Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well I'll be...56 RJ Kirtley 6 34 South Africa Nottingham 2003 18.47
Well I'll be...56 RJ Kirtley 6 34 South Africa Nottingham 2003 18.47
Just misses the cut.How come Agarkar's effort in Adelaide didn't make the cut?
What is the reasoning behind weighting this? Assuming the higher average per wicket means the innings is less meaningful, does this mean that by increasing the weight of the innings in which the player scored his runs, they become less valuable? If this innings defined the game, which for big scores on this list they probably did, this seems a bit counter intuitive. Should you instead look at a 'match average runs per wicket' excluding the player in question's contribution?Here is another question: in calculating a match average runs per wicket, how much more weight would you give to the innings in which a batsman played his innings against the other innings in the match. Twice as much? Three times as much?
For example, in an innings of 500-5 against the total analysis in the other innings of 900-30, the match average would be (500*3+900)/(5*3+30) = 53.33
If two times weight is used it would be (500*2+900)/(5*2+30) = 47.50
This may look like a marginal difference but it makes a big change to the batting and bowling lists.
It is a measure to give extra focus on the pitch conditions or opposition performance in that specific innings of the match. If all innings were given equal weighting, then an innings of 200 out of 500/3 against Zimbabwe where your side won by an innings would be rated too highly.What is the reasoning behind weighting this? Assuming the higher average per wicket means the innings is less meaningful, does this mean that by increasing the weight of the innings in which the player scored his runs, they become less valuable? If this innings defined the game, which for big scores on this list they probably did, this seems a bit counter intuitive. Should you instead look at a 'match average runs per wicket' excluding the player in question's contribution?
Sorry for the late reply on this. Here are the ratings of all the centuries (and some other major innings) from the just completed England vs India series.How do Kohli and Pujaras 100s rank from the latest tour?
It was a great exhibition of batting but also completely pointless.I'd go for Laxman's 167 in Sydney to be the best innings by an Indian batsman in Aus. Never seen Mcgrath get hit for fours in Australia like that, Lara maybe an exception.
Series wise it maybe pointless but you had to be too ambitious to think of winning there in 1999/2000. The next tour to Australia in 2003 was good but the difficulty of bowling was not like 1999/2000.It was a great exhibition of batting but also completely pointless.
Azharuddin made a cracking ton in Adelaide in 91/92 iirc.I'd go for Laxman's 167 in Sydney to be the best innings by an Indian batsman in Aus. Never seen Mcgrath get hit for fours in Australia like that, Lara maybe an exception.