Special Test hundreds: a look across and deep
A detailed analysis of various quantifiable aspects of the best Test centuries scored
Brian Lara: an outstanding 153 in a successful fourth-innings chase • Getty Images
I had mentioned in response to one of the comments on the macro-analysis article on Test hundreds that in my follow-up article I would look at special hundreds, selected based on specific selection criteria. I had also made it clear that this would not be my own personal selections, as I normally do but one based on selection criteria in my computer program, with external additions in very very special cases only. Anyone finding fault with the three special additions is probably not a true follower of the game.
If a nice new selection criterion is suggested I will have no problem doing that and adding the tables at the end. I have also toughened the selection criteria to make sure that there are approximately between 10 and 25 entries in the tables. This has been done to ensure that all the table entries are shown in this article itself. Hence everything is in the open in this article.
My own selections from out of the table entries are spread right through the article. Readers can come with their own selections.
Preliminary program work
Normally I write special programs for each article when the number of tables is quite high and there are sorting and formatting requirements. My program reads the Match database record serially and sets the variables for use, as done above. Then a series of functions follow, doing the selections and form the tables. Afterwards the tables are sorted and printed. These are then incorporated, with appropriate narratives, into the Html file.
Now for the tables. I am not going to come out with the most obvious of tables, based on the score. It is shown anywhere and everywhere. My first table is one where the mark was set on the first day of Test cricket and that mark has yet to be breached. It has stood the test of about 10000+ days of Test cricket. This table relates to the % of batsman innings share in the completed innings. I have softened the criteria to losing 9 wickets or more since the last batsman is already in.
1. Hundreds which form a high proportion of completed innings
if (runs>=100 && (runs/score)>=0.6 && wkts>=9)
Bannerman stands supreme at 67.3% of the completed innings. To boot, he opened the innings and remained unbeaten, as did quite a few others in the table. If Slater had scored a single more, he would have overtaken Bannerman. Laxman's brave away innings launched a remarkable career. Amiss has come in because of my decision to include 9-wkt situations. This innings was played away, in West Indies, against not a great West Indian attack, but 230 in arrears.
2. Hundreds which have been scored a better than run-a-ball
if (runs>=150 && runs<=balls)
Now for quick hundreds. I could not just select all hundreds scored at better than run-a-ball. There were too many such innings, 49 to be precise. So I selected only innings of 150 or more runs. What does one say of Sehwag? Three of his 250+ innings have been scored at better than run-a-ball and are the first three entries. He certainly defies description. He has been the single most devastating match-winner during the past decade. Astle's break-neck 222 was essayed, with almost nothing at stake, but it worried the England team for a while. Then comes Fredericks' famous innings. Gilchrist is the only other batsman to have multiple entries. I have added Richards' hundred since it was scored at today's 20-20 scoring rate at a time when 200-ball centuries were considered quick.
3. Hundreds in matches with low match RpW
if (mat_rpw<20.0 && runs>7.5*mat_rpw)
The above is a table of invaluable hundreds, made in matches where runs were at a premium. This is determined by using the match RpW figure. A match RpW value of of below 20 indicates a tough match for batsmen. The ordering is by the ratio of the runs scored and RpW figure. Hence this indicates a measure of out-performance compared to the other batsmen. I have used the overall match figure. Bannerman's century is on top with a whopping ratio of 10.9. Ponsford is next with 10.4. Most of these performances have been way back.
The two exceptions are Hayden's 119 in a match at Sharjah where Pakistan, in two innings, totaled 112 runs. The result could well have been "Hayden defeated Pakistan by an innings and 7 runs". The other is the recent Michael Clarke classic, a futile innings, but an outstanding one, without doubt. I am quite happy that an innings from what could have been one of the greatest of Test series, and could be called "The unfinished symphony", has found place in this elite list.
Out of 18 entries, Australia have accounted 10 for and England, 7, with the lone odd entry from Pakistan. My take is that this is possibly the result of the number of Ashes series, the quality of bowling attacks and the uncovered pitches. As many as nine of these efforts have been effected before WW1.
4. Hundreds by batsmen carrying their bat through completed innings
if (runs>=150 && batpos<3 && allout && batsman_notout)
Now for those warriors who stood at one end, scored millions (ok, hundreds) of runs and saw the 10 other batsmen lose their wickets. I necessarily have to limit this table since there are many hundreds by batsmen carrying their bat through. Hence I have limited the innings to 150+ scores. There are many stand-out innings in this collection. If I have to pick three out of this wonderful collection, I would nominate Saeed Anwar's 188* (a truly great match-winning innings, away), Sehwag's 201* (similar reason as Anwar's) and the best of all, Gooch's 154* (against Ambrose/Patterson/Marshall/Walsh and match-winning, to boot: only Lara and Laxman have played better innings).
5. Hundreds scored against top bowling attacks
if (runs>=100 && bqi<23.00)
These hundreds are the ones scored against the very best bowling attacks. Look at the quality of English attack off which Viswanath and Vengsarkar scored their hundreds. Both were scored away in England. Similarly the two hundreds scored by Worrell and Stollmeyer, away, against the very strong Australian attack in 1952. Only one innings has come in from the current millennium, Lara's 182 against the Australian attack.
Hutton's 156*, which featured in the previous table also, leads my selection(against a big total and a formidable attack), followed by Lara's 182 (in only 235 balls, away, no other West Indian even reaching 50) and Willey's 102* (on the first day, away and against Roberts/Holding/Croft/Garner and batting at no.7).
Now for a selection of hundreds scored in different innings. I have not bothered with the first and second innings. The first innings is quite difficult to categorize. Also. facing a huge total in the second innings is not necessarily a mountain to climb since the pitch has been shown to be a reasonably batting-friendly one, scoreboard pressure notwithstanding. To select second innings hundreds, it would require a combination selection criteria, such as "Facing total > 400 && tough pitch/top bowling attack et al". I am not doing multiple criteria in this article.
6. Hundreds scored in third innings with team in huge arrears
if (runs>=160 && thirdinns && deficit>=250)
However the fun starts in the third innings. The batsmen may or may not be facing huge deficits and hundreds scored in these deficit situations are valuable. If a team has a huge deficit, the first target is to clear the deficit and then build on setting a reasonable target. These are hundreds scored when the deficit is greater than 250, irrespective of follow-on or non-follow-on situations. The bar had to move up to 160 since otherwise there would have been quite a few entries.
Spare a thought for the diminutive Hanif Mohammed, who, after Pakistan followed on over 400 runs behind, batted for over 16 hours to save the Test. The pleasing fact is that most of these back-to-the-wall efforts have been fruitful in that the matches have been saved and in two cases, needless to say which Test, the Laxman-Dravid epic, won. And the special personal entry, Botham's unbelievable 149 also set up the match win.
Laxman's 281 (Like Lars's, one sentence will suffice: in my opinion amongst the three best Test innings ever played) stands head and shoulders above all, followed by Botham's 149 (only loses sheen when compared to Laxman) and Hanif's 337 (arguably the best match-saving innings ever.
Now the the fourth innings which are the purest ones. the target being known right from the beginning. It could be 1 or 836 (both are actual targets in Test matches). This number is clearly available to both teams. While time/overs/weather are factors, this target never changes. There is no D/L creeping in Tests somewhere there, moving the goal-posts. The innings played which we never forget are also outstanding fighting ones. Great defensive innings, often as valuable as attacking match-winning innings are played in the fourth innings.
7. Winning hundreds scored in fourth innings with team chasing huge targets
if (runs>=100 && fourthinns && matchwon && (wkts>=6 || target>=350))
These are defining match-winning played in the fourth innings. The process for selecting the hundreds is quite tricky. Hayden's 101* out of 171 for 1 hardly qualifies, but Greenidge's 214 out of 344 for 1 cannot be ignored. So I have a complex set of selection criteria. The win is quite tough if more than 5 wickets are lost. Hence I have selected all such hundreds. In addition, all hundreds scored in chases of 350 and above are selected.
My own selection amongst these would be Lara's 153* (A legend-one sentence will suffice: in my opinion amongst the three best Test innings ever played), Mark Waugh's 116 (series-winning innings, away and against a top attack) and Gilchrist's 149 (in only his second Test, a forerunner of things to come in many a Test). Bradman and Morris scored two huge centuries. Butcher's was in a dead rubber. Only the ease of the West Indian win keeps the special entry, Greenidge's 214, out.
8. Fighting losing hundreds scored in fourth innings with team chasing substantial targets
if (fourthinns && matchlost && (runs>=125 || (runs>=100 && 2*runs>=score))
The selection criteria in lost matches has to be different. I have selected innings where the score is greater than 125 or comprises of more than half the team score. Note the last three innings, all very commendable efforts.
I would plump for Tendulkar's fighting and valiant 136, on a day when he was ill. The failure of the Indian late-order to score 12 runs should not take anything away from his master class. Randall's 174 which almost won the Centenary Test for England and Astle's 222 follow next.
9. Match-saving hundreds scored in fourth innings with team chasing huge targets
if (fourthinns && matchdrawn && (runs>149 || (runs>=100 && wkts>=7))
Drawn matches present their own characteristics. Scoring 100 out of 200 for 2 is no great effort. Since the match has been saved, the number of wickets lost is significant. I have selected innings in which 7 or more wickets are lost. These are the difficult matches. In addition, to recognize individual efforts, I have also selected hundreds which are 150 and above.
For me, Gavaskar's 221 stands tall, having taken India agonizingly close to a wonderful away victory. Atherton's 10-hour 492-ball epic of 185* and McCabe's 189* (if for nothing else, to do justice to one who was forgotten amongst the Bradman avalanche of runs) complete my trio of hundreds.
10. Hundreds scored which are the only ones in the match by either teams
if (runs>=200 && match100s==1)
The above table represents the list of century makers in matches in which they were the ones to do so. Except that the bar has been set quite high, only those who have scored 200 or more are considered. Remember that the next best score is below 100. The stand-out innings are Dravid's 270 (a match-winning innings, away against a good attack, Greenidge's 226 (after two low innings, this was responsible for a huge win, also against a very good attack) and Sehwag's 201 (a modern classic: an unforgettable Sehwag 231-ball epic and won the away match).
I will now go to a table which is available in any statistical section. However I have included the same in this to round off this article. This is the list of batsmen who scored hundreds in wach innings.
11. Two hundreds scored in a match
if (runs>=100 && otherruns>=100)
Gooch is the only batsman to have scored a triple century and century in the same match, against India during 1990. The match total was 456, ahead of the next by a comfortable margin. Chappell's total stood for a long time. Chappell, Lara and Gavaskar achieved this feat in away locations. Gavaskar, in his debut series. Rowe did this in his debut Test. Border is the only batsman to have exceeded 150 in both innings.
12. Tests by nos 9, 10, and 11 (not yet there)
if (runs>=100 && batpos>=9)
Finally the list of hundreds made in batting positions 9-11. No century has yet been made in position 11. Three centuries have been made in No.10. The most recent one, and the only hundred in the past 100 years, is Pat Symcox's 108 against Pakistan, in a rain-affected drawn match. Smith's 173 was against India helped New Zealand recover from 131 for 7 to 381. Broad's 169 is recent vintage helping England recover from 102 for 7 to 446 and led England to an innings win against Pakistan. For me, these two innings and Asif's 146, including a stand of 190 for the ninth wicket with Intikhab, stand out.
Readers' selections:
(Maximum of four per reader, to be given in the form
Tendulkar 155, Lara 277, Ponting 156, Hutton 202*
Also short names, not "cricket-follower-from-rajnandgaon" ???
Must be limited to a single line.)
Dave Bollen: Botham 149, SR Waugh 200, Lara 277, Laxman 167. Gaur: Lara 153*, Tendulkar 136, VVS 281, Sehwag 201*. Yogesh: Tendulkar 136, Gilchrist 149*, Laxman 281, Damien Martyn 104. Alok: Lara 153*, Laxman 281, Tendulkar 103* and Botham 149. Andrew: Lara 153*, Trescothick 180, Pietersen 158, S Waugh ???. Ravi M: Bradman 103*, Hughes 100*, Border 100*, Walters 104* Navin A: Laxman 281, Lara 153*, Gooch 154*, Dravid 270 (closest to my own). Gerry: Gavaskar 121, Sobers 132, Fredericks 169, Azhar Mehmood 132 (Saf). Ghose: Lara 153*, Atherton 185*, Hughes 100*, Laxman 281 Sandeep: Sehwag 201*, Laxman 281, Dravid 270, Sehwag 151 Rachit: Tendulkar 136, Gooch 154, Lara 213, Laxman 281 Rakesh: Laxman 281, Lara 153*, Sehwag 201, Tendulkar 136 Ashtung: Laxman 281, Lara 153*, Pietersen 158, Tendulkar 136 Rex: Laxman 281, Sehwag 201*, Tendulkar 103*, Gooch 154* Sarath: Bradman's 103*, Laxman's 281, Lara's 153* and Sachin's 136. Andrew: Jessop's 104, Sutcliffe's 135, McCabe's 232* and Harvey's 151*. Zain: V.Sehwag's 293, Sehwag's 201, S.Anwar's 188 and Broad's 169. Trevor: Gooch 154, Tendulkar 136, Fredericks 169, Laxman 281. Aaditya: Laxman 281, Tendulkar 155, Lara 213, Slater 123. Alex: Slater 123, Greenidge 134, Taylor 144, Jayasuriya 253. Vivek: Tendulkar 155, Lara 153*, Tendulkar 155, Gilchrist 102. James: Lara's 153*, Laxman's 281, Mark Taylor's 144, M Waugh's 116. Karthik: Lara 153*, Laxman 281, Gilchrist 149* and Botham 149. Jaytirth: Laxman 281, Lara 153, Sehwag 201, Anwar 188 Kothandaram:Lara 153*, Laxman 281, ME Waugh 115, Tendulkar 136. AB: Lara 153, Gooch 154, Laxman 281 and Dravid 233. Oshada: Lara 153*, Jayawardene 123, Sangakkara 192, Greenidge 214* Iain: Bradman 334, Gilchrest 160, S Waugh 200, M.Waugh 116 Bull: Lara's 153, Laxman's 281, Bradman's 103*, Clarke's 151. Raghav: Laxman 281, Lara 153, Botham 149, McCabe 187 Sudarshan: Laxman 281, Sachin 136, Inzamamul 138* and Sarwan 105 Aditya: Headley 270, Gavaskar 101, Pollock 125 and ???. Deepak: Ganguly 144, Mudassar 114, McCabe 232 and ???. Jayanth: Hanif Mohd's 337,Gavasker's 221, Laxman's 281, Lara's 153. krishna : lara 153, kapil 119, laxman 281, steve waugh 200 Harsh: Lara153,Gooch154,Mcabe232,Pollock125 Vinish: Lara 153*, Laxman 281, Gooch 154 and Lara 213 (Author's privilege to select one of three). Obelix: S.Waugh 200, Border 98/100, Slater 106, Hilditch 70/113.
Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems