.09 Won
1997 1374 Slk Jayasuriya S.T     476(340r) & 319( 3w)  0f 811p (1803t) 44.98 Draw
1990 1148 Eng Gooch G.A          638(456r) &  57( 1w) 23f 754p (2070t) 36.45 Won
1998 1423 Slk Muralitharan M      42( 30r) & 669(16w)  0f 746p (1464t) 50.98 Won
1985 1029 Nzl Hadlee R.J          76( 54r) & 592(15w)  8f 709p (1342t) 52.83 Won
2001 1572 Slk Vaas WPUJC          32( 23r) & 630(14w)  0f 696p (1555t) 44.76 Won
1983 0945 Pak Imran Khan         164(117r) & 484(11w)  0f 680p (1542t) 44.11 Won
1955 0406 Win Atkinson D.S.t.E   335(239r) & 323( 7w)  0f 671p (1667t) 40.24 Draw
2001 1558 Aus Warne S.K            0(  0r) & 576(11w) 21f 627p (1688t) 37.13 Won

Kumble is on top because he captured 12 wickets in a match in which 25 wickets were captured for a huge tally of 1737 runs. Each wicket was gold and valued at nearly 70 points. Similar case with Holding. Jayasuriya's tally is due to his triple century and 3 wickets in a run feast. Hadlee find places in the Top 10 of both lists.

Counter-responses: 1. I am aware that the increase of batting value by 25% without a corresponding increase in total will be mathematically inaccurate since the sum of allocations will exceed 100.If I increase total by 25%, the whole effect will be lost. However I am ready to live with this mathematical inaccuracy to achieve a parity between batting and bowling in cricketing terms.