A chasm between England's averages

England batted 732.5 overs in six innings during their 4-0 humiliation of India. Their bowlers needed only 634 overs to rout India's batsmen eight times. England plundered 2809 runs for the loss of 47 wickets and were all out just twice in the series. Their bowlers conceded only 2044 runs and took 80 wickets. The difference of 34.21 runs between England's batting average for the series (59.76) and their bowling average (25.55, also India's batting average) is the 12th largest for a contest comprising at least three Tests. We've dug up a list of other series with similar chasms between a team's batting and bowling average.

The gap between England and India during the summer of '42 was wider than in 2011, statistically at least. On India's 1974 tour, England scored 1629 runs in four innings, averaging 67.87 for each of the 24 wickets lost. They took 59 Indian wickets at 19.54 apiece, the one that got away was BS Chandrasekhar, who didn't bat because of a thumb injury during the follow-on at Lord's, where India were routed for their lowest Test score. England won all three Tests, two by an innings, and inflicted on India their only whitewash (in series of at least three Tests) until India's tour of Australia in 1999-2000. The 2011 whitewash in England is the first since then.

On their tour of New Zealand in 1999, South Africa averaged 98.56 per wicket, the highest team average in a series of at least three Tests. Though they scored 621 for 5 in Auckland and 498 for 8 in Wellington, that average was built on a monumental performance in Christchurch, where Herschelle Gibbs made 211 and Jacques Kallis 149 during an innings of 442 for 1. South Africa's bowlers, however, were able to force a 1-0 victory only in the third Test, and they averaged 31.90 for each of 44 New Zealand wickets. The difference of 66.65 between South Africa's batting and bowling average is the second largest for a series.

All but one of the series in the table above were won by the team with the better stats, with the opposition failing to win even a Test. The exception is India's tour of Australia in 1985-86. India scored 1624 runs for 26 wickets at 62.46 in three Tests, while Australia, rebuilding their side under Allan Border, made only 1483 for 46 wickets at 32.23. Despite leading on the first innings in each match, India couldn't win any, and the series was drawn 0-0. The closest they came to victory was at the SCG, where Australia ended on 116 for 6 in the follow-on. The difference of 30.22 between the averages is the largest in favour of a team who failed to win the series, almost double the next best - England's 15.94 advantage over Australia in the 1938 Ashes.

The table below contains a list of Test series won by a team despite them averaging fewer runs per wicket than their opponents did. On top of that list is England's Ashes victory in 2009. Australia scored 2886 runs for the loss of 71 wickets in five Tests, while England made 2869 but lost 13 more wickets. Australia's average per wicket was nearly seven runs more than England's, but the timing of run-scoring is everything and England took the series 2-1.