Significant Test innings, and their architects: a follow-up
A sequel to the article on significant innings done earlier, taking reader feedback into account

1. As many readers have suggested, I have used the innings as the basis for determining the significant innings rather than the two team innings together. This takes care of the many Tests where the two innings by a team are as different as chalk and cheese. If we take the famous Calcutta Test of 2001, the two Indian innings were 171 and 657. The 59 in the first innings was an outstanding innings considering the 171 for 10 as the basis, probably not if we take 728 for 17 as the basis.
2. This is one lapse which was missed by all the readers. And for that matter myself. In the base analysis, I had taken the wickets as the base for determining the runs and balls cut-off. This is quite wrong. I should have taken the number of batsman who batted as the basis. Take the West Indian innings of 790 for 3. The base should be 5 (which includes Sobers) and not 3 (the number of wickets). If a team is all out, the base will be 11. Of course batsmen who did not bat will be excluded, but batsman who retired hurt will be included. This is absolutely the correct method.
3. Raise the multiplier values for two reasons. One is the consideration of innings as the base and the other is the taking of batsmen as base rather than wickets. I have also introduced a graded multiplier. The multiplier is highest at 2.00 for low rpb/bpb (runs per batsman and balls per batsman) values for 1-7 batsmen and stays at 1.00 for high rpb/bpb values ford 8-11 batsmen. The capping of run-cutoff at 100 and balls-cutoff at 200 is also retained.
4. I will ignore all not out innings below 10, if they have already not become SI, from the total innings. This is a very relevant suggestion. This is necessary since quite a few batsmen, especially in the late order and in later innings remain unbeaten on low scores. Since they have not been given the opportunities to further their innings, these innings are excluded from the total.
5. Now that we have the single innings as the base and have raised the cut-off values, there is no need to have the one-third criteria. Even in the 26 by New Zealand, the 11 by Sutcliffe does not really warrant being considered as a SI. On the other hand, Hutton's 30 out of 52, Tancred's 26 out of 47 and Flintoff's 24 out of 51 must be included. This is done by keeping the lower limit for runs cut-off as 20.
6. Finally one very important addition. I have done a weighting of the innings by determining a Situation innings index value. A 100 out of 200 and a 100 out of 500 are both significant innings. However the first innings is far more significant than the later. This measure indicates the extent of significance. It is possible that this factor can very well be used to determine the influence of batsmen. So there is an additional table based on the average SI Index value. The SI Index value is a simple calculation. The innings measure, runs or balls, is divided by the runs cut-off or balls cut-off, as required. Thus the minimum value for this is 1. Where a player has crossed both cut-offs, the higher index value is taken.
Let me conclude this section by saying that the user responses have been outstanding revealing a very incisive way of thinking. Let us now look at the tables now.
First the table of players, ordered by the % of SIs played. This is a reflection of the consistency of the players. Players such as Dravid, Border et al are likely to be at the top. They are likely to score two 75s in successive innings.
List of players, ordered by the % of SIs achieved
SNo Batsman Cty Mats Runs Inns SIs % of SI
The top three remain the same. A few minor changes down the table. Chanderpaul moves down a few places. Sutcliffe also moves down. Lara, Dravid and May move up. Andy Flower moves down a few places.
The most significant change is that of Tendulkar who moves up quite a few places into the top-20 table.
Now the table of players, ordered by the % of SIs played. This is a reflection of the extent of significance once the cut-off is reached. This is likely to have players like Sehwag, Lara et al at the top. They are likely to score a 150 and 0 in two successive innings.
List of players, ordered by the average SI index value
SNo Batsman Cty Mats Runs Inns SIs SII Avge Pts SII
The batsman non pareil, Bradman has an average SI Index value of 2.27. Then comes Sehwag, as expected. His string of high scores have propelled him to this second position. Now there is a surprise. Hanif Mohammad, the chalk to cheese (or vice versa) of Sehwag, closely follows Sehwag. His third position indicates how under-rated the great little master was. What he did for Pakistan cricket is unbelievable. That too on difficult pitches and often away. Now come two modern greats, Lara and Sangakkara. This confirms their penchant for out-performing often.
I have given below the best three innings as far as the SI Index is concerned. The first one is the Asif Iqbal classic. During 1967, Pakistan scored 216 in the first innings. England replied with 440. Then Pakistan slumped to 65 for 8. Asif Iqbal then played the greatest of all late order innings and one of the best ever. He added 190 with Intikhab Alam and took the total to 255. England won comfortably. Asif Iqbal’s innings has the highest SI index value ever of 5.41, based on a runs-cutoff value of 27.7 (255/11, multiplied by a factor of 1.333 (no 8-11) and adjusted downwards by 10% for being the second innings).
Pakistan 2nd innings +Wasim Bari b Titmus 12 Mohammad Ilyas c Cowdrey b Higgs 1 Saeed Ahmed c Knott b Higgs 0 Majid Khan b Higgs 0 *Hanif Mohammad c Knott b Higgs 18 Ghulam Abbas c Knott b Higgs 0 Mushtaq Mohammad c D'Oliveira b Underwood 17 Javed Burki b Underwood 7 Asif Iqbal st Knott b Close 146 Intikhab Alam b Titmus 51 Saleem Altaf not out 0 Extras (b 1, lb 1, nb 1) 3 Total (all out, 101.1 overs) 255 FoW: 1-1, 2-5, 3-5, 4-26, 5-26, 6-41, 7-53, 8-65, 9-255, 10-255.The next is one is another all-time great innings by Dennis Amiss. During 1974, in Kingston, England started their second innings, 230 in arrears. Amiss opened the innings, remained unbeaten on 262 and guided England to safe total of 432 for 9. This innings is reminiscent of the Laxman classic. Amiss' innings has the second highest SI index value ever of 4.52, based on a runs-cutoff value of 39.3 (432/11, multiplied by a factor of 1.667 (no 1-7) and adjusted downwards by 10% for being the second innings).
England 2nd innings G Boycott c Murray b Boyce 5 DL Amiss not out 262 JA Jameson c Rowe b Barrett 38 FC Hayes run out 0 *MH Denness c Rowe b Barrett 28 AW Greig b Gibbs 14 DL Underwood c Murray b Sobers 12 +APE Knott run out 6 CM Old b Barrett 19 PI Pocock c sub b Boyce 4 RGD Willis not out 3 Extras (b 10, lb 11, w 1, nb 19) 41 Total (9 wickets, 183 overs) 432 FoW: 1-32, 2-102, 3-107, 4-176, 5-217, 6-258, 7-271, 8-343, 9-392.Now a modern classic by Saeed Anwar. During 1999, in Calcutta, Pakistan started their second innings, 38 in arrears. Anwar opened the innings, remained unbeaten on 188 and guided Pakistan to good total of 316, with the Pakistani bowlers dismissing India for 232. Anwar's innings has the third highest SI index value ever of 4.48, based on a runs-cutoff value of 28.7 (316/11, multiplied by a factor of 1.667 (no 1-7) and adjusted downwards by 10% for being the second innings).
Pakistan 2nd innings R M B 4 6 Saeed Anwar not out 188 452 259 23 1 4 Wajahatullah Wasti c Mongia b Srinath 9 54 33 2 0 Saqlain Mushtaq c Mongia b Harbhajan Singh 21 108 86 1 0 Ijaz Ahmed c Mongia b Srinath 11 55 47 1 0 Yousuf Youhana c Dravid b Srinath 56 139 123 7 1 2 Shahid Afridi c Laxman b Srinath 0 1 1 0 0 Saleem Malik lbw b Srinath 9 34 16 1 0 +Moin Khan c Mongia b Prasad 8 22 13 1 0 Azhar Mahmood lbw b Srinath 0 9 9 0 0 *Wasim Akram c Mongia b Srinath 1 7 3 0 0 Shoaib Akhtar b Srinath 1 14 8 0 0 Extras (lb 3, w 5, nb 4) 12 Total (all out, 99 overs) 316 FoW: 1-26 (Wajahatullah Wasti, 10.5 ov), 2-94 (Saqlain Mushtaq, 35.3 ov), 3-147 (Ijaz Ahmed, 49.1 ov), 4-262 (Yousuf Youhana, 82.3 ov), 5-262 (Shahid Afridi, 82.4 ov), 6-284 (Saleem Malik, 88.4 ov), 7-301 (Moin Khan, 93.1 ov), 8-302 (Azhar Mahmood, 94.6 ov), 9-304 (Wasim Akram, 96.2 ov), 10-316 (Shoaib Akhtar, 98.6 ov).To view/down-load the complete player table, ordered by the % of SIs played, please click/right-click here.
To view/down-load the complete player table, ordered by the average values of SI Index, please click/right-click here.
I have also made available the complete list of significant performances for all the 159 qualifying batsmen.
To view/down-load the table for all the first 1960 tests, please click/right-click here.
Finally the grand-daddy of all tables. Let me warn you these tables are huge, 500kb each. These are the lists of all significant innings, all 14782 of them, covering all 1960 tests played.
To view/down-load the complete table for tests 1-999, please click/right-click here.
To view/down-load the complete table for tests 1000-1960, please click/right-click here.
A few readers have asked for some summarized figures based on criteria. I have given these, and more below. I have not done the %. I leave it for the readers.
Summary information ===================
List of selected players ordered by the average SI index value
Headley almost touches Bradman. The other great, Greame Pollock, also crosses 2.00.
On 29 June 2010
As requested by Abhi and Alex I have expanded the Player tables with the following information.
1. Add number of fifties and % of selected inns to enable comparison with SI %.
2. Runs per innings for significant innings.
3. Total of SI Runs and % of total career runs.
I have also corrected the format of the Selected players Si report to enable proper downloading into XL files.
To view/down-load the complete revised player table, ordered by the % of SIs played, please click/right-click here.
To view/down-load the complete revised player table, ordered by the average values of SI Index, please click/right-click here.
Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems