It's your list and system, but I'd think passing their score and contributing what 70% of the runs at that point would render going on with the tail largely irrelevant from a match perspective.Warner's innings rated a slightly disappointing 15.68.
The main reasons being that his team was never under any pressure during his innings, i.e. the fall of the first wicket was when the score was already past 200, and he scored no runs batting with the lower half of the order.
So in short, if he did the same job without the support from Ed Cowan and with wickets tumbling at the other end he would have ended with a higher rating - seems fair to me.Warner's innings rated a slightly disappointing 15.68.
The main reasons being that his team was never under any pressure during his innings, i.e. the fall of the first wicket was when the score was already past 200, and he scored no runs batting with the lower half of the order.
dittoI think I preferred the list as you put up before this version.
Ganguly was 81*(144) when Bond walked out and 158*(228) when Anderson strolled to the middle.Code:Sparks WLBOTH 1st Innings NT Paranavitana ct McCullum b Mason 19 30 1 0 MJ Di Venuto ct McCullum b Singh 54 108 6 1 JL Langer lbw b Mason 6 14 0 0 MJ Clarke lbw b Mason 91 176 11 0 SC Ganguly not out 379 416 52 9 RN ten Doeschate b Franklin 8 17 1 0 MS Wade ct Franklin b Mason 8 33 0 0 SM Pollock lbw b Taylor 5 3 1 0 SR Clark ct Singh b Taylor 2 6 0 0 SE Bond ct Goodwin b Mason 35 65 2 0 JM Anderson ct Singh b Taylor 12 78 2 0 Extras (byes 4 leg byes 14 no balls 12 wides 1) 31 Total (10 Wkts 155.4 Overs) 650 Fall of Wkts 44 56 102 244 258 284 289 291 407 650 Taylor 25.4 2 112 3 4 0 Mason 30 3 102 5 0 0 O'Brien 26 3 108 0 4 0 Franklin 22 4 83 1 2 0 Singh 33 1 131 1 0 1 Ryder 16 3 63 0 2 0 Sriram 3 0 33 0 0 0
What.
The.
****.
Updated list
Have added in "% of team runs scored whilst at the wicket", so innings like Fredericks at the Wacca get higher value. Because of this, Gilchrist's innings against Pakistan moves up.
Also, added a multiplier on first innings lead/deficit.
1 I.T. Botham 149* Australia Leeds 1981 Won 26.24
2 B.C. Lara 153* Australia Bridgetown 1999 Won 25.32
3 G.A. Gooch 154* West Indies Leeds 1991 Won 24.89
4 V.V.S. Laxman 281 Australia Kolkata 2001 Won 23.84
5 D.G. Bradman 270 England Melbourne 1937 Won 23.52
6 D.L. Amiss 262* West Indies Kingston 1974 Draw 23.38
7 Azhar Mahmood 132 South Africa Durban 1998 Won 22.58
8 C. Bannerman 165* England Melbourne 1877 Won 22.56
9 C. Hill 188 England Melbourne 1898 Won 22.30
10 G.L. Jessop 104 Australia The Oval 1902 Won 21.98
11 V. Sehwag 201* Sri Lanka Galle 2008 Won 21.47
12 C.G. Greenidge 134 England Manchester 1976 Won 21.46
13 L. Klusener 118 Sri Lanka Kandy 2000 Won 21.35
14 H.P. Tillakaratne 115 Pakistan Faisalabad 1995 Won 21.15
15 S.T. Jayasuriya 253 Pakistan Faisalabad 2004 Won 20.99
16 S.J. McCabe 232 England Nottingham 1938 Draw 20.80
17 C.L. Walcott 220 England Bridgetown 1954 Won 20.63
18 V.V.S. Laxman 167 Australia Sydney 2000 Lost 20.62
19 Saeed Anwar 188 India Kolkata 1999 Won 20.47
20 K.J. Hughes 100* West Indies Melbourne 1981 Won 20.46
21 Asif Iqbal 146 England The Oval 1967 Lost 19.83
22 A.C. Gilchrist 149* Pakistan Hobart 1999 Won 19.76
23 N. Kapil Dev 129 South Africa Port Elizabeth 1992 Lost 19.74
24 M.J. Slater 123 England Sydney 1999 Won 19.56
25 B.C. Lara 213 Australia Kingston 1999 Won 19.40
26 G.S. Chappell 176 New Zealand Christchurch 1982 Won 19.39
27 O.G. Smith 168 England Nottingham 1957 Draw 19.32
28 C.L. Cairns 80 England The Oval 1999 Won 19.32
29 R. Dravid 233 Australia Adelaide 2003 Won 19.22
30 N.J. Astle 222 England Christchurch 2002 Lost 19.18
...
I've wrote this before, but this time I am confident that this is the final update. Thanks for your interest and feedback.
More cricket played against a better spread of teams. Why so many great innings were played between 1998-2001 is just an anomaly, tbh.I've been fascinated by your rankings, but I think they have some kind of inbuilt bias toward the modern era. If I've counted this right, a 100-year period from 1877-1976 accounts for 10 of the 30 best innings of all time, and then four years from 1998-2001 account for another 10 of the 30 best innings of all time.
Somehow, that doesn't feel right. I know there's a lot more cricket played now then there was then, so the sheer number of innings to evaluate is greater, but nevertheless I think a list like this somehow needs to reflect the degree to which an innings was great by the standards of its period. Can you see any way to factor that in?