Test players: a look into their best decades

In a passing comment, Sarosh Nayyar requested that I do an analysis of the best decade for a player and compare the results across the players. It seemed a very intriguing request. I realized that this had the makings of a, hitherto not attempted, unique analysis, when I started looking at it deeply. The possibilities were immense. There was a scenario in which we could get a batsman-decade which was closer than the 40% gap between Bradman and Sutcliffe, which itself was a great incentive.

And ten years is a long enough period to draw conclusions with sufficient weight. We also agreed that the raw numbers had to be adjusted for the specific decade's peer numbers, during our exchange of views. The complex mechanism to determine the peer averages between any two Tests was already in place. It is indeed a tricky exercise and I have been working on-and-off for nearly a month now. The complexities are summarised below.

1. How does one handle the six-year voids which were caused by the two World Wars? The careers of some great players like Barnes and Verity were curtailed and the careers of top players such as Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, Compton et al got disrupted. I had to find a satisfactory methodology which handled this effectively.

2. This is predominantly a performance analysis: hence the decade has to be strictly defined. At the same time the careers of Pietersen (Twitter-gaffes notwithstanding), Cook, Gambhir et al, which might fall short of the qualifying ten-year periods, have to be recognized.

3. The peer adjustment has to be crisp and clear and has to make a telling impact. While the bowling comparisons have to be across the board, the batting peer comparisons have to be restricted to the Top-7 batsmen.

Keeping these in mind, I have worked on the following criteria and methodology.

1. The decade is strictly and exactly defined, match to match. There are very few exceptions to the 10-year requirement which are explained below.

2. The war-years, as far this analysis is concerned, are just wiped off. How I wish I could move the clock back and do it in real life. Millions of lives could have been saved!!! Enough of this wishful thinking. Tests 134 and 135 are, in real life, around six-plus years apart. As do the Tests 274 and 275. But this period is reduced to nothing as far as this analysis is concerned. In other words, the period 1908-1922 becomes eight years or thereabout. Similarly 1938-1954 is equivalent to ten years.

3. S.F.Barnes played his last Test during 1914 and did not play thereafter. And his best years were between 1907 and 1914. Hence the period of seven years has been accepted for him. Verity played his last Test in 1939 and then died on the battle-fields. His entire career lasted eight years from 1931 to 1939. Hence this has been considered valid. Note the subtle differences between the careers of these two great bowlers.

4. It was indeed fortunate that Bradman's best decade was between 1929 and 1939. So no problems. However the best years for Hobbs, Hammond and Hutton, spanned the wars and their "decades" are allowed to go past 10 years.

5. For the best performance analysis, no concession is given to anyone else, including the recent players. However for the total runs/wickets analysis it really does not matter if the career has lasted below 10 years.

6. The Top-7 Batting average for the specific range of Tests is considered for peer comparisons. This is compared to the all-time Top-7 Batting average of 35.92 and then adjusted. Couple of examples will explain this.

The average for Kallis is a very high 66.13, between 2001 and 2011, when the T7-Avge for all players, other than Kallis, was 39.03. So his average is adjusted to 60.86 (66.13 x 35.92 / 39.03). On the other side, Harvey averaged 54.40 between 1948 and 1958 when the T7-Avge for all players, except Harvey, was 33.80. So his average is adjusted to 57.82 (54.40 x 35.92 / 33.80).

7. For peer comparisons the all-inclusive Bowling average for the specific range of Tests is taken. This is compared to the all-time all-inclusive Bowling average which is 32.0. This is necessary because the wickets are captured across all batting positions.

Harbhajan's best decade average was a somewhat high 29.92 between 1999 and 2009 when the Bowling Avge for all bowlers, sans Harbhajan, was at a higher level of 34.08. So his average is adjusted to 28.09 (29.92 x 32.0 / 34.08). On the other hand, Laker averaged 18.56 at his peak between 1949 and 1959, a bowler-dominated decade, during which the Bowling Avge for all bowlers, other than Laker, was a low 29.4. So his average is adjusted to 20.20 (18.56 x 32.0 / 29.4)

Batsman best decade analysis: Based on adjusted average

Batsman	Adjust	<<<<	Best	Decade	>>>>	# of	Inns	NO	Runs	Avge	Peer	Values
Name	Avge	StMat	StYear	EndMat	EnYear	Yrs					T7-Avg	T7-Oth
Bradman D.G	103.93	180	1929	271	1939	10	51	5	4785	104.02	37.37	35.95
Sobers	73.75	450	1958	631	1968	10	78	12	4821	73.04	35.97	35.57
Hobbs J.B	70.65	117	1912	167	1926	14	55	4	3326	65.21	34.47	33.15
Walcott C.L	66.43	304	1948	458	1958	10	64	6	3581	61.74	33.75	33.38
EdeC Weekes	64.97	297	1948	451	1958	10	73	4	4222	61.18	34.30	33.83
Tendulkar	63.19	1201	1992	1628	2002	10	138	14	7744	62.45	35.75	35.50
Barrington	61.81	409	1955	592	1965	10	90	11	4710	59.62	34.94	34.65
Sutcliffe H	61.60	153	1924	233	1934	10	76	8	4235	62.27	37.01	36.31
Hutton L	61.25	263	1938	387	1954	16	119	15	6538	62.86	37.46	36.86
Kallis J.H	60.86	1562	2001	2006	2011	10	165	29	8995	66.13	39.18	39.03
Ponting R.T	60.13	1426	1998	1887	2008	10	172	25	9192	62.53	37.53	37.35
Richards	59.39	768	1976	1034	1986	10	97	5	5372	58.39	35.62	35.31
Hammond W.R	58.77	244	1935	284	1947	12	54	7	3025	64.36	40.07	39.34
Waugh S.R	58.13	1236	1993	1669	2003	10	163	30	7697	57.87	35.84	35.76
Dravid R	58.08	1344	1996	1820	2006	10	168	22	8710	59.65	37.06	36.89
Hayden M.L	57.96	1252	1994	1684	2004	10	85	8	4489	58.29	36.24	36.12
Harvey R.N	57.82	295	1948	448	1958	10	85	6	4298	54.40	34.16	33.80
Boycott G	57.78	627	1968	815	1978	10	74	10	3737	58.39	36.46	36.30
Simpson R.B	57.69	553	1964	729	1974	10	50	3	2768	58.89	36.88	36.67
Hill C	57.39	53	1897	96	1907	10	57	2	2411	43.83	28.21	27.43
Chappell	56.41	679	1971	895	1981	10	113	14	5571	56.27	36.04	35.83
Compton	55.71	282	1947	436	1957	10	105	10	5029	52.93	34.45	34.13
Border A.R	55.48	944	1983	1209	1993	10	147	27	6733	56.10	36.40	36.32
Mohd Yousuf	55.43	1502	2000	1962	2010	10	111	10	6037	59.77	38.87	38.74
J Miandad	55.42	937	1982	1196	1992	10	101	8	5205	55.96	36.50	36.27
Hendren E.H	55.22	153	1924	233	1934	10	57	8	2771	56.55	37.01	36.78
Sangakkara	54.88	1537	2001	1991	2011	10	142	12	7756	59.66	39.22	39.05
Worrell	54.77	296	1948	449	1958	10	57	5	2691	51.75	34.11	33.94
Gavaskar	54.10	683	1971	898	1981	10	123	8	6180	53.73	35.99	35.68
Crowe M.D	54.01	1003	1984	1278	1994	10	97	10	4756	54.66	36.50	36.35

Bradman's best decade was between 1929 and 1939, as expected. The adjusted batting average is 103.93 (unadjusted avge 104.02), which is around 4% above his career batting average. This indicates that virtually any decade of Bradman is likely to produce a number around 100. Sobers, whose adjusted average is a magnificent 73.75 (73.04), between 1958 and 1968 is in second place. It is the first time a player, over a long period of 10 years, comes within 30% of Bradman. Hobbs, with a best decade spread across the WW1 (1912 to 1926) is next with 70.65 (65.21). Walcott and Weekes follow, with adjusted averages either side of 65.

Tendulkar, with a best decade of 1992 to 2002, appears next in the list with 63.19 (62.45), followed by the old-timers, Barrington, Sutcliffe and Hutton, comfortably in excess of 60. Jacques Kallis rounds off the top-10 with an adjusted average of 60.86, between 2001 and 2011, seriously adjusted downwards from 66.13. He is in fact third in the unadjusted table. This confirms the significant impact of adjusting against peer values.

Bowler best decade analysis: Based on adjusted average

Batsman	Adjust	<<<<	Best	Decade	>>>>	# of	Wkts	Runs	Avge	Peer	Values
Name	Avge	StMat	StYear	EndMat	EnYear	Yrs				Avg	Oth
Imran Khan	18.26	861	1979	1127	1989	10	250	4593	18.37	31.74	32.20
Barnes S.F	18.57	96	1907	133	1914	7	163	2684	16.46	26.73	28.36
Muralitharan	18.60	1376	1997	1842	2007	10	575	11231	19.53	33.02	33.60
Hadlee R.J	19.07	848	1979	1115	1989	10	293	5618	19.17	31.66	32.16
Marshall	19.09	884	1980	1148	1990	10	316	6194	19.60	32.29	32.86
McGrath G.D	19.53	1313	1995	1771	2005	10	484	9792	20.23	32.69	33.15
Ambrose	20.04	1142	1990	1490	2000	10	316	6273	19.85	31.33	31.69
O'Reilly	20.04	233	1934	275	1946	12	110	2356	21.41	33.01	34.19
Laker J.C	20.20	317	1949	468	1959	10	166	3081	18.56	28.99	29.40
Garner J	20.66	803	1977	1072	1987	10	238	4874	20.47	31.35	31.70
Wasim Akram	20.90	1086	1987	1391	1997	10	271	5747	21.20	32.12	32.47
Pollock S.M	21.20	1318	1995	1776	2005	10	371	8122	21.89	32.74	33.04
Waqar Younis	21.32	1137	1990	1483	2000	10	270	5724	21.20	31.54	31.82
Davidson	21.83	375	1953	539	1963	10	181	3692	20.39	29.54	29.90
Holding M.A	21.98	775	1976	1044	1986	10	230	4955	21.54	31.07	31.36
Lindwall	22.02	275	1946	424	1956	10	192	4197	21.85	31.31	31.75
Donald A.A	22.14	1206	1992	1590	2002	10	318	7010	22.04	31.58	31.86
Trueman F.S	22.32	386	1954	560	1964	10	247	5220	21.13	29.85	30.30
Lock G.A.R	22.70	412	1955	595	1965	10	139	3067	22.06	30.87	31.10
Miller K.R	23.29	275	1946	424	1956	10	147	3381	23.00	31.31	31.60
Walsh C.A	23.63	1016	1985	1297	1995	10	262	6316	24.10	32.35	32.63
Lillee D.K	23.66	698	1972	927	1982	10	320	7369	23.02	30.76	31.14
Underwood	23.77	622	1967	806	1977	10	263	6310	23.99	31.90	32.29
Gibbs L.R	23.86	448	1958	628	1968	10	154	3692	23.97	31.91	32.15
ShoaibAkhtar	24.10	1389	1997	1849	2007	10	175	4377	25.01	33.10	33.20
Verity H	24.12	210	1931	272	1939	8	144	3510	24.37	31.69	32.33
Willis	24.43	739	1974	988	1984	10	296	7052	23.82	30.90	31.20
Grimmett	24.98	167	1926	251	1936	10	197	4917	24.95	31.39	31.96
Warne S.K	24.99	1215	1993	1637	2003	10	477	11925	25.00	31.74	32.01
Statham J.B	25.19	332	1951	506	1961	10	196	4514	23.03	29.02	29.26

For obvious reasons I have ignored Lohmann who had a best decade with 100+ wickets at 10+. These were days about which we really cannot come to a decision and are not comparable with later periods. Hence the cut-off is 1900.

There is a real, real surprise at the top. This should make people sit up and take notice. Imran Khan, between 1979 and 1989 had an adjusted bowling average of 18.37 (18.26). He gained almost nothing through peer adjustment. Who could have imagined that Imran Khan would have leapt over many other fancied bowlers? He captured 250 wickets during this period and improved his bowling average from 31.72 to 22.21. That single sentence is sufficient.

Barnes comes in second with an average of 18.57 (16.46). There was a significant adjustment for the period. Readers should note that the period for Barnes has been accepted at seven years owing to the WW1 intervention. Muralitharan, between 1997 and 2007, captured 575 wickets at 18.60 (19.53). Hadlee, who captured 293 wickets at 19.07 (19.17) between 1979 and 1989 follows next. Marshall completes the top-5 with 316 wickets at 19.09.

The next five bowlers represent the very best bowling talent that ever played the game - McGrath, Ambrose, O'Reilly, Laker and Garner. These 10 are probably on anyone's list of the top dozen bowlers. Laker's average has had a major downward adjustment. Wasim and Waqar follow in 11th and 13th positions.

Batsmen best decade analysis: Top Run-scorers in a decade

Batsman	Career	Yrs	NO	<<<<	Best	Decade	>>>>	# of	Runs	Runs/Yr
Name	St	End	Yrs	StMat	StYear	EndMat	EnYear	Yrs
Ponting R.T	1995	2012	17	1523	2000	1983	2010	10	10058	1005.8
Kallis J.H	1995	2012	17	1528	2001	1988	2011	10	9318	931.8
Dravid R	1996	2012	16	1589	2002	2031	2012	10	9031	903.1
Lara B.C	1990	2006	16	1340	1996	1816	2006	10	8707	870.7
Sangakkara	2000	2012	12	1567	2001	2016	2011	10	8384	838.4
Hayden M.L	1994	2009	15	1493	2000	1904	2009	9	8365	929.4
Tendulkar	1989	2012	23	1531	2001	1991	2011	10	8276	827.6
Jayawardene	1997	2012	15	1473	1999	1936	2009	10	8248	824.8
Smith G.C	2002	2012	10	1619	2002	2053	2012	10	8201	820.1
Sehwag V	2001	2012	11	1591	2002	2034	2012	10	7943	794.3
Waugh S.R	1985	2004	19	1208	1993	1637	2003	10	7873	787.3
Border A.R	1979	1994	15	855	1979	1126	1989	10	7851	785.1
Gavaskar	1971	1987	16	769	1976	1034	1986	10	7725	772.5
Taylor M.A	1989	1999	10	1113	1989	1439	1999	10	7525	752.5
Langer J.L	1993	2007	14	1352	1997	1826	2007	10	7443	744.3
Waugh M.E	1991	2002	11	1202	1992	1620	2002	10	7331	733.1
Laxman	1996	2012	16	1589	2002	2031	2012	10	7078	707.8
Pietersen	2005	2012	7	1756	2005	2051	2012	7	7076	1010.9
Strauss A.J	2004	2012	8	1700	2004	2053	2012	8	7037	879.6
Kirsten G	1993	2004	11	1243	1994	1681	2004	10	7013	701.3
Boon D.C	1984	1996	12	1017	1985	1298	1995	10	6979	697.9
Chanderpaul	1994	2012	18	1601	2002	2042	2012	10	6913	691.3
Gower D.I	1978	1992	14	828	1978	1101	1988	10	6847	684.7
Stewart A.J	1990	2003	13	1176	1991	1557	2001	10	6798	679.8
Mohd Yousuf	1998	2010	12	1403	1998	1864	2008	10	6770	677.0
Barrington	1955	1968	13	474	1959	640	1968	9	6754	750.4
Atherton	1989	2001	12	1191	1992	1558	2001	9	6562	729.1
Cook A.N	2006	2012	6	1785	2006	2053	2012	6	6555	1092.5
Hutton L	1937	1955	18	263	1938	387	1954	16	6538	408.6
Inzamam	1992	2007	15	1366	1997	1830	2007	10	6431	643.1

This is a simple run-based analysis. As such there are no restrictions and the current players also qualify. After all if Cook accumulates over 6000 runs in 6 years and counting, why should he not get ahead of Gooch who accumulated nearly as many runs in 10 years?

Ponting is the only batsman in history to accumulate over 10000 runs in 10 years. This is a stand-out achievement and has to be recognized. He did this between 2000 and 2010. Kallis accumulated 9318 runs between 2001 and 2011. Dravid, Lara and Sangakkara amassed either side of 9000 runs in 10 years.

Hayden accumulated 8365 runs, but in 9 years. This was after his break and return. Hence 9 years is fine. Then Tendulkar and Jayawardene follow.

Cook leads in the matter of Runs per year, having accumulated 6555 runs in 6 years at an average of 1092. Pietersen is the only other batsman to average more than 1000 runs per year along with Ponting.

Readers should realize the difficulty in maintaining a 1000 runs per year average over 10 years. Mohammad Yousuf had the greatest of years during 2006 when he scored 1788 runs but could accumulate only 5000 runs during the other 9 years of his best decade. In three years, 2003, 2005 and 2006, Ponting accumulated nearly 4500 runs, but had to bat outstandingly well to compile 5500 runs in 7 years.

Bowler best decade analysis: Top Wicket-takers in a decade

Batsman	Career	Yrs	# of	<<<<	Best	Decade	>>>>	# of	Wkts	Wkts/Yr
Name	St	End	Yrs	StMat	StYear	EndMat	EnYear	Yrs
Muralitharan	1992	2010	18	1394	1998	1859	2008	10	588	58.8
Warne S.K	1992	2007	15	1346	1996	1825	2006	10	488	48.8
McGrath G.D	1993	2007	14	1313	1995	1771	2005	10	484	48.4
Kumble A	1990	2008	18	1405	1998	1866	2008	10	430	43.0
Pollock S.M	1995	2008	13	1356	1997	1830	2007	10	390	39.0
Ntini M	1998	2009	11	1504	2000	1944	2009	9	380	42.2
Harbhajan	1998	2011	13	1531	2001	1991	2011	10	372	37.2
Walsh C.A	1984	2001	17	1169	1991	1544	2001	10	372	37.2
Botham I.T	1977	1992	15	806	1977	1078	1987	10	370	37.0
Marshall	1978	1991	13	949	1983	1175	1991	8	342	42.8
Ambrose	1988	2000	12	1095	1988	1414	1998	10	337	33.7
Donald A.A	1992	2002	10	1188	1992	1590	2002	10	330	33.0
Kapil Dev N	1978	1994	16	851	1979	1123	1989	10	323	32.3
Lillee D.K	1971	1984	13	698	1972	927	1982	10	320	32.0
Hadlee R.J	1973	1990	17	817	1978	1090	1988	10	312	31.2
Lee B	1999	2008	9	1479	1999	1902	2008	9	310	34.4
Wasim Akram	1985	2002	17	1127	1989	1468	1999	10	304	30.4
Waqar Younis	1989	2003	14	1151	1990	1511	2000	10	298	29.8
Willis	1971	1984	13	732	1974	977	1984	10	298	29.8
Steyn D.W	2004	2012	8	1728	2004	2053	2012	8	287	35.9
Anderson	2003	2012	9	1646	2003	2053	2012	9	276	30.7
Imran Khan	1971	1992	21	831	1978	1106	1988	10	272	27.2
Vaas WPUJC	1994	2009	15	1445	1999	1909	2009	10	271	27.1
Zaheer Khan	2000	2012	12	1535	2001	1991	2011	10	266	26.6
Trueman F.S	1952	1965	13	409	1955	592	1965	10	265	26.5
Underwood	1966	1982	16	622	1967	806	1977	10	263	26.3
D Kaneria	2000	2010	10	1518	2000	1967	2010	10	261	26.1
McDermott	1984	1996	12	1017	1985	1298	1995	10	260	26.0
Gillespie	1996	2006	10	1343	1996	1799	2006	10	259	25.9
Garner J	1977	1987	10	801	1977	1072	1987	10	249	24.9

Muralitharan had a golden decade from 1998 and 2008 during which he accumulated 588 wickets at an average of over 58 per year. He is followed by the wonderful bowling pair of Warne and McGrath who accumulated 480 odd wickets between around 1995 and 2005. Kumble is next with 430 wickets in the decade beginning 1998. Pollock, Ntini and Harbhajan appear next in this list. Botham is the only non-modern bowler, indicating the recent profusion of Test matches.

Let us think for a second. In a period of 10 years, Muralitharan captured nearly 600 wickets in 10 years. Only 42 bowlers in 135 years have captured more than Muralitharan's average of 58.8 wickets per year. The highest tally is by Warne, during 2005, with 96 wickets, followed by Muralitharan, with 90 wickets in 2006.

The top batsmen in a decade

The graphs are self-explanatory. The idea is not to show the relative position of the averages but rather the positioning across the years. The 1950s-60s seem to be the golden years of batting since there are four batsmen present in the top-10 with high averages.

The top bowlers in a decade

It must be remembered that the Y-axis is not really to exact scale in view of the close bunching of players with similar values. The bowling decades are the 1980s-90s.

To download/view the comprehensive Excel sheet containing all the tables related to Test Decades analysis, please CLICK HERE.

Thanks, Sarosh, for providing a good spark.

The stars of this special analysis are Sobers and Hobbs, whose batting average exceeded 70 during their best decades and Imran Khan and Muralitharan who had bowling averages around 18 during their respective best decades.

When I heard that Lara was going to be inducted into the ICC Hall-of-Fame, I almost shelved this article, post-editing, to be replaced by a tribute to Lara. Then I decided not to rush the same. Since ICC have taken their own time, let me take a few more days to come out with a well-rounded tribute to the batting genius, in the process fine-tuning the single-player analysis program. I will close this with Milind's telling comment.

Sometimes a talent requires the recognition of being an awardee. Then there are cases when the award needs the prestige by associating itself with a talent that transcends awards.

Well said, Milind.