DoG's Test Innings and Bowling Performances. Updates thread.

[Cabinet96]

Seriously it's pretty amazing and impressive that Broad has more than one appearance in the bowling top 50 and an appearance in the batting top 100. Assuming you probably know and don't have to check, does anyone else have a more impressive all-round feat in these?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Depending on what you think is impressive, Botham's got the 3rd best batting performance and a couple of bowling performances in the Top 100.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Perhaps there might be Allan Border taking 7 and 4 in a match against the Windies, also his 98* is one of the greatest knocks ever. Perhaps not statistically but basically a lone hand against WI. I see he's got his 163 against India in there.

 

[weldone]

Rahane's last century against SA

 

[Howe_zat]

Broad at one, well, you can't argue with the facts

 

[Days of Grace]

Rahane's last century against SA

The 127 gets 10.88 points.

 

[Riggins]

Out of curiosity - is it possible to see what sort of innings, based on current teams, would be the best? As the system continues to evolve it would be cool to see what is the 'perfect' innings and how that's changed.

e.g. I know there are a dickload of factors so it's basically impossible, but if everyone's favourite specimen steeeeeve smith was to the break the all time record, it would likely to be because of playing against [blah] in an away match where he batted in the first innings of the match, coming in at 1 for 0 and made [200] out of a total of [300] and then all the other teams got rolled for [150] with no one making more than [25] for the match.

Feel free to tell me if I'm a stupid ****.

 

[Riggins]

e.g. Playing a good side, should I make 100 in a total of 200 when everyone other innings is 10 in a 200 vs 110 vs 110 vs 110 match or make 300 in a higher scoring affair?

 

[Days of Grace]

I was thinking of this myself. A perfect innings would be to score at least a century, making about half of your team's runs, coming in under pressure, chasing a large 4th innings target or being behind by a substantial amount from the first innings. The innings would also be substantially better than anyone from either team made during the match. The batsmen lost many partners throughout his innings but had a large partnership with a teammate and scored a substantial amount of runs with the lower order (the 6th wicket onwards). The innings was played against an ATG bowling attacfk and the team went on to win a very close match in the deciding match of the series.

Phew! So many factors. It would be extremely rare for someone to fulfill all those criteria.

 

[91Jmay]

Kevin Pietersen at the Oval 2005 seems to fulfil a lot of those criteria

 

[Days of Grace]

Kevin Pietersen at the Oval 2005 seems to fulfil a lot of those criteria

The thing is though that it was a draw and the teams were fairly even after the first innings, or in other words, KP doesn't get any points for match situation. The criteria cannot take into account that it was the innings that assuring England it's greatest series victory in living memory. It has enough going for it to break into the top 100 as it stands.

 

[Riggins]

How would Davey have gone in Hobart if we'd got over the line?

 

[91Jmay]

The thing is though that it was a draw and the teams were fairly even after the first innings, or in other words, KP doesn't get any points for match situation. The criteria cannot take into account that it was the innings that assuring England it's greatest series victory in living memory. It has enough going for it to break into the top 100 as it stands.

Yeah that is fair, he did bat with number 8 score basically half the runs against arguably the greatest bowling attack of all time though.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yeah that is fair, he did bat with number 8 score basically half the runs against arguably the greatest bowling attack of all time though.

Somewhat inaccurate, that. Only McGrath and Warne were rated highly (and they did, tbf, bowl the majority of overs, something my system takes into account). But the attack also included Brett Lee and Shaun Tait.

 

[91Jmay]

Somewhat inaccurate, that. Only McGrath and Warne were rated highly (and they did, tbf, bowl the majority of overs, something my system takes into account). But the attack also included Brett Lee and Shaun Tait.

Tait is a fair critique, however as you said he bowled 5 overs and there aren't that many bowling attacks all time that trotted out a better 3rd bowler than Brett Lee.

 

[Days of Grace]

How would Davey have gone in Hobart if we'd got over the line?

I estimate 16.66, which would place him about 33rd on the list. The New Zealand attack wasn't that highly rated. As it stands, the innings is rated at 13.56.

 

[Days of Grace]

Tait is a fair critique, however as you said he bowled 5 overs and there aren't that many bowling attacks all time that trotted out a better 3rd bowler than Brett Lee.

Yes, fair enough. The Australian attack in that innings is rated at 662, which is very good. The top 3 highest rated bowling attacks faced by anyone on the top 100 are Brian Lara against Australia at Adelaide in 2000 (739), Kim Hughes vs. West Indies in 1981 (732) and Reg Simpson vs. Australia in 1951 (729).

Bowling attacks are calculated by the ratings of individual bowlers at the end of the series in question (doing it match-by-match would be too time consuming) and how many of the team's overs they bowled in the innings. If a bowler had played less than 10 matches, his rating is averaged out between his rating at the end of the series in question and his rating after 10 matches. Series result is also taken into consideration.

If the entire team on average has less than 100 wickets in "experience" then their rating is adjusted upwards accordingly.

I will post the ratings of each bowling attack faced by the top 100 batsmen in the next update.

 

[91Jmay]

Great, thanks!

 

[viriya]

That's an impressive list of factors.. How automated is your process?

I feel like we could come up with an innings ratings formula to end all methodologies if we combined our stuff.. It's pretty similar as it is I think.

 

[Days of Grace]

That's an impressive list of factors.. How automated is your process?

I feel like we could come up with an innings ratings formula to end all methodologies if we combined our stuff.. It's pretty similar as it is I think.

It's not automated at all. I don't have any software to run through scorecards. I could give you some of the base factors.