New Feature: The Greatest Test Innings

[Days of Grace]

Could you give me a figure for Sinclair's ton against South Africa by any chance?

10.58, just below Turner's 110*

Marto's best knock? x

DR Martyn 161 Sri Lanka Kandy 2004 11.18

Can you rate Atherton's 185* in 95 at Jo'Burg and his 98* at Trent Bridge in 1998?

11.11 & 7.52. The knock at Jo'Burg is downgraded a bit because Clive Eksteen with a career average of over 50 bowled the most overs.

Hey DoG, I'm curious to know Hayden's rating in the Hayden 119 vs Pakistan 59 & 53 game.

8.81

 

[Days of Grace]

I would actually put Botham's 118 @ Old Trafford ahead of his Headingley innings.

The latter was, was much of the time, a pressure off slog. Even when England got a few runs ahead there wasn't much of a feeling that it mattered.

In the 118 England were very well placed at the start of the day but had thrown the advantage away. Australia were on top and were in danger of becoming favourites to win the match. This was a 'proper' innings in which he played himself in and only put up one lose shot (a very difficult skier to Mike Whitney) throughout.

With Lara's 153* in 1999 and Gooch's 154* in 1990 (this was not an easy pitch, as someone wrongly suggested earlier) this s the best Test innings I've seen.

Surprised that Sutcliffe's innings at The Oval in 1926 didn't get listed (surely Hobbs had one or two worthy of note as well).

Also a couple from the same game. Trumper 74 out of 122 at Melbourne in 1903/04 on a bad pitch and John Tydlesley 62 out of 103 when it was, by accounts, even worse.

The 118 gets a rating of 8.69.

I want to emphasize that this ratings system is purely statistical and whilst it can incorporate a number of factors, it cannot measure how aesthetically pleasing an innings was.

The 118 was made coming in at 104/5 with a first innings lead of 101. The 149* was made coming in at an almost identical point but with the team still 122 runs in arrears. Therefore, the 149* was much more influential in winning the match for England, despite the fact that it may have been a "dirty slog."


Sutcliffe's innings gets a rating of 8.35. Once again, I cannot take into account the fact that, "A thunderstorm, accompanied by a good deal of rain had broken over south London on Monday evening, rendering the pitch slow and dead to begin with, and afterwards very difficult." (Wisden).

From a statistical point of view, Sutcliffe received a lot of top order support and the Australian bowling attack's performances over that series (41 total wickets at an average of 50.63) mean that it was not one of their greatest lineups (this new formula however incorporates pitch conditions and career records in accessing a bowling attack).

Finally, Trumper and Tyldesley's innings' are rated at 9.45 and 9.40 respectively.

 

[Days of Grace]

I like the factors you have used, not necessarily the way you've used them. Especially this one:
"Runs scored by other batsmen in the same team innings, divided by the number of batsmen used."
seems to have some value in it.

I've done a similar scorecard based 11-factor innings ratings:
cricrate | Test Batting Ratings

I average the innings ratings (adding a longevity bonus) over a player's career to rate their careers, which made me have to increase the weight given to runs scored over other factors. That's why the known innings like Lara's 153* and Botham's 149* don't feature right at the top - something I wonder whether is a real issue. Was the 153* really better than his 277, or any one of his big doubles?

If you went with this same formula to rate every single innings a batsmen played, most likely you would find that the accepted ATGs won't feature in the list the way you would expect.

I think I should make a new thread, because the formula on the original page has changed.

These are the new factors:

1. Base runs scored
2. Runs scored divided by match average, with the team innings in which the runs were scored getting a weighting 3 times greater than the other team innings in the match.
3. % of team runs scored in the overall team innings
4. Point of entry and fall of top order wickets. For example, if an opener is still there when the top order collapses to 5/40, then he will get quite a few points.
5. % of team runs scored with the lower order and tail-enders, which more weight given to runs scored with the tail-enders.

Then there are multipliers:
1. Result of the match. Close wins and losses and nervy draws get more weighting.
2. Series result (5 match series wins get more weighting than 2 match series wins)
3. Quality of opposition (including career records of individual bowlers and how many overs they bowled in the innings, team bowling performance over a 5 year period, with more weighting assigned to the series in question, and finally the era runs-per-wicket average and overall conditions in which the team was bowling in during the 5 year period).
4. Match situation and significance. What kind of match situation did the batsman play his innings in and how significant his was innings on the final result of the match.

 

[Days of Grace]

In fact, mods, would it be possible to make a new thread with posts merged from post 291 in this thread?

 

[Days of Grace]

Marvelous work.

I'd like to know how Kane Williamson's century in the final test of the West Indies tour this year rates.

10.40, 14th on the New Zealand list.

 

[viriya]

I think I should make a new thread, because the formula on the original page has changed.

These are the new factors:

1. Base runs scored
2. Runs scored divided by match average, with the team innings in which the runs were scored getting a weighting 3 times greater than the other team innings in the match.
3. % of team runs scored in the overall team innings
4. Point of entry and fall of top order wickets. For example, if an opener is still there when the top order collapses to 5/40, then he will get quite a few points.
5. % of team runs scored with the lower order and tail-enders, which more weight given to runs scored with the tail-enders.

Then there are multipliers:
1. Result of the match. Close wins and losses and nervy draws get more weighting.
2. Series result (5 match series wins get more weighting than 2 match series wins)
3. Quality of opposition (including career records of individual bowlers and how many overs they bowled in the innings, team bowling performance over a 5 year period, with more weighting assigned to the series in question, and finally the era runs-per-wicket average and overall conditions in which the team was bowling in during the 5 year period).
4. Match situation and significance. What kind of match situation did the batsman play his innings in and how significant his was innings on the final result of the match.

Any particular reason for removing "Runs scored by other batsmen in the same team innings, divided by the number of batsmen used." as a factor? Sounded like a great idea..

 

[Kirkut]

Crazy analysis! Scary stuff!

 

[Burgey]

DOG, please analyse India's 148 in the current test match vs England.

 

[Days of Grace]

-15.74.

 

[bagapath]

DOG. Ravi Shastri scored 107 against marshall, ambrose, walsh and bishop in barbados in the 1988-89 season. i am surprised it is not in the top 100. can you tell me where it is ranked?

 

[Days of Grace]

DOG. Ravi Shastri scored 107 against marshall, ambrose, walsh and bishop in barbados in the 1988-89 season. i am surprised it is not in the top 100. can you tell me where it is ranked?

9.38

 

[OverratedSanity]

9.38

Hey, can you rate Dravid's 76 out of a total of 161 on day 1 at the Basin on that infamous 2002 tour? Really juicy wicket and he completely held the innings together while the rest of the team imploded. Was some of the best batting against the moving ball I've ever seen.

 

[Days of Grace]

Hey, can you rate Dravid's 76 out of a total of 161 on day 1 at the Basin on that infamous 2002 tour? Really juicy wicket and he completely held the innings together while the rest of the team imploded. Was some of the best batting against the moving ball I've ever seen.

8.70

 

[Days of Grace]

Could you rate Rahane's Lord's ton?

Now that the series is done, I can calculate this innings: 9.07

 

[OverratedSanity]

Now that the series is done, I can calculate this innings: 9.07

Nice. But disappointing. Thought it deserved to get over that 12.50 mark. What let it down?

 

[Days of Grace]

Nice. But disappointing. Thought it deserved to get over that 12.50 mark. What let it down?

Relatively low score, i.e. just over 100. Only about a third of the team's runs, and first innings of the match, so no bonus points for match situation (e.g. run chase, 3rd innings deficit). It's a good innings, but not outstanding, in a statistical sense.

 

[viriya]

Sounds like a typical Tendulkar innings

 

[NUFAN]

DoG, how's your Test bowling countdown going mate? For anyone relatively new who hasn't read his batsman rating thread, do it..

 

[viriya]

Do you have this automated? Can you rate all test innings and do a career rating list? What's stopping you from doing that if not?

 

[Days of Grace]

Nah, man, this **** ain't automated.

I wish it was.