New Feature: Top 100 Test Innings: Revised and Updated

[Singh Is King]

Where did Rahanes 100 rate at Lords this year?

 

[weldone]

Where did Rahanes 100 rate at Lords this year?

Not in top 200 I'd assume

 

[Days of Grace]

While I am not doubting 1 and 2 (Lara over Gooch) I do notice that Lara ranks over Gooch based on "1. Match result and closeness of result (max 3.98 points for a 1 run victory)"

Lara's innings is for batting second and a 1 wicket win - great innings.

Let us ignore that and look at Gooch's innings in isolation.

England scored 198
WI scored 173
England scored 252 (Gooch 154*)
WI scored 162

England win by 115 runs.

Now WI only scored so few runs as the track was nearly impossible to bat on and the margin of victory is only so great because Gooch played a freak innings. When Gooch batted what happened next in the WI (4th) innings was irrelevant as it all happened after the fact. The closeness of the result is irrelevant (though the actual result is very important.)

Winning a match by 1 run isnt important here as the batsman's innings is independent of the bowling attack in the 4th innings.

Im interested in this theoretical calculation. If batting was easier in that Test and the WI scored 275 in the 4th innings to lose by 1 run (England to win by 1 run) - what would Gooch's innings have scored in the ranking system? If it is significantly lower than the current ranking then OK. I am interested to see if an innings like Gooch's is being punished as the result wasnt so close only because he was the only person able to score runs.

In your scenario, Gooch would have a rating of 21.42, up from 20.08.

His base rating would drop however to 13.21 from 13.81.

But the closeness of the result trumps any value lost from batting in easier conditions.

I would argue that what happens during AND after an innings is important, as any innings should be judged in the context in which it is played, i.e. what happened before and after it. The closer the end result was, the more valuable the innings in question was.

You could argue that I give too much weighting to close results but I think I have the balance about right.

 

[Days of Grace]

Where did Rahanes 100 rate at Lords this year?

13.50, 188th in the innings I have rated.

 

[Goughy]

In your scenario, Gooch would have a rating of 21.42, up from 20.08.

You could argue that I give too much weighting to close results but I think I have the balance about right.

You are right I would. I think the weighting of this, strike rate and possibly others dont add up.

 

[Days of Grace]

You are right I would. I think the weighting of this, strike rate and possibly others dont add up.

All I can say to this is spend a couple of months on making your own system.

 

[weldone]

How many among Tendulkar's innings are in top 200?

 

[OverratedSanity]

13.50, 188th in the innings I have rated.

IIRC you'd rated that innings right after the England tour and it was only around 8.6 or something, which was a bit too low tbf. Just goes to show how much the rating system has changed. Love it!

 

[OverratedSanity]

Would be interested to know what the best single-match performance is (ie) rating of 1st innings + 2nd innings of the same match for a particular batsman.

Think it might be either Laxman at Kolkata, or maybe Border's 98 and 100 at Port of Spain (None of these two innings are top 100, which surprised me, but both combined should be right up there)

 

[Goughy]

All I can say to this is spend a couple of months on making your own system.

It is an impressive labour of love and I admire the effort but you cant get precious about observations especially with an arbitrary weighting system in place.

 

[Days of Grace]

It is an impressive labour of love and I admire the effort but you cant get precious about observations especially with an arbitrary weighting system in place.

Every attempt to rate innings has to have an arbitrary system in place and (knowledgeable) decisions have to be made as to the weighting of each criteria. That's just how it is. Perhaps if you attempted a similar thing yourself, you could offer some constructive criticism, rather than, "strike-rate and other criteria don't add up."

 

[Goughy]

Every attempt to rate innings has to have an arbitrary system in place and (knowledgeable) decisions have to be made as to the weighting of each criteria. That's just how it is. Perhaps if you attempted a similar thing yourself, you could offer some constructive criticism, rather than, "strike-rate and other criteria don't add up."

I dont want to get into a pissing contest or protracted argument so I will leave it at this. I think the rating system, while clearly a weighty and admirable effort by you, is flawed and I do think you are being precious regarding comments and observations. I highlighted the bolded area as I have attempted similar myself and concluded that any weighting system is too subjective to draw any meaningful conclusions - as you already have done by changing your own earlier rating system.

I think your rating system has question marks; as I think my prior efforts have also had. I am intrigued as in what the "knowledgeable" aspect is that gives strike rate 7.5% value? or doesn't take into account a not out and seeing an innings through to the end?

Look, I really admire the effort in this undertaking and it is a great conversation piece or starting point for discussion but the idea that that you are giving this definitive value because of "knowledge" stretches credulity. Something like this is fun and that is great for bringing the topic to the table but I cant imagine you want it to be taken too seriously.

 

[Days of Grace]

I dont want to get into a pissing contest or protracted argument so I will leave it at this. I think the rating system, while clearly a weighty and admirable effort by you, is flawed and I do think you are being precious regarding comments and observations. I highlighted the bolded area as I have attempted similar myself and concluded that any weighting system is too subjective to draw any meaningful conclusions - as you already have done by changing your own earlier rating system.

I think your rating system has question marks; as I think my prior efforts have also had. I am intrigued as in what the "knowledgeable" aspect is that gives strike rate 7.5% value? or doesn't take into account a not out and seeing an innings through to the end?

Look, I really admire the effort in this undertaking and it is a great conversation piece or starting point for discussion but the idea that that you are giving this definitive value because of "knowledge" stretches credulity. Something like this is fun and that is great for bringing the topic to the table but I cant imagine you want it to be taken too seriously.

I wrote in my feature article that no two analyses of great innings will ever produce the same results. Every system will be subjective because each system's creator will arbitrarily select criteria and give weighting to each criteria. This goes without saying. Perhaps my use of the word "knowledgeable" was incorrect. What I meant was that I spent a lot of time thinking about what weighting to give each criteria and looked at how it affected the results. I wanted to have a balanced top 100 in which all types of innings were rewarded. If the results looked "off", e.g. Lara's 400* being rated in the top 3 innings of all time, then I adjusted the weightings. The results now look very good and are in line with what I and hopefully many fans and scholars think are the great innings. But, once again, this is not and can never be the "definitive", perfect ranking.

My system is a labor of love like you said and should only be used as a starting point for discussion or to show some cricket fans great innings of the past that they may not have known about. Thanks for taking an interest in my work.

I would be interested to know your thoughts on weighting of strike-rate, base runs, runs with the tail, etc. At 7.5%, strike-rate has a low enough weighting not to affect the ratings too much but counter-attacking innings or the ability to dominate proceedings should not be ignored.

 

[Days of Grace]

How many among Tendulkar's innings are in top 200?

Of the innings I have checked,

136 vs. Pakistan at Chennai 1999 15.22
214 vs. Australia at Bangalore 2010 14.54
169 vs. South Africa at Cape Town 1997 13.69
103* vs. England at Chennai 2008 13.31

 

[OverratedSanity]

Would be interested to know what the best single-match performance is (ie) rating of 1st innings + 2nd innings of the same match for a particular batsman.

Think it might be either Laxman at Kolkata, or maybe Border's 98 and 100 at Port of Spain (None of these two innings are top 100, which surprised me, but both combined should be right up there)

What about this one, DoG?

 

[Days of Grace]

Would be interested to know what the best single-match performance is (ie) rating of 1st innings + 2nd innings of the same match for a particular batsman.

Think it might be either Laxman at Kolkata, or maybe Border's 98 and 100 at Port of Spain (None of these two innings are top 100, which surprised me, but both combined should be right up there)

That's a great question!

Turner: 12.34 + 15.41 = 27.75 vs. Australia at Christchurch 1974
Laxman: 7.04 + 19.47 = 26.51 vs. Australia at Kolkata 2001
Mitchell: 9.35 + 15.81 = 25.16 vs. England at The Oval 1947
Border: 11.10 + 13.04 = 24.14 vs. West Indies at Port of Spain 1984
Gooch: 13.81 + 9.01 = 22.82 vs. India at Lords 1990
Flower: 10.41 + 12.10 = 22.51 vs. South Africa at Harare 2001

If you have any examples to match performances that might be up there, please post them. Great to see a Kiwi with the top spot so far!

 

[weldone]

That's a great question!

Turner: 12.34 + 15.41 = 27.75 vs. Australia at Christchurch 1974
Laxman: 7.04 + 19.47 = 26.51 vs. Australia at Kolkata 2001
Mitchell: 9.35 + 15.81 = 25.16 vs. England at The Oval 1947
Border: 11.10 + 13.04 = 24.14 vs. West Indies at Port of Spain 1984
Gooch: 13.81 + 9.01 = 22.82 vs. India at Lords 1990
Flower: 10.41 + 12.10 = 22.51 vs. South Africa at Harare 2001

If you have any examples to match performances that might be up there, please post them. Great to see a Kiwi with the top spot so far!

Tendulkar's

#1. Scorecard - 2010-2011 Border-Gavaskar Trophy - 2nd Test - 09/10/2010
#2. Scorecard - 2003-2004 Border-Gavaskar Trophy - 4th Test - 02/01/2004

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's a great question!

Turner: 12.34 + 15.41 = 27.75 vs. Australia at Christchurch 1974
Laxman: 7.04 + 19.47 = 26.51 vs. Australia at Kolkata 2001
Mitchell: 9.35 + 15.81 = 25.16 vs. England at The Oval 1947
Border: 11.10 + 13.04 = 24.14 vs. West Indies at Port of Spain 1984
Gooch: 13.81 + 9.01 = 22.82 vs. India at Lords 1990
Flower: 10.41 + 12.10 = 22.51 vs. South Africa at Harare 2001

If you have any examples to match performances that might be up there, please post them. Great to see a Kiwi with the top spot so far!

Dravid at Adelaide
2nd Test: Australia v India at Adelaide, Dec 12-16, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Dravid at Sabina 2006
4th Test: West Indies v India at Kingston, Jun 30-Jul 2, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Sanga here
1st Test: Sri Lanka v England at Kandy, Dec 1-5, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Kallis at Capetown 2011 vs us
3rd Test: South Africa v India at Cape Town, Jan 2-6, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Waugh Old Trafford 1997
3rd Test: England v Australia at Manchester, Jul 3-7, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Days of Grace]

GM Turner: 12.34 + 15.41 = 27.75 vs. Australia at Christchurch 1974
SR Waugh 14.30 + 12.43 = 26.73 vs. England at Manchester 1997
VVS Laxman 7.04 + 19.47 = 26.51 vs. Australia at Kolkata 2001
KC Sangakkara 13.21 + 13.13 = 26.34 vs. England at Kandy 2007
R Dravid 17.40 + 8.70 = 26.10 vs. Australia at Adelaide 2003
B Mitchell 9.35 + 15.81 = 25.16 vs. England at The Oval 1947
AR Border 11.10 + 13.04 = 24.14 vs. West Indies at Port of Spain 1984
JH Kallis 11.96 + 11.65 = 23.61 vs. India at Cape Town 2011
GA Gooch 13.81 + 9.01 = 22.82 vs. India at Lords 1990
A Flower 10.41 + 12.10 = 22.51 vs. South Africa at Harare 2001
SR Tendulkar 14.54 + 5.42 = 19.96 vs. Australia at Bangalore 2010
R Dravid 10.04 + 8.19 = 18.23 vs. West Indies at Kingston 2006
SR Tendulkar 11.36 + 3.50 = 14.86 vs. Australia at Sydney 2004

Ratings might change with some minor adjustments.

 

[chasingthedon]

As others have noted, great work Steve - I imagine it is a relief to be finished! Also appreciate the name check for Masterly Batting.

I did have one specific question - I notice that, in your era/decades list, for example there are 26 from the period 2000--2009 and only two from the '60s. Do you have an explanation for this?