Anantha Narayanan

0: The most famous zero in Test history. Bradman b Hollies 0 (2 balls). God's way of reminding us that everyone is fallible and imprinting the more romantic number 99.94 in everyone's minds.
 : Number of runs scored by Ajit Agarkar in seven consecutive innings against Australia.
 : Number of runs conceded by Brian Langford in a John Player League 40-overs match. His analysis was 8-8-0-0.
1: Runs needed by Tom Hayward to reach 2000 Test runs.
 : Number of runs conceded by Courtney Walsh while capturing five ODI wickets
 : Runs scored in six innings by Mohinder Amarnath.
1.008: India's scoring rate (RpO) in the Bridgetown Test during 1962. This was achieved over two days of batting and 185.3 overs.
1.31: William Attewell's Test career economy rate. Across 475 overs.
2.36: Chris Martin's batting average, in 104 innings.
3: Number of runs conceded by Phil Simmons against Pakistan in ten overs.
3.00: Scoring rate achieved by Kenya in a T20 match against Afghanistan during 2013.
4: Runs needed by Bradman in his last Test innings, to reach average of 100. Also the runs he fell short by.
4.15: Shahadat Hossain's Test career economy rate. Across 896 overs.
5: Number of times a batsman has been "timed out" in a first-class match.
5.803: Australia's scoring rate (RpO) in the Wanderers Test during 1902. This was achieved over 51 overs.
6: Number of times India crossed 400 in consecutive Test innings during 1986.
 : The innings total of "The Bs" against England during 1810. Declared a first-class match? There were 9 Bs, one W and one L (Good they found the W since John Wells top-scored with 4). Incidentally there was a team called "Over 38s" in this tournament.
7: Number of hat-tricks achieved by Doug Wright.
8: Number of maidens bowled by Bishan Bedi and Simmons in an ODI innings.
9: Number of wicketkeeping dismissals by Tahir Rashid/Wayne James in an innings.
9.41: Bowling average of Samuel Cosstick who captured 106 first-class wickets.
10: Runs conceded by Hedley Verity while capturing ten wickets against Nottinghamshire.
 : Number of catches taken by Wally Hammond in a match.
 : Number of first-class 400s scored so far.
12: Most sixes in a Test innings: By Wasim Akram.
 : Oxford University score vs MCC. Also Northamptonshire vs Gloucestershire.
 : Estimated number of days it would have needed for the RPS, Colombo Test during 1997 between Sri Lanka and India to have a result.
12.52: Runs per over conceded by Lasith Malinga in an ODI match vs India.
15.00: New Zealand's scoring rate (RpO) in the T20 match against Scotland: Across 6.0 overs.
15.83: New Zealand's scoring rate (RpO) in an ODI match against Bangladesh: Across 6.0 overs.
17: Number of sixes scored by Australia against Zimbabwe in a Test innings during 2003.
19: Balls required by Ernie Toshack to capture five wickets.
 : Number of times Glenn McGrath dismissed Mike Atherton.
20.50: R Ashwin's economy rate when he bowled two T20 overs against Australia.
21: Number of ODI matches Australia went through during 2003, undefeated.
22: Number of balls Bradman took to score 100 in a local match: 10x6s and 9x4s.
27: Number of Test matches West Indies went through during 1982-84, undefeated.
30: Number of players used by England in a five-Test series during 1921.
31: Number of innings Dera Ismail Khan would have needed to make Railways bat again. Scores: Railways 910. DIK 32 & 29.
32: Number of tied matches in ODI history.
34: Runs scored by Border against Natal, both innings put together in a match.
36: Pick a player: Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri, Garry Sobers, Yuvraj Singh or Herschelle Gibbs.
37: Number of 200s scored by Bradman.
49: Balls bowled by George Lohmann when he captured eight Test wickets.
52: Most fours in a Test innings. John Edrich 52x4s.
53: Balls Warwickshire needed to dismiss Hampshire.
62: The number of zeroes scored by Chris Martin.
67.34: Percentage of innings runs scored by Charles Bannerman in the very first Test ever played.
70.92: career bowling average of Mark Lawrence who captured 42 wickets.
72: Balls bowled by George Lohmann when he captured nine Test wickets.
76: Number of Extras conceded by Pakistan in a Test innings against India.
77: Runs conceded by Bert Vance in a single over on instructions from his captain in 1989-90.
 : Balls played by Geoff Allott while scoring 0.
78: Test innings played by AB de Villiers before first duck.
87: The number of bowlers who have captured 10 wickets in an innings.
90: Balls remaining when Sri Lanka won a T20 match against Netherlands during 2014.
95: Runs scored by Australia and Pakistan in a full day during 1956.
 : Number of c Marsh b Lillee dismissals.
109: Number of fours scored by Sri Lanka against India in a Test innings during 1997.
109.2: Total number of overs bowled in the Test won by Australia against South Africa during 1932.
140: Number of times Tich Freeman captured ten wickets in a match.
153: Number of runs scored by Brian Lara in the historic Bridgetown win against Australia.
168: Balls it took Nathan Astle to score 222.
175: Number of Kapil Dev runs at Tunbridge Wells. One of the greatest international innings ever.
189: The number imprinted in the minds of all cricket followers: Viv Richards' all-time classic at Old Trafford.
199: first-class hundreds scored by Jack Hobbs.
201.50: Bradman's average against South Africa in 1931-32.
216: Number of ODI matches played at Sharjah.
229: The lowest score at which a batsman is yet to be dismissed.
238: Most runs in boundaries in a Test innings. By Edrich: 52x4s + 5x6s.
247: The days taken for travel from Melbourne to Melbourne during the Australian tour of England in 1938. They left on Feb 25 and returned on Oct 29.
277: Balls remaining when England won an ODI match against Canada during 1979.
287: Highest debut innings ever: By Tip Foster.
290: New Zealand's record ODI win by runs over Ireland.
292: Runs scored by England when they won by innings and 202 runs.
299: For Martin Crowe, a never-to-be-reached target missed. For Bradman, only the third landmark missed.
303.00: Naeem Islam's Test bowling average. One wicket for 303.
304: Number of wickets captured in a single season by Tich Freeman.
307: Runs added by Alan Kippax and Hal Hooker for the tenth wicket.
331: Record partnership between Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid in ODIs.
350: Number of balls Trevor Bailey took to score his fifty against Australia.
362: Runs conceded by Arthur Mailey while bowling 64 8-ball overs and capturing 4 wickets.
375.00: Not the number you are thinking of. Highest first-class bowling average. SM Krishnakumar captured 1 wicket for 375 runs.
432: Number of balls bowled by Denis Atkinson without capturing a single wicket.
418: Number of stumpings effected by Les Ames in his first-class career.
434: Record ODI score by Australia: Lasted for less than four hours.
438: Second occurrence of 400-plus ODI score: On the same day.
501: Forget about hundreds, let us talk of "half a thousand" by one player: Highest first-class score, by Brian Lara.
522: Balls bowled by Chuck Fleetwood-Smith while capturing a single wicket.
551: Number of runs by which Pakistan exceeded their first innings at Bridgetown during 1958.
579: Biggest Test-win by an innings in history.
588: Most balls bowled by Sonny Ramadhin in a single Test innings.
624: Record Test partnership of Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara.
625: Runs scored by Bradman in three consecutive Test innings.
654: England's record fourth-innings total in 1939.
675: Biggest Test win by runs.
737: Runs added for the loss of a single wicket: By Sri Lanka.
847: Number of balls played by Len Hutton during his 364.
907.5: Number of overs bowled in the "timeless" Test played in Durban during 1939.
974: Test runs scored by Bradman in the 1930 series.
981: Balls faced by Hanif Mohammad during his 337, arrived at using simple extrapolation.
1015: Minutes taken by Rajeev Nayyar in his innings for HP against J&K.
1107: Record Victoria score against New South Wales.
1110: Number of first-Class matches played by Wilfred Rhodes.
1710: Test runs in a calendar year by Richards - a record that stood for 29 years.
1788: Test runs by Mohammad Yousuf in 2006.
2376: Runs scored in one match: Maharashtra v Bombay.
2833: International runs scored by Ricky Ponting during 2005.
11273: The duration, in days, of the Test career of Wilfred Rhodes. He made his debut on 1 June 1899 and ended his Test career on 12 April 1930. His debut Test was also the debut Test of Victor Trumper and the last Test of WG Grace.
34357: Total Number of international runs scored by Sachin Tendulkar.
44039: Number of balls bowled by Muttiah Muralitharan.
61237: First-class runs scored by Jack Hobbs.
106996: Number of people who thronged Eden Gardens for the India-Pakistan Test during 1998-99. You do not agree with me? Prove me wrong! Quite tough, though, with no turnstiles. The official record says "around" 100000, not including the spectators who might have sneaked through various routes.

Articles like this are bound to have a follow-up one and I am certain there will be one. I would like that article to have as many reader contributions as possible. Let us go for another 100 numbers. Look for outliers and off-the-beaten-track ideas. For this article, I would any day prefer the 375.00 as Krishnakumar's average than 375 as Lara's record-breaker.

Now for the Bradman memorabilia. This time I have scanned Bradman's 1930 England tour matrix. Look and marvel at the extraordinary number of matches that were played. To view the scan, please click HERE. The visiting team played 34 matches over four-and-a-half months. Bradman batted in 28 of these and averaged over hundred runs per match.

A bonus for the readers. I have a rare two-volume collection of Bradman memorabilia. It is a fantastic set of books and contains scorecards, telegrams, photographs, letters et al. Along with each article I will scan one such rare document and attach for user viewing. I had presented the chart for Bradman's 334 in the previous article. To view the next scan, please click HERE. This is a 1931 telegram offering Bradman £500 for a five-month playing assignment, by Accrington, a Lancashire club. This was after Bradman's successful tour during 1930. Note the £2 per week charge for accommodation. Did Bradman accept the offer? There is a story behind this and I will provide the answer if some reader scans and elicits a query.

Alternately here are a few links, courtesy Milind, on this topic.

Wiki

Background

Offer

Decision

The reports are current up to and including match No. 3535: the fourth ODI at Dharamsala.

For this and the next analysis I have followed the often used common sense approach. A wide is unreachable by the batsman and should not be treated as a countable ball. A no-ball is playable and can be scored off. Hence a no-ball is counted. That is all. With this preamble let us look at some extreme scoring instances.

In the match between Pakistan and New Zealand, the New Zealand batsmen went on the greatest scoring sequence ever. In 11 balls, starting from 47.4, they reached 50. The sequence was 1wd, 1, 1, 6, 4, 6, 1wd, 6, 1wd, 2, 4, 6, 6 and 6. Ross Taylor and Jacob Oram tore apart Abdur Rehman and Abdul Razzaq.

The teams do not indulge in such heavy hitting in the second innings, pacing their innings, in view of the availability of a clear target score. This was shown clearly in Part 1 of this article. The fastest 50-run sequence was achieved by West Indies against Canada, when they were chasing 203. They achieved this in a mere 20.3 overs. Embedded in this furious run chase was a 14-ball sequence when 50 runs were reached. The carnage started in ball No. 8.2. The sequence went "1, 1, 6, 1, 5nb, 1wd, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 6, 0, 4 and 4". Brian Lara and Wavell Hinds decimated Nicholas Ifill and Barry Seebaran.

The fastest 100 in the first innings was when New Zealand finished the innings with a 28-ball carnage of exactly 100 runs. The sequence is too long to be laid out here. In the second innings the sequence was more staid, in the West Indies match we have already seen. West Indies reached 100 in 40 balls, starting with the last ball of the fourth over.

This is the other end of the spectrum. People who paid money to watch these matches should have asked for a refund. England's 190-ball 50 against Sri Lanka during 2003 in Dambulla defies description. England finished with 88 in 46.2 overs. Embedded in this run-drought was a 164-ball sequence in which England crawled at around 1.5 runs per over (RpO). There were six maidens and 11 one-run overs during this phase of the innings. The batsmen, not exactly novices: Marcus Trescothick, Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan, Paul Collingwood and Andrew Flintoff. Muttiah Muralitharan returned bowling figures of 10-0-15-1, Chaminda Vaas 9.1-2-15-3, Dilhara Fernando 7-2-13-2, Nuwan Kulasekara 9-1-19-1. All bowlers went for less than 2 runs an over.

The other members of this part of the analysis are not the leading teams. Zimbabwe scored 50 in 164 balls against Bangladesh: Note relatively the faster scoring in the second innings. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe both needed over 45 overs each to compile 100 runs.

These tables are created in response to a specific request by Prateek who wanted to know the highest and lowest scores reached at the end of each over. There are two tables: One for the highest scores and another for the lowest scores.

The tables are self-explanatory. However one seeming anomaly has to be explained. The highest score reached in 21 overs is 283. This was the recent Ryder-Anderson bloodbath. Then for 22 overs the highest drops nearly 100 runs. This was because the New Zealand innings ended at 21 overs. This explains why the scoring rate is well above 10 for the first 21 overs only. In fact this match monopolises the top of the table.

West Indies' batting against Canada makes its mark here also in the second innings table. The run rate for the second half of the innings is higher due to a measured approach, chasing set target. The famous Wanderers run-chase is the last entry, for over 50, in both tables. There is one higher total: Sri Lanka's 443 for 9 against Netherlands. Unfortunately there is no ball-by-ball data for this Amstelveen (mis)match.

The first four bowlers bowled by South Africa against New Zealand in match No. 1805 were maidens and this fact is reflected in this table. Similarly the first three overs bowled by South Africa against India in the second innings of match No. 2298 were also maidens. The lowest scores at the end of 25th over are 43 and 47 respectively. The lowest score at the end of the full 50 overs is 130 and 127. It is obvious that many an innings would have folded for sub-100 totals around over 40-45.

These are chalk and cheese overs. The difference in runs scored is greater than 25. The maximum difference between overs is the 35 between the famous Robin Peterson over and the following JP Duminy over which was a maiden. In fact this is an amazing sequence and is represented in two consecutive entries in this table. The sequence was Duminy (1) - Peterson (35) - Duminy (0). How could Peterson bowl a 35-run over between two near-maidens?

Herschelle Gibbs' famous 36-run over off Daan van Bunge was followed by the frugal five-run over by Luuk van Troost. Lasith Malinga's maiden over was followed by Malinga Bandara's 32-run extravaganza. And so on. And readers will note that these are not that frequent. In 1700 matches there are only ten matches in which this has happened.

Four maiden overs in a row! I can hear someone saying whether I am serious. Yes, I am. When I did three maidens in a row, I had over 30 entries. When I did five maidens, I had one entry. So I plumped for four. Let us not forget that these are Maidens. No run accrued to the teams.

Shaun Pollock and Makhaya Ntini opened the proceedings with four maidens in a row against New Zealand. This is the only instance of four consecutive maidens starting from the first over of the innings. Pollock was involved in another four-maiden series, this time with Andre Nel, against England. And then Pollock achieved this again, once again with Ntini. He is some bowler!

But the most amazing sequence was the recent Bangladesh-West Indies sequence. West Indies reached 17 for 1 in three overs. Then Kieran Powell, Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels played five consecutive maiden overs against Sohag Gazi and Shafiul Islam. This was Samuels of Delhi vintage, not the Kochi player. These three seemingly attacking players played 33 consecutive dot balls, and lost two wickets. Strange indeed.

Let us not forget that these are for part of the recent 1700 matches or so. Phil Simmons, in his spell of 10-8-3-4, Bishan Bedi in his spell of 12-8-6-1, Sunil Joshi in his spell of 10-6-6-5 and Richard Hadlee in his spell of 12-6-10-0 could as well have bowled five consecutive maidens in tandem with other bowlers.

These are consecutive overs in which 20 runs were crossed. Not many instances are there, with none during the second innings. However one match stands out. That is the recent Trent Bridge ODI between England and New Zealand. All the last three overs of the England exceeded 20 runs. This is the only such instance. The main destroyer was Jos Buttler, with his 16-ball 47.

The others are instances where two consecutive overs exceeded 20 runs. It is surprising to note that Pollock, who has been part of many maiden-over sequences, is present, along with Jacques Kallis. Surprisingly the fastest scoring innings of all time, the 21-over 283 by New Zealand, contains no such sequence. Similarly the famous Wanderers match does not contain such a sequence.

It is almost certain that there would be very few such sequences during the first half of the ODI matches. Bowlers were not treated like third-class citizens then.

These are the overs in which the overs comprised of high percentage of team scores. The criteria are 10% of 200-plus innings, 15% of 150-plus innings and 20% of 100-plus innings. Quite a few overs qualify.

There are five overs in which over 20% of team runs were scored. Four of these are 100-plus scores. The one noteworthy exception is the Peterson over in which he conceded 35 runs in a team total of 167: that is nearly 21%. Another over that stands out is the Bandara over to Pakistan. On a fair score of 239, Bandara conceded 32 runs in an over, which worked out to 13.4%.

In the next part, I will do the concluding analysis. I will look at over groups across countries and periods. That will be pure analysis and one tough analysis to present because of the three dimensional nature of data.

A bonus for the readers. I have a rare two-volume collection of Bradman memorabilia. It is a fantastic set of books and contains scorecards, telegrams, photographs, letters et al. Along with each article I will scan one such rare document and attach for user viewing. To view the first such scan, please click HERE. This is a chart of Bradman's record-breaking 334. I will leave it to the discerning readers to summarise the chart in their own inimitable ways. The one thing that stands out is the 360 degrees coverage. Look at the number of boundaries in the "V".

A bowler should earn his maiden today. Already we have amendments to the law that do not allow wide and no-ball to be exempt while looking at dot balls and maiden overs. I have simply extended this concept to byes and leg byes. When Irfan Pathan bowled six balls to Ravi Bopara in Cuttack in 2008 and conceded eight leg byes, he, good bowler though he is, did not deserve a maiden. There is no denying that eight runs were accrued to the England total which is all that matters. This over should never be treated as a maiden.

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that it is the runs conceded to the other team that matter, not the runs conceded to the batsmen. This is to emphasise the team game concept. I have talked about this in depth since I know that the point will be raised by readers. I will accept and post all such comments but will not change my interpretation.

First let us see some interesting overs bowled in ODIs. It is a pity that this cannot be done for the first half of the ODI matches but readers may jog their memory cells and come out with gems during the first 30 years or so.

A. 30+ run overs

B. 4-wicket overs

C. Innings last over maidens

Second innings:
3. Match# 1790: Inzamam-ul-Haq (yes, you read it correctly) for Pakistan against Bangladesh. I watched this on television. It was the most hilarious five minutes of my life. Inzamam bowled (no, threw, at an estimated 60 degrees elbow bend!) six balls, dismissed Enamul Haque, and millions, including the 15 players on ground, were in splits. It was like Buster Keaton meeting Laurel, Hardy, Abbot, Costello, Chaplin and Nagesh.
4. Match # 2837: Ryan ten Doeschate for Netherlands against Bermuda.
5. Match# 3337: Narsingh Deonarine for West Indies against Zimbabwe.

D. Great last overs: Truly wonderful overs that almost certainly won the game for the bowling team

I have departed from my normal way of structuring the article. Normally I produce tables, explain them, produce graphs and add closing description. This time I have decided to use only the graphs, which are self-explanatory. The tables are too long and are available for downloading and perusal.

The first graph is the analysis of average runs scored in each over. Remember that the data for each over data is the compilation of thousands of overs across matches.

The complete set of nine tables can be accessed by clicking HERE. This is only a text file. However it is a properly formatted one. So it can be exported to Excel in less time than it takes Daniel Vettori to bowl a maiden over. I would have said Ravindra Jadeja, but have to allow for MS Dhoni's three fielding changes during the over!

Amused by the recent exchanges in the comments section of the previous articles, Milind has come out with his own insight on sports following, in general and cricket following, in particular. A lot to be gained by perusing the document. Please click HERE to download/view the document.

Amla is the star in this analysis, closely followed by de Villiers. His high average makes many followers to group him with the openers of the past or the most recent openers like Alastair Cook, Ganguly, Matthew Hayden and others. They are way off the mark. Allow me to present ten batsmen.

Dhoni, Andrew Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen, Tendulkar, Chris Gayle, Graeme Smith, Saeed Anwar, Ponting, Lara and Hayden.

What is common between them?

Australia's 38-Test streak, bookended by the Harare Test in 1999 against Zimbabwe and Ashes Test in Perth in 2002, had an average RAAPP value of 69.26. West Indies averaged 67.04, a significant 2 points behind, in 1984-1987. This golden period started with the Georgetown Test against Australia, which was a drawn match almost won by West Indies. The last Test in this run was the close loss to New Zealand in Christchurch in 1987. England's best sequence was during the wonderful Hutton-May-Compton-Trueman-Statham days. They averaged a very respectable 64.69 points. South Africa had their two best streaks during the 2000s: the first one between 2010 and 2014 and the second one between 2007 and 2010.

Australia had a way-out 66-Test run over six years during which they averaged 62.02 points. The other three teams had their best sequences around the 60 and sub-60 mark. South Africa's was a third decimal point above 60.

Now we come to the middle-level teams. New Zealand have only two streaks with RAAPP values above 50. India have 130, Pakistan 100 and Sri Lanka 109. However Sri Lanka have the pride of place in this group since they have reached the highest RAAPP value of 58.55. India follow next, with a highest value 57.86 and then Pakistan with 53.15. Looking for non-overlapping and long streaks, I have selected two from Sri Lanka, two from India, two from Pakistan and one from New Zealand.

Sri Lanka achieved a very high average of 58.55 between 2001 and 2004. Inspired by Muttiah Muralitharan and supported by Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene, Sanath Jayasuriya and Aravinda D'Silva to start with. They also had another great sequence between 2005 and 2008. India's sequence between 2008 and 2011 was very close to Sri Lanka's run a few years earlier. Unfortunately, this was cut short by the England debacle. India have repeated this, albeit at a lower level, mostly riding on excellent home form. One of Pakistan's two sequences is recent and the other during the 1994-1997 period.

India had a run of 53.97 over 64 Tests. Sri Lanka were able to get near this value, averaging 53.34 in 50 Tests during the 2000s. Pakistan's sequence is around the 50-mark and New Zealand's, just below the 50-mark. Both are over 50 Tests.

Let me close this with brief comments on the two recent Test teams. Zimbabwe has a 30-Test streak, from Test #1378 (1997) to 1549 (2001) with RAAPP value of 40.03: the only period in which they exceeded 40.0. They had five wins in these 30 Tests, including three against the top Test-playing teams. Bangladesh has a 30-Test streak, from Test #1864 (2008) to 2099 (2013) with RAAPP value of 37.572.

Conclusions

I am not saying that all readers should accept these tables as the final ones. They have every right to plunk for a second or third placed streak as the best but only as a heart-driven decision since all relevant factors such as match locations, opposition strength, recent form and number of matches have been taken into account.

What do we conclude?

First let us summarise the middle-level teams. Sri Lanka's performances are to be admired and appreciated. Their 2000s performance gives them the top billing in this group. India have also been very good in the 2000s. India were the only team to pose any threat to the Australian dominance during the 2000s. However the very poor away performances have let India down. Pakistan have been quite good. In fact I was surprised to see that Pakistan did not reach 55.0. My feeling is that they have been inconsistent and have not sustained their top-level performances for seven to eight series at a stretch. New Zealand have just about managed to make this group.

There is no doubt that Australia, for 38 Tests between 1999 and 2002, were the best Team that ever played Test cricket. All relevant factors have been taken into consideration. Opposition strength, recent results, recent form, location, number of Tests et al. They were truly outstanding and posted a result sequence of 31 wins, three draws and four losses (all away). Let us not forget that this was achieved over 38 Tests. All three draws occurred in a home series against New Zealand. All the four losses were potential wins: two well-known against India in Kolkata and Chennai, one-off against England in Leeds and South Africa at Kingsmead, the normal dead-rubber matches.

Let us look at the second placed sequence of West Indies. During 30 Tests between 1984 and 1987, West Indies were magnificent. They had a results summary of 21 wins, seven draws and two losses. The two losses were to Pakistan, that 53-run-all out disaster in Faisalabad and New Zealand's five-wicket win ainChristchurch, inspired by Hadlee. Maybe one could say these were the days in which a draw could be planned and achieved.

The third best is another recent run of Tests by Australia. However Australian performance in 100 Tests between 1999 and 2008 is something for the Gods. This sequence started with the Lara-inspired loss at Barbados and ended with the 2008 New Year Test against India. The summary was 75 wins, 13 draws and 12 losses. And some of the losses were because Australia went for wins. To me this sequence is probably the most significant of the many Australian achievements. They were truly the most dominant team of all time. For the record this 100-Test streak has an outstanding RAAPP value of 63.066. It is just that there is a better streak of 65.304 for the 43 Tests starting with the Barbados Test.

Data Files: I have uploaded four important files. The first is a special file for Test #1729. It lists all the matches which were played during the five years before this specific match. The second contains the Performance points and adjusted Performance points for all matches played by all the teams, in Team order. The second contains the Performance points and adjusted Performance points for all matches played by all the teams, in Test order. These two are huge files. The fourth is the most important document. It contains the RAAPP values for all the teams, ordered by the RAAPP value for each team.

This is not an article that can be understood by perusing at surface level. It would take multiple readings and downloading and understanding all the documents, especially the FAQs document. Please take your time. Alternatively, if the reader has confidence in my work, he can go straight to the important Tpa_All.txt file.

Please download the zip file containing the four aforementioned files and the FAQs document by clicking HERE.

Some FAQs on the analysis: First time ever I have anticipated some questions from readers and attempted to answer those. Initially I had got these FAQs as part of the main article. However when the number of FAQs exceeded 20, I decided I would create a MS Word document and allow interested readers to download the document and peruse at leisure. Please do so by clicking HERE.

I had initially envisaged doing an exhaustive head-to-head analysis for the England-India Tests series. I have changed the emphasis of the article since Rajesh's complete statistical coverage of the series contains quite a few head-to-head numbers. I will still do a single table on what are the significant head-to-head confrontations. This will bring into focus where England gained and India lost.

Initially I will do a thorough analysis of the disastrous second half of the series, checking for some precedence during the many Tests which have been played so far.

By now everyone knows that India were dismissed for sub-200 totals in their last five innings. And some invisible forces made India go through the score of 66 for 6 in the last four innings. Henceforth India will not get shivers at 111 but at 66 too! My off-the-cuff take was that many teams would have gone through such a poor patch as five consecutive sub-200 innings.

First I considered only India matches. The two rules were simple. Consider all matches: home and away. Any innings in which fewer than ten wickets fell would break the sequence.

With the sorry state of Indian cricket during the first 25-30 years I expected at least two or three such sequences other than the current disaster achieved by a much-hyped team. Lo and behold! There was one such occurrence. Even though I knew that my program, inanimate though it is, would be angry at me, I was not sure about this and checked the entire lot of 483 matches. No, my trusted programming skills had not deserted me. There was only one other sequence: During the equally disastrous 1959 tour of England.

I was so fascinated by these two sequences occurring over half a century apart by two diametrically opposite teams that I decided to do a complete study. Mr Ravi Shastri would be well-advised to go through this article to know the tough task on hand: in Test matches. Let us now look at the comparisons in a table form.

The damning indictment of the current Indian team is there for everyone to see. It is quite possible that the 1959 team, during the entire year 1959, earned less than what Virat Kohli earns during the course of a single Test match. However, there is no escape from the following revealing facts.

- The 1959 team scored more runs during the five innings: Consequently averaged more runs per innings (160.0 against 146.6).
- Thereby the average RpW for the 1959 team was slightly better (16.0 against 14.6).
- The 1959 team had great defensive skills and lasted many more overs: Consequently averaged more overs per innings (76.6 against 49.2).
- In other words, the 1959 team gave their wickets away much more dearly: An average of 45.4 balls per wicket as against the 2014 team's 29.4.
- The aggregate of the 1-5 batsmen of the 1959 team was nearly double that of the 2014 team. The 1-5 batsmen of 1959 averaged 21.6 against 11.7.
- The two teams were comparable in the areas of average opening partnerships, number of 50 partnerships, number of 50 scores and were almost dead-heated on the Team Performance points measure.
- There was only one consolation for the 2014 team. Their late-order batsmen played much better. Else we might have seen five sub-100 scores. But then MS Dhoni was at No. 6. The figures would be different if 1-6 was taken but what does it matter? 1-5 is expected to be the core of batting.
- There was one big difference. The five Tests in 1959 were spread over 80 days. This time the lapsed period was halved to 40 days. The 1959 team played quite a few first-class matches in between Tests. But what prevented Dhoni, the cricket Czar of India, from putting his foot down and insisting on a four-Test series and a couple of first-class games sandwiched in between?

Let us look at the personnel involved. Pankaj Roy, Arvind Apte, Jayasinghrao Ghorpade, Chandu Borde, Polly Umrigar, Datta Gaekwad, Naren Tamhane compared to M Vijay, Shikhar Dhawan, Kohli, Cheteshwar Pujara, Ajinkya Rahane, Dhoni, R Ashwin. Struggling against pace bowling: both teams. Lack of experience: in both teams; First-class experience: quite high with the 1959 teams, very little with the current IPL-bred 2014 players. Where did/do the two teams go after the series? The 1959 team went back to a full first-class season and then a home series against a tough Australia team. The current lot through an ODI series to Champions League T20 and a home Tests series against a weak team. And then Australia beckon.

What about the bowlers? Fred Trueman, Brian Statham, Alan Moss and Harold Rhodes against James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Chris Jordan and Chris Woakes. Only a fool would say that the 1959 attack is not comparable to the 2014 attack. In both cases, two among the greatest England produced, supported by two average bowlers.

Okay, enough is enough. But there are other teams. Some of them could have got quite a few five-innings sequence of sub-200 scores. First, let me explain why I had to exclude the 134 Tests before 1920. Scores under 200 were the order of the day and many of these were match-winning ones. Two forty-four of the 484 innings were sub-200 ones. So, including these Tests would have given a completely distorted picture.

How many such sequences should we expect when we consider the 1900-plus Tests from 1921 onwards? There are already two to India's account. Maybe there are another ten more, because of the very poor New Zealand, West Indian and Bangladesh teams at different times. Maybe a couple from the other teams also. Even one from a strong team like Australia.

Well, I have news for all. There are only four such sequences. And half the teams have never suffered the ignominy of such a sequence. Let us see the listing of such teams.

Teams with five or more sub-200 innings scores in consecutive innings

India-1959       (160.0): 157, 168, 165, 161, 149.
India-2014       (146.6): 178, 152, 161, 168,  94.
New Zealand-1958 ( 91.3):  94, 137,  47,  74,  67, 129.
West Indies-1931 (124.0): 107,  90, 193, 148,  99, 107.
Bangladesh-2001  (153.8): 108, 132, 135, 160, 152, 148, 
                          148, 161, 184, 164, 184, 170.
Australia-1979   (157.3): 111, 164, 160, 198, 143, 168.

We have already seen the two Indian sequences. New Zealand, during 1958, had a six-innings sequence, which was the worst in Test history. They had four sub-100 scores and averaged only 91 runs per innings. Right at the beginning of their Test days, West Indies had a six-innings sequence, averaging 124. Bangladesh, during the early years, had a 12-innings, yes, you read it right, streak of sub-200 scores at an average of 154. The point is that these were all decent sub-200 scores. Finally Australia, had a miserable six-innings sequence at an average of 158. They were shattered by the Packer defections and were a disorganised lot.

Needless to say that all these matches were lost by the teams concerned. And to close this topic, let me confirm that England, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe had no sub-200 sequences that were five innings long.

Now let me look at the head-to-head confrontations in the England-India series.

I have decided to highlight the significant H-t-H confrontations only. Gary Ballance floored Ravindra Jadeja. He faced over 250 balls, played carefully and lost a wicket just once. Ballance also handled Bhuvneshwar Kumar very well. Nearly 200 balls, over 100 runs and a single dismissal. Joe Root handled Ishant Sharma the best of all English batsmen: 167 balls, an excellent strike rate and a single dismissal. Alastair Cook was quiet against Bhuvneshwar but gave England the start they needed by being out just once in over 25 overs. Even though Stuart Binny was a second-line bowler, Ballance took him apart and finished with the only 50-plus ball confrontation with a better than a run-a-ball strike rate.

Anderson toyed with Kohli. Fifty balls and four dismissals meant Kohli's innings rarely went beyond 40/50 balls. Pujara was slightly better than Kohli against Anderson but still gave away his wicket every 23 balls. If Anderson took care of the two best Indian batsmen, Broad took care of the second level quite well. He dismissed Dhawan once every 26 balls and Rahane once every 43 balls.

The English supremacy can finally be traced back to these confrontations: Anderson, Broad and Root against Kohli, Pujara, Dhawan, Rahane and Sharma.

Vijay handled Anderson reasonably well. One could call that contest a draw. It took Anderson 84 balls to dismiss Vijay but contained him well and the average was only 26.

Now we come to the rare contests which were won by India. M Vijay mastered both Broad and Liam Plunkett very well, especially his handling of Broad: 266 balls and a single wicket. Against Plunkett it was 182 balls and a single wicket. These were the contests that kept India in the series during the first two Tests. Dhoni handled Anderson quite well too: two wickets in 187 balls tell the story.

Ian Bell was a disaster against both Ishant Sharma and Bhuvneshwar. Ishant needed only just over two overs to dismiss Bell and Bhuvneshwar needed a few more balls: once every six overs. Bell's two good innings were after Ishant departed.

One final comment. The Lord's win was a great one, no doubt. However, most people forget that the Indian bowlers were clueless for all but one ball during the first session of the last day. If Moeen Ali had not been dismissed, there was a good chance (no less than 50-50) that England would have won the match. Who knows what would have happened after lunch? Even at the end it was only a 55-45 Test in favour of India, as shown by the performance analysis summary for the series. The final margin could easily have been 4-0 instead of 3-1. And let me say that the analysis presented in this article will not be diluted or invalidated even if India does well in the ODI series. Scores of 300-plus in one format do not make up for scores of sub-200 in another format.

(An aside: With AB de Villiers' extraordinary innings against Australia on August 27, there are four current ODI batsmen who are averaging in excess of 50. And these are four of the five batsmen who have achieved career averages over 50.)

          England  India

Nottingham   39.4   34.5 (England had the better of the draw)
Lord's       44.6   55.4 (95-run win for India)
Southampton  63.8   36.2 (266-run win for England)
Manchester   77.6   22.4 (Big innings win for England)
Oval         86.2   13.8 (Huge win: by 3 innings and 2 runs)
            311.6  162.3 (England, by a few miles)

Incidentally the 1959 series went 351 - 149 in England's favour.

In this follow-up article I will analyse the teams' Performance points and Result points over the many periods. This will let us get a clear handle on the best teams across the years. This is the more important analysis as evidenced by the fact that most of the comments dwelt on the teams, rather than the individuals.

The team performances will be measured through the Team performance index (which is a contribution index developed jointly by Milind and me and was used extensively in the article on Test series) and the Results index, which has been specially developed by me for this article and will be the basis for many a future analysis. The features of the Team performance index is summarised in a Word document, which can be accessed HERE. Since there is a graph embedded in the document, you can download the same and study at leisure.

The Test performance index is the most composite measure reflecting the performance of the team in the match, taking into account every aspect of the match. As such it is an excellent measure of the overall performance of teams. The Result index, on the other hand, is a little more contextual in that the actual result and the match location are considered. However a five-run win is the same as an innings-and-200-runs win. But it is an equally valuable measure. I will do both and present the tables.

Just to give the readers an idea of the Team Performance index, I have given below the Team Performance index values for England and India in the on-going series. India, with their 150-minute non-performance, allowed me to add the Oval Test numbers.

            England  India

As I did this, I realised that this is not a peer analysis in that the comparisons to the period values do not make any sense. This has to be a direct analysis of the values. These analyses cover all matches up to and including Test #2135, the Harare match between the two African neighbours.

Team Performance Analysis

First let me look at the Test performance index measure since I can straightaway go into the tables. All explanations will be available in the downloadable document.

The values presented here are the average Team performance points during the specified time period. It is agreed that the specific time periods might not be wholly fair to a particular team. But this is the basis for this analysis. At a later date I will do a more complex floating time period analysis in which we can look at the best period for any team. The period averages vary around 5% either side of the 45 mark. We can draw an overall inference that a higher value, such as the 47 during the 2000-14 period, indicates that more matches have ended in results.

It can be seen that achieving an average of 55.0 is extraordinary and only four teams in history have managed this feat. Australia 1946-59, West Indies 1980-89, Australia 2000-06 and South Africa 2007-14 form the elite group of such teams. Just to put these numbers in perspective, let me take the Australia 2000-06. Their performance index average is 62.62. This is the equivalent of winning all the 84 Test matches they played by 200 runs or six wickets in high-score matches. These comparisons are from actual matches. The average of 55.0 is, incidentally, equivalent to winning all matches by 100 runs or four wickets.

These numbers will stand out when I say that India and Pakistan have never crossed 50.0 in any time period. And Sri Lanka, once, during 2000-06, through that magician extraordinaire, Muralitharan.

Only one team, Australia, has got a performance index average of above 50.0 through the 137 years of Test cricket. Three teams, England, South Africa and West indies, have an average performance index value of 45.0.

Bangladesh have an average index value either side of 30. The lower figure finds matches involving New Zealand either side of the war. But New Zealand have since improved considerably and had their best period during 2000-06 with 45.7.

The first one will look into the team comparisons using players, batsmen and bowlers, as the basis. In the second, I will compare the team performances using the Team performance index (which is a contribution index developed jointly by Milind and me, and which was covered in detail in the article on Test series) and the results, tweaked with properly derived home-away weights.

To handle this analysis I have split the 137 years of Test cricket into nine periods, not necessary of equal duration, but logical and with a reasonably equal distribution of Tests.

The periods are 1877-1914 (Pre WW1), 1920-39 (WW1-WW2), 1946-59 (the post-war years), 1960-69, 1970-79, 1980-89, 1990-99, 2000-06 and finally the current period, 2007-14. This is as logical a split as I can possibly arrive at.

I am sure some readers will have good reasons for fixing 1952-64 or 1984-1997 or something similar as the periods and support such propositions with valid ideas. But let us all agree that this is a logical grouping and move on.

There are no cut-off levels, no minimum requirements, no restrictions of any other kind.

All the 2132 Tests, including the recent Ageas Bowl non-contest, are included.

The table below is a support table to help interpret the following ones.

It summarises the Tests played by each team in the stated time periods.

Each table entry indicates the total number of Tests played, the home Tests played and the away Tests played. For this purpose a neutral location is strictly taken as an away Test for both teams.

This is fair and does not invoke any assumptions. This is the reason why in some of the time periods, the home Test count is different to the away Test count.

During the first period, the three Tests played in England during 1912 between Australia and South Africa cause the 131-137 split. The next neutral Test was only played during the 1990-99 period.

Between 2000 and 2006 five neutral Tests were played, and during the past seven years, 15 more, mostly by Pakistan. Thus there are in total 24 neutral Tests.

We seem to have a problem during 2000-2005. The difference between the home and away Tests is odd, which is illogical.

This is because Test #1768, played between Australia and ICC XI, is accounted only once: as a home Test for Australia. This also explains why the totals in the last column are 4263 and 2155 and not 4264 and 2156.

Even this mundane table is an interesting one in that it is a kaleidoscope of Test cricket as it unfolded. The loss of a decade and half for the South Africans, the recent virtual disappearance of Zimbabwe, the wide disparity in home and away Tests for Pakistan during the last period, the fact that England play at home more than away barring the first period when they travelled to South Africa quite often, and so on.

Now let us see the Batting tables.