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

[capt_Luffy]

Can I ask what you mean by a 50/50 importance on home/away?

What if the match is played at home in 2002? Will the bowler’s home performances from 2000-2004 be measured? Or should I count all performances from 2000-2004? The former runs the risk of sample size lol issues and the latter has issues such as Jim Laker averaging under 15 from 1956-1960. He was a totally different prospect to face in England compared to anywhere else.

I honestly think I should just rate attacks on career home/away averages and be done with it. That irons out all peaks and troughs that players normally go through.

Yeah, that irons out the peaks and troughs and I think that's not really a good think. Pre injury Bishop, Botham and Waqar were completely different bowlers than post injury. I mean, think about it; was playing Malcolm Marshall in 1978 or 92 an equal challenge as playing him in 1987? I don't think so. I could see the problem in rating attacks on that split and Sample size problems; so I think in case of a bowlers home matches, you could just use their home average over say the last two and upcoming two years and/or last 20 and following 20 innings; etc. The problem really arises while rating away performances; in which case I can think of giving equal weightage to their home and away record over such a period (or might be slightly greater period). At the end of that, these are all just suggestions; I really like your work and way you rate attacks inherently doesn't really distorts the rankings.

 

[Days of Grace]

I have decided to go with 5 year rolling averages in combination with career averages. The latter smooths out the small sample size issues of the former.

The question is whether to use the previous five years or the two years before and after the year in which the match/series was played.

For example, for a match played in 1956, do I use batsmen/bowler records from 1952-1956 or from 1954-1958?

 

[Xix2565]

I think the latter sampling gives a better idea of the quality of the player in the moment.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I have decided to go with 5 year rolling averages in combination with career averages. The latter smooths out the small sample size issues of the former.

The question is whether to use the previous five years or the two years before and after the year in which the match/series was played.

For example, for a match played in 1956, do I use batsmen/bowler records from 1952-1956 or from 1954-1958?

I personally think that the later works better, as the former is only how good they were for the past few years, the latter takes in their form going on into consideration as well. Like, if a bowler had great 4 years and his fall began around the time the match was played, the latter accounts for it much better.

 

[Days of Grace]

Thanks for the advice. Five year periods surrounding the series in question have been implemented.

The second question is whether to further separate the averages into home and away/neutral?

One compromise could be basing a player’s rating on their career average together with their home or away/neutral form in the five year period. In essence we are answering what was the overall class of bowler the batsmen faced and what version of that bowler turned up.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Thanks for the advice. Five year periods surrounding the series in question have been implemented.

The second question is whether to further separate the averages into home and away/neutral?

One compromise could be basing a player’s rating on their career average together with their home or away/neutral form in the five year period. In essence we are answering what was the overall class of bowler the batsmen faced and what version of that bowler turned up.

I'd scrap the home/away/neutral thing entirely for this exercise tbh. Limiting it to five years and only considering home/away performances would limit the sample size and the problem I have with including home/away for bowlers in this rating is that they don't represent one "continuous" series of performances. There'll be series separated by multiple months/years with other games in between. Form is still form, both home/away performances should count imo.

 

[Days of Grace]

I'd scrap the home/away/neutral thing entirely for this exercise tbh. Limiting it to five years and only considering home/away performances would limit the sample size and the problem I have with including home/away for bowlers in this rating is that they don't represent one "continuous" series of performances. There'll be series separated by multiple months/years with other games in between. Form is still form, both home/away performances should count imo.

Good points. Also there is the issue of Pakistan batsmen and bowlers playing in the U.A.E. which would count as neutral performances. Also there is the problem of conditions varying greatly across different away/neutral venues.

I just thought I should differentiate between facing Jimmy Anderson at Melbourne in 2006 vs facing the same bowler at Old Trafford in 2018.

But there are a few too many sample size issues as you noted by splitting into home and away/neutral. In particular Michael Kasprowicz averaged over 80 away from 1999-2003, which really affects the overall rating of the Australia attack that Laxman faced in his 281.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Good points. Also there is the issue of Pakistan batsmen and bowlers playing in the U.A.E. which would count as neutral performances. Also there is the problem of conditions varying greatly across different away/neutral venues.

I just thought I should differentiate between facing Jimmy Anderson at Melbourne in 2006 vs facing the same bowler at Old Trafford in 2018.

But there are a few too many sample size issues as you noted by splitting into home and away/neutral. In particular Michael Kasprowicz averaged over 80 away from 1999-2003, which really affects the overall rating of the Australia attack that Laxman faced in his 281.

Is a middle ground not possible? As stated by many, away averages by country to country are a really small sample size and will definitely pose Kasprowicz like problems; as away averages may get down for a wide variety of factors and also the fact that away in Australia and away in India aren't the same, but similarly; facing Ashwin in India and facing him in SA have a monumental difference. Same for Jadeja, Murali, Ntini, Philander, Lillee, Laker, basically almost every bowler is much better at their home.

 

[Days of Grace]

Is a middle ground not possible? As stated by many, away averages by country to country are a really small sample size and will definitely pose Kasprowicz like problems; as away averages may get down for a wide variety of factors and also the fact that away in Australia and away in India aren't the same, but similarly; facing Ashwin in India and facing him in SA have a monumental difference. Same for Jadeja, Murali, Ntini, Philander, Lillee, Laker, basically almost every bowler is much better at their home.

I don’t do averages by country to country. At the moment the formula is:

1. Overall career average
2. Five year form average

Each are given equal weighting. The question is whether to split the five year form average into home and away/neutral. Any small sample size issues are ironed out somewhat with the career average.

 

[Coronis]

Is a middle ground not possible? As stated by many, away averages by country to country are a really small sample size and will definitely pose Kasprowicz like problems; as away averages may get down for a wide variety of factors and also the fact that away in Australia and away in India aren't the same, but similarly; facing Ashwin in India and facing him in SA have a monumental difference. Same for Jadeja, Murali, Ntini, Philander, Lillee, Laker, basically almost every bowler is much better at their home.

Not Warne or McGrath or Hadlee or Ambrose or Lyon or Gibbs or Garner or Benaud or Holding or Roberts.

Marshall confirmed HTB of the quartet @kyear2

 

[peterhrt]

Some old innings, highly rated at the time, that do not appear to have been mentioned so far.

Shewsbury 164 v Australia, Lord's, 1886. The first bad-wicket classic. Missed at slip and for a possible leg-side stumping.
Ranji 154* v Australia, Old Trafford, 1896
Jimmy Sinclair 104 v Australia, Newlands, 1902. Hundred off 75 balls.
Tuppy Owen-Smith 129 v England, Leeds, 1929. Last wicket stand of 103 in 65 minutes.
Vinoo Mankad 184 v England, Lord's, 1952
Roy McLean 142 v England, Lord's, 1955

Bradman reckoned his best innings from a technical point of view was the 254 at Lord's in 1930. Scores 11.38 here.

Hobbs' most highly regarded knocks appear to be 123 at Adelaide in 1921 and 100 on a rain-damaged Oval pitch in 1926. Trumper's was said to be his 185* at Sydney in 1903. It was a high-scoring game in which Foster also scored 287. Trumper's innings was described as the highlight of the match.

None of these innings featured in Patrick Ferriday's book in 2013 either. Roy Fredericks' 169 against Lillee and Thomson on a “fiery” Perth wicket in 1975 did so, but outside the Top 50.

 

[Coronis]

Some old innings, highly rated at the time, that do not appear to have been mentioned so far.

Shewsbury 164 v Australia, Lord's, 1886. The first bad-wicket classic. Missed at slip and for a possible leg-side stumping.
Ranji 154* v Australia, Old Trafford, 1896
Jimmy Sinclair 104 v Australia, Newlands, 1902. Hundred off 75 balls.
Tuppy Owen-Smith 129 v England, Leeds, 1929. Last wicket stand of 103 in 65 minutes.
Vinoo Mankad 184 v England, Lord's, 1952
Roy McLean 142 v England, Lord's, 1955

Bradman reckoned his best innings from a technical point of view was the 254 at Lord's in 1930. Scores 11.38 here.

Hobbs' most highly regarded knocks appear to be 123 at Adelaide in 1921 and 100 on a rain-damaged Oval pitch in 1926. Trumper's was said to be his 185* at Sydney in 1903. It was a high-scoring game in which Foster also scored 287. Trumper's innings was described as the highlight of the match.

None of these innings featured in Patrick Ferriday's book in 2013 either. Roy Fredericks' 169 against Lillee and Thomson on a “fiery” Perth wicket in 1975 did so, but outside the Top 50.

Huh, I always thought Trumper’s 104 was his most highly regarded.

 

[peterhrt]

Huh, I always thought Trumper’s 104 was his most highly regarded.

In terms of strokeplay the Sydney innings was regarded as his best. However, it was a high-scoring match that Australia lost. As well as Foster's 287, Noble and Braund also got hundreds.

The 104 at Old Trafford in 1902 is more famous. A hundred before lunch on the first day. Australia winning a classic by 3 runs.

Australia enjoyed the more favourable batting conditions. The ground was saturated at the start with Lockwood unable to run up or bowl for over an hour. Duff, Hill and Darling also scored fifties while the going was good. A hot sun made the drying pitch difficult for the rest of the match. Jackson (128) and Braund (65) fought hard in the first innings but the second innings team totals were 86 and 120 as Trumble and Saunders got Australia over the line.

 

[peterhrt]

Interesting to compare the fine Days of Grace list with other recent ones. Cricinfo produced something last year and The Independent in 2019.

All three have Kusal Perera first. Four other innings are common to the three Top 10s: Botham 149*, Gooch 154*, Lara 153* and Laxman 281. These four also appeared in Wisden's Top 10 in 2001.

In 2013 Patrick Ferriday's book had Gooch first and Lara second. But Laxman was down at number 34 and Botham at 50 (with an excellent write-up by CW's Martin Chandler). Botham's 114 in Mumbai ranked higher.

Back in 1982 statistician Derek Lodge named a Top 5 of Jessop 104, Nourse 231, Bradman 334, McCabe 232 and Owen-Smith 129. Botham's 149* would subsequently have made his Top 6, with update of opposing bowlers' career records.

 

[Coronis]

In terms of strokeplay the Sydney innings was regarded as his best. However, it was a high-scoring match that Australia lost. As well as Foster's 287, Noble and Braund also got hundreds.

The 104 at Old Trafford in 1902 is more famous. A hundred before lunch on the first day. Australia winning a classic by 3 runs.

Australia enjoyed the more favourable batting conditions. The ground was saturated at the start with Lockwood unable to run up or bowl for over an hour. Duff, Hill and Darling also scored fifties while the going was good. A hot sun made the drying pitch difficult for the rest of the match. Jackson (128) and Braund (65) fought hard in the first innings but the second innings team totals were 86 and 120 as Trumble and Saunders got Australia over the line.

Cheers for the clarification.

I also found what is probably one of the explanations for the extra aggressive nature of pre-WW1 players when looking at some innings recently. I hadn’t realised that many of the pre-WW1 tests were as short as 3 days (depending on the country location)

For example - the last few series pre WWI

Ashes 1909 3 x 6-6.5 hour days
England in SA 09/10 5 x 5 hour days
SA in Australia 10/11 Timeless x 5 hour days
Ashes 11/12 Timeless x 5 hour days
Triangular 1912 3 x 6-6.5 hour days
England in SA 13-14 4 x 5 hour days

Quite a variance, I knew there had been 4 day tests at points but never 3 day tests.

 

[AndrewB]

The last 3-day Tests in England (and I think anywhere) were in 1949. They’d switched to 4-day Ashes Tests in 1930.

I don’t know when Tests in Australia became timeless but they had no draws between 1882 and 1947.

 

[Days of Grace]

Some old innings, highly rated at the time, that do not appear to have been mentioned so far.

Shewsbury 164 v Australia, Lord's, 1886. The first bad-wicket classic. Missed at slip and for a possible leg-side stumping.
Ranji 154* v Australia, Old Trafford, 1896
Jimmy Sinclair 104 v Australia, Newlands, 1902. Hundred off 75 balls.
Tuppy Owen-Smith 129 v England, Leeds, 1929. Last wicket stand of 103 in 65 minutes.
Vinoo Mankad 184 v England, Lord's, 1952
Roy McLean 142 v England, Lord's, 1955

Bradman reckoned his best innings from a technical point of view was the 254 at Lord's in 1930. Scores 11.38 here.

Hobbs' most highly regarded knocks appear to be 123 at Adelaide in 1921 and 100 on a rain-damaged Oval pitch in 1926. Trumper's was said to be his 185* at Sydney in 1903. It was a high-scoring game in which Foster also scored 287. Trumper's innings was described as the highlight of the match.

None of these innings featured in Patrick Ferriday's book in 2013 either. Roy Fredericks' 169 against Lillee and Thomson on a “fiery” Perth wicket in 1975 did so, but outside the Top 50.

Thank you for those suggestions!

I am up to my ears in work at the moment so I probably won't be able to get around to rating these innings until August.

In any case, I have given up on using bowlers' career averages and form. Too many moving parts. And it doesn't factor in strike-rates and economy-rates, which are very important in ODIs. I have reverted back to rating the opposition by their ICC rating at the time of the match and their peak rating.

 

[peterhrt]

I don’t know when Tests in Australia became timeless but they had no draws between 1882 and 1947.

All Tests in Australia were timeless until WW2. There were a couple of draws when the visitors had a boat to catch.

The last match of the 1912 Triangular Tournament in England was timeless to decide a winner. During the 1920s and 1930s when an Ashes series in England was undecided going into the final Test, it was made timeless. Same applied to a couple of matches in South Africa and one in West Indies.

No such matches were arranged after the war. There was discussion around making the WTC finals timeless but it didn't happen.

2000 runs in Timeless Tests: Bradman 3480 @ 96, Hammond 2167 @ 69, Sutcliffe 2047 @ 68, Hobbs 2784 @ 56, Trumper 2061 @ 45, Hill 2308 @ 41.

70 wickets: Ironmonger 74 @ 17, Noble 78 @ 20, Barnes 82 @ 21, Trumble 74 @ 21, Grimmett 123 @ 25, Giffen 70 @ 25.

 

[Coronis]

All Tests in Australia were timeless until WW2. There were a couple of draws when the visitors had a boat to catch.

The last match of the 1912 Triangular Tournament in England was timeless to decide a winner. During the 1920s and 1930s when an Ashes series in England was undecided going into the final Test, it was made timeless. Same applied to a couple of matches in South Africa and one in West Indies.

No such matches were arranged after the war. There was discussion around making the WTC finals timeless but it didn't happen.

2000 runs in Timeless Tests: Bradman 3480 @ 96, Hammond 2167 @ 69, Sutcliffe 2047 @ 68, Hobbs 2784 @ 56, Trumper 2061 @ 45, Hill 2308 @ 41.

70 wickets: Ironmonger 74 @ 17, Noble 78 @ 20, Barnes 82 @ 21, Trumble 74 @ 21, Grimmett 123 @ 25, Giffen 70 @ 25.

Assume O’Reilly is somewhere in the 60’s?

 

[peterhrt]

Assume O’Reilly is somewhere in the 60’s?

Yes, next highest wicket-takers are: Mailey 69 @ 32 and O'Reilly 66 @ 27.

Next most runs Ponsford 1598 @ 47.