The greatest triple

[subshakerz]

Read this article on Hanif's effort. Batting three days to save a test after your team had been blown away for 106 in the first innings. No doubt the best of all triple tons...

http://content-pak.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/334540.html

 

[a massive zebra]

I hope people who do not know a great deal about Bradman read this post, quality stuff

Thanks Archie, much appreciated.

 

[neville cardus]

Nah I'll pass.

Mongoloid.

 

[neville cardus]

I hope people who do not know a great deal about Bradman read this post, quality stuff

Seconded.

 

[Nishant]

a very difficult q here...but a good thread! its difficult to say considering i havents een all of these triple hundreds.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Not being patriotic but just take a look at the score card ...
I guess this is the only innings by any Pakistani which was a true one man show . Hanif was a little warrior and I heard his interview in which he mentioned that after the end of the day's play there were always bruises and bumps on diferent parts of the body and Windian bowlers were like demons .
I salute Hanif's contribution to the Pakistani cricket .
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62835.html
I know that making a triple is not easy under any circumstances but avoiding the mammoth first inning lead and to avoid defeat by single handedly facing all the bowlers and staying on the wicket for close to a 1000 minutes puts him on top of my list ..

Voted for Hanif Mohammad for the reason mentioned by FRAZ in the post quoted.

 

[roseboy64]

Mongoloid.

Will read it eventually.

 

[Goughy]

Mongoloid.

One of the least politically correct comments Ive seen on here (Im not saying nasty or racist, just un-pc).

Ive not heard the term used in about 20 years. Pretty dated considering the offense it can cause now

 

[Magrat Garlick]

One of the least politically correct comments Ive seen on here (Im not saying nasty or racist, just un-pc).

Ive not heard the term used in about 20 years. Pretty dated considering the offense it can cause now

Not been to school in the last 20 years then.

Cracking post by the zebra, has to be said.

 

[chasingthedon]

No votes for Hutton?

One of the problems with retrospective polls is that people tend to vote for what they remember, or for which there may be some sentimental attachment.

It can be useful to try and be objective in these cases. Some of you may have seen this article, where I retrospectively applied the ICC Test Ranking system from the first Test match.

I took a look at the strength of the opposition for each triple-centurian, and the Australians of 1938, who provided the opposition for Hutton, were by far the strongest team to give up a triple Test century.

So I'll go with Hutton (though I don't remember it - honest)

 

[Goughy]

So I'll go with Hutton

There are 3 reasons why I couldnt vote for 'Our Len'

Firstly, it was a very flat track and others had no problems scoring big. It wasnt as if his innings was freakish in the context of those around him.

Secondly, Stan McCabe (and Waite) opened the bowling for Australia. That isnt much of a threat with the new ball.

Thirdly, this was hardly the best Aus side. Injuries made this game almost a farce. Bradman didnt bat and we have no idea what he would have been capable of.

Hard to give it to Hutton given the game circumstances.

 

[Swervy]

Ken Rutherfords 300 in a day...surely the most unexpected triple in history, even if it was against the Brian Close season end joke XI or whatever it was

 

[chasingthedon]

There are 3 reasons why I couldnt vote for 'Our Len'

Firstly, it was a very flat track and others had no problems scoring big. It wasnt as if his innings was freakish in the context of those around him.

Secondly, Stan McCabe (and Waite) opened the bowling for Australia. That isnt much of a threat with the new ball.

Thirdly, this was hardly the best Aus side. Injuries made this game almost a farce. Bradman didnt bat and we have no idea what he would have been capable of.

Hard to give it to Hutton given the game circumstances.

All valid points, Goughy, but subjective. You'd have to compare the ease of the pitch with those enjoyed by the other triple-makers, really. Ditto with opposing bowlers, e.g. it couild be argued that Hayden vs Zimbabwe was not severely challenged.

Finally, Bradman was injured (I believe) after England had already stamped their supremacy on the game. Also, he was unlikely to have bowled.

But I take your points, nonetheless - polls are, after all, based on opinion.

I was also interested by the votes for Hanif being largely based on the impact of his triple on the result of the game - this is a subject which has interested me immensely, since first reading about Bailey's exploits in 1953. Just what are such feats worth? Can we compare them? Should we try?

I came up with a way of measuring the impact of important individual performances, but I'm still researching it. The gist is that you can statistically predict the likelihood of a team winning from any given point in the match, based on the final results of all other matches which enjoyed similar circumstances, e.g. the team batting last being behind by 259 runs and having three wickets to give (not very good chance of winning), or a team batting last with only 122 to make and all 10 wickets to give (very good chance of winning, except of course Australia in 1981 - see below).

If a player comes in to bat at a certain point where his team has basically zero chance of winning, as Hanif did (following on 463 runs behind), and at the end of his innings the teams are about 50-50 with the most likely result being a draw, as Pakistan did at the end of Hanif's innings, you can measure his contribution to that change - he scored 337 out of 626 runs, so his contribution is 53.8% of about a 50% shift in win probability, or 26.9%.

This method could be used to compare the impact of all other great individual performances; for example, while there's no doubt that Ian Botham was the man of the series in 1981, I always felt the contribution of Bob Willis to the Headingley victory was under-rated, at least in terms of impact on the result. When Beefy came in to bat, England were 122 runs behind with five wickets to give, and had basically zero chance of winning from that point. even at 252-8 and a lead of only 25, their chance of winning was still virtually zero. At 356 all out, with a lead of 129, they had a slightly better chance of winning, such that Botham had contributed about 15% of the increase in win probability. However, it was in the field that this game was won. If we say that Bob Willis gets 45% of the credit (full credit for the one wicket bowled and half credit, shared with the fielders, for the seven wickets which were caught), he would then have contributed about 33% of the increase in win probability (basically an increase to 100%, as England won). I guess the point I'm making about this match is that, heroic though Beefy's innings was, England still had only a slight chance of winning when Australia came into bat - Willis bowling was the real turning point, as swashbuckling as Beefy's innings undoubtedly was.

Just a thought

So does this sound like crap to everyone else?

 

[archie mac]

Nah I'll pass.

Your loss

 

[Burgey]

All valid points, Goughy, but subjective. You'd have to compare the ease of the pitch with those enjoyed by the other triple-makers, really. Ditto with opposing bowlers, e.g. it couild be argued that Hayden vs Zimbabwe was not severely challenged.

Finally, Bradman was injured (I believe) after England had already stamped their supremacy on the game. Also, he was unlikely to have bowled.

But I take your points, nonetheless - polls are, after all, based on opinion.

I was also interested by the votes for Hanif being largely based on the impact of his triple on the result of the game - this is a subject which has interested me immensely, since first reading about Bailey's exploits in 1953. Just what are such feats worth? Can we compare them? Should we try?

I came up with a way of measuring the impact of important individual performances, but I'm still researching it. The gist is that you can statistically predict the likelihood of a team winning from any given point in the match, based on the final results of all other matches which enjoyed similar circumstances, e.g. the team batting last being behind by 259 runs and having three wickets to give (not very good chance of winning), or a team batting last with only 122 to make and all 10 wickets to give (very good chance of winning, except of course Australia in 1981 - see below).

If a player comes in to bat at a certain point where his team has basically zero chance of winning, as Hanif did (following on 463 runs behind), and at the end of his innings the teams are about 50-50 with the most likely result being a draw, as Pakistan did at the end of Hanif's innings, you can measure his contribution to that change - he scored 337 out of 626 runs, so his contribution is 53.8% of about a 50% shift in win probability, or 26.9%.

This method could be used to compare the impact of all other great individual performances; for example, while there's no doubt that Ian Botham was the man of the series in 1981, I always felt the contribution of Bob Willis to the Headingley victory was under-rated, at least in terms of impact on the result. When Beefy came in to bat, England were 122 runs behind with five wickets to give, and had basically zero chance of winning from that point. even at 252-8 and a lead of only 25, their chance of winning was still virtually zero. At 356 all out, with a lead of 129, they had a slightly better chance of winning, such that Botham had contributed about 15% of the increase in win probability. However, it was in the field that this game was won. If we say that Bob Willis gets 45% of the credit (full credit for the one wicket bowled and half credit, shared with the fielders, for the seven wickets which were caught), he would then have contributed about 33% of the increase in win probability (basically an increase to 100%, as England won). I guess the point I'm making about this match is that, heroic though Beefy's innings was, England still had only a slight chance of winning when Australia came into bat - Willis bowling was the real turning point, as swashbuckling as Beefy's innings undoubtedly was.

Just a thought

So does this sound like crap to everyone else?

Not at all, but that doesn't mean I'm finding it all that easy to understand .

Planning on posting your calculations in relation to some stellar individual performances once you've worked the formulae out?

 

[honestbharani]

All valid points, Goughy, but subjective. You'd have to compare the ease of the pitch with those enjoyed by the other triple-makers, really. Ditto with opposing bowlers, e.g. it couild be argued that Hayden vs Zimbabwe was not severely challenged.

Finally, Bradman was injured (I believe) after England had already stamped their supremacy on the game. Also, he was unlikely to have bowled.

But I take your points, nonetheless - polls are, after all, based on opinion.

I was also interested by the votes for Hanif being largely based on the impact of his triple on the result of the game - this is a subject which has interested me immensely, since first reading about Bailey's exploits in 1953. Just what are such feats worth? Can we compare them? Should we try?

I came up with a way of measuring the impact of important individual performances, but I'm still researching it. The gist is that you can statistically predict the likelihood of a team winning from any given point in the match, based on the final results of all other matches which enjoyed similar circumstances, e.g. the team batting last being behind by 259 runs and having three wickets to give (not very good chance of winning), or a team batting last with only 122 to make and all 10 wickets to give (very good chance of winning, except of course Australia in 1981 - see below).

If a player comes in to bat at a certain point where his team has basically zero chance of winning, as Hanif did (following on 463 runs behind), and at the end of his innings the teams are about 50-50 with the most likely result being a draw, as Pakistan did at the end of Hanif's innings, you can measure his contribution to that change - he scored 337 out of 626 runs, so his contribution is 53.8% of about a 50% shift in win probability, or 26.9%.

This method could be used to compare the impact of all other great individual performances; for example, while there's no doubt that Ian Botham was the man of the series in 1981, I always felt the contribution of Bob Willis to the Headingley victory was under-rated, at least in terms of impact on the result. When Beefy came in to bat, England were 122 runs behind with five wickets to give, and had basically zero chance of winning from that point. even at 252-8 and a lead of only 25, their chance of winning was still virtually zero. At 356 all out, with a lead of 129, they had a slightly better chance of winning, such that Botham had contributed about 15% of the increase in win probability. However, it was in the field that this game was won. If we say that Bob Willis gets 45% of the credit (full credit for the one wicket bowled and half credit, shared with the fielders, for the seven wickets which were caught), he would then have contributed about 33% of the increase in win probability (basically an increase to 100%, as England won). I guess the point I'm making about this match is that, heroic though Beefy's innings was, England still had only a slight chance of winning when Australia came into bat - Willis bowling was the real turning point, as swashbuckling as Beefy's innings undoubtedly was.

Just a thought

So does this sound like crap to everyone else?

Interesting way to compare stuff.


It doesn't exactly cover all bases, but it is reasonable enough, I suppose, especially if used purely as an indicator rather than some statistical certainty...


I wonder what exactly are the chances of teams who are 11/2 on the first day to go on and lose the match...... I remember Lara made his 375 after they were 11/2.


Also, I wonder if there is any way to take into account what happened AFTER or DURING the triple hundred innings was in progress... Like for instance, with Sehwag's latest knock, India lost 8 or 9 wickets for 180 runs or something after he got out. Shouldn't that also be taken into account when deciding the greatness of the innings?


But what you have suggested is an extremely fascinating way to further analyze some of these innings... Well done.

 

[chasingthedon]

Burgey, I will post something definitive eventually, but it requires a lot more data collection first. And yes, it's only intended to be a means of comparison rather than a definitive measurement.

Honestbharani, I'm not sure it should take what happens next into account. If an individual's innings takes his team from, say, a 25% to a 75% chance of winning, after which his teammates conspire to lose from that position, you can't blame the first guy - all you can do is take into account the shift in win probability resulting from his performance.

 

[Goughy]

I guess the point I'm making about this match is that, heroic though Beefy's innings was, England still had only a slight chance of winning when Australia came into bat - Willis bowling was the real turning point, as swashbuckling as Beefy's innings undoubtedly was.

Just a thought

So does this sound like crap to everyone else?

hmm, without Bothams innings the chance of winning was zero. However, Willis was reliant on Botham to have put them in the position to make a success possible. Botham contributed the most to change of result and his performance was the turning point. Willis built on Bothams effort and any chance of victory is from a cumulative effort by all players. Taking England from obvious loss to a chance of victory was a far greater swing than from small chance of victory to victory.

If you need to reach 10m and you have a 9m stick then you have a chance of success if you lean and stretch. Its not easy but possible. Adding a 1m extention makes it much easier and far more chance of success. That doesnt mean the 1m extention is more important than the 9m stick. Far from it.

Just because the 1m extention. (Willis) brought success, it was built on and was impossible without the 9m stick (Botham). Also the 1m stick would be irrelevant without the 9m stick, just as the bowling of Willis would have been impossible without Bothams innings.

Im not calling the bowling of Willis a 1m stick compared to Bothams 9m. What Im trying to illustrate is that, of course Willis brought more success as he acted last and was standing on top of the performances of the others, most notably Botham.

 

[Smudge]

Ken Rutherfords 300 in a day...surely the most unexpected triple in history, even if it was against the Brian Close season end joke XI or whatever it was

Hungover as all hell aparently, after one of the team member's birthday bash.

 

[chasingthedon]

Fair comment, Goughy

You're probably right that a swing from an obvious loss such as this to a chance of a win is larger than I gave it credit for.

I still think there might be something in this, though - for the sake of generating discussion, if nothing else, e.g. a comparison of Jessop's and Botham's innings.