World Series Cricket Stats

[The Sean]

So, which is the best innings ever in world series/super tests? I reckon, Sobers' 254 in Melbourne 1971-72 takes the cake. Majestic innings.

Yeah, has to I reckon - still a contender for the greatest innings ever played in Australia, according to those who saw it. Bradman was one of them - I think he ranked alongside McCabe's 232 at Trent Bridge in 1938 as one of the two greatest innings he ever saw.

 

[The Sean]

For the greatest series of batting in RoW/WSC, I can't see past Greg Chappell's efforts in the Caribbean in 1979. 620 runs - including three centuries - against Holding, Roberts and Croft (plus Garner and Daniel for a Test or two) in a series where the next highest aggregate for either team was 363.

I reckon it's one of the all-time great series by an Australian batsman. Or any batsman.

 

[Nintendo]

For the greatest series of batting, I can't see past Greg Chappell's efforts in the Caribbean in 1979. 620 runs - including three centuries - against Holding, Roberts and Croft (plus Garner and Daniel for a Test or two) in a series where the next highest aggregate for either team was 363.

I reckon it's one of the all-time great series by an Australian batsman. Or any batsman.

Smith In the 2019 ashes has to be right up there aye? 770 runs in a series where the next best aggregate was 430 despite the fact that he played a test and a half less then the 2 guys 300 runs below him and got out at in the second test batting while he couldn't play a forward defence.

 

[h_hurricane]

Smith In the 2019 ashes has to be right up there aye? 770 runs in a series where the next best aggregate was 430 despite the fact that he played a test and a half less then the 2 guys 300 runs below him and got out at in the second test batting while he couldn't play a forward defence.

The post was about World series tests only, I reckon.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, Smith was completely on another level in that series but I was talking in terms of RoW/WSC performances. I've edited to make that clear.

 

[The Sean]

Another adjustment I've had to make with my WSC stats is for Lillee. I have a lot of books and sources from the '80s and '90s which make reference to Lillee's performances in WSC and they all credit him with 79 wickets - because it seems they all include the Australia vs World XI four-day match in New Zealand in late 1978, in which Lillee had match figures of 12/89.

The scorecard seems no longer to exist on Cricinfo for some reason, but those with a cricket archive subscription can view it here: https://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/38/38618.html

To be fair, it doesn't seem that it was designated as a SuperTest at the time so Lillee's less flattering "official" total of 67 wickets is probably the right one, but having spent so long crediting Lillee with 79 wickets at 23 rather than 67 wickets at 26, it has taken some getting used to!

 

[The Sean]

Greg Chappell's performance in the match above was also sensational, as indeed was that of Richard Hadlee - in the only multi-day WSC match he played.

 

[ankitj]

Mike Procter:

Batting:	Tests + ROW matches	Innings	NOs	Runs	Average	100s	50s
Test	7	10	1	226	25.11	0	0
ROW XI 1970	5	9	3	292	48.66	0	2
WSC	4	7	1	182	30.33	0	2
Total	16	26	5	700	33.33	0	4

Bowling:	Tests + ROW matches	Runs	Wickets	Ave	5ws	10ws
Test	7	616	41	15.02	3	1
ROW XI 1970	5	359	15	23.93	1	0
WSC	4	225	14	16.07	0	0
Total	16	1200	70	17.14	4	1

According to ESPNcricinfo Procter didn't take a 10 wicket haul in tests

 

[AndrewB]

There's also the figures from the rebel tours of SA; I don't think anyone claims these should be regarded as Tests, but Pollock's figures are pretty impressive, given that the last of his appearances was about 23 years after his Test debut.

Batting
Graeme Pollock: 1375 @ 65.48
Ken McEwan: 438 @ 43.80
Jimmy Cook: 1329 @ 42.58
Peter Kirsten: 1192 @ 41.10
Henry Fotheringham: 406 @ 36.91
Kevin McKenzie: 422 @ 35.17
Barry Richards: 252 @ 28.00
Steve Jeffries: 223 @ 27.88
Clive Rice: 679 @ 27.16
Adrian Kuiper: 216 @ 24.00

Bowling
Allan Donald: 12 @ 18.67
Adrian Kuiper: 16 @ 19.19
Vintcent Van der Bijl: 29 @ 19.86
Clive Rice: 28 @ 22.32
Garth Le Roux: 59 @ 23.07
Steve Jeffries: 39 @ 29.82
Hugh Page: 20 @ 36.90

 

[_00_deathscar]

How old was Donald at that point?

 

[AndrewB]

20 for the second Australia tour, 23 for the second England tour (which was abandoned after one "Test").

It's just occurred to me for the first time that if the Australian rebels had been banned for 3 years like the English ones, Alderman (and Hohns) would have missed the 1989 Ashes. Doubt it would have changed the series result, but some of the Aus wins in the early Tests might well have been high-scoring draws instead.

 

[Immenso]

According to ESPNcricinfo Procter didn't take a 10 wicket haul in tests

I think cricinfo have now added a 4fer columns, as well as a 5fer and 10fer.

I probably copied the 4fer and 5fer - thinking that is where the 5fer and 10fers normally are.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

There's also the figures from the rebel tours of SA; I don't think anyone claims these should be regarded as Tests, but Pollock's figures are pretty impressive, given that the last of his appearances was about 23 years after his Test debut.

Batting
Graeme Pollock: 1375 @ 65.48
Ken McEwan: 438 @ 43.80
Jimmy Cook: 1329 @ 42.58
Peter Kirsten: 1192 @ 41.10
Henry Fotheringham: 406 @ 36.91
Kevin McKenzie: 422 @ 35.17
Barry Richards: 252 @ 28.00
Steve Jeffries: 223 @ 27.88
Clive Rice: 679 @ 27.16
Adrian Kuiper: 216 @ 24.00

Bowling
Allan Donald: 12 @ 18.67
Adrian Kuiper: 16 @ 19.19
Vintcent Van der Bijl: 29 @ 19.86
Clive Rice: 28 @ 22.32
Garth Le Roux: 59 @ 23.07
Steve Jeffries: 39 @ 29.82
Hugh Page: 20 @ 36.90

Its confirmed.
Pollock > Richards.

Just kidding

 

[Immenso]

Interesting article on WSC here, in particular the table on " Performance of batsmen before and after World Series Cricket " about half way down the article.

A true measure of quality: World Series Cricket

A statistical look at World Series Cricket

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Coronis]

Chappell was definitely a better batsman than Viv js.

 

[Gob]

Chappell was definitely a better batsman than Viv js.

Despite the superior stats, everyone who watched cricket in the 70s/80s universally rate Viv higher. I didn't watch cricket from that period but its worthy of mentioning

Also @sean, its criminal that Lillee doesn't get that game acknowledged. Two quality teams

 

[OverratedSanity]

Chappell doesnt really have superior test stats tbh. Did ton up a lot more frequently though.

 

[Gob]

Chappell doesnt really have superior test stats tbh. Did ton up a lot more frequently though.

Average 3 runs more no? Which is very significant given the era with only handful of batsmen averaging 50 plus

 

[OverratedSanity]

Average 3 runs more no? Which is very significant given the era with only handful of batsmen averaging 50 plus

Chappell averaged 53 from 87 tests

Viv averaged 53 after 87 tests. And played another 35 tests averaging 42, which is still pretty damn good production for age 36-39. Pretty clearly better career stats.

Chappell did convert his scores into tons a lot more frequently as I said though which is a point in his favour.

 

[mr_mister]

Chappell averaged 53 from 87 tests

Viv averaged 53 after 87 tests. And played another 35 tests averaging 42, which is still pretty damn good production for age 36-39. Pretty clearly better career stats.

Chappell did convert his scores into tons a lot more frequently as I said though which is a point in his favour.

Do you give Ponting the same leniency?