New Feature: Top 100 Test Innings: Revised and Updated

[Days of Grace]

Cricket Web - Features: The Greatest Test Innings: Revised and Updated

Hi all,

New feature on the revised and updated top 100 test innings. A lot of amendments have been made so I hope you'll find it interesting. As ever, I'll do my best to respond to any requests about favorite innings, etc. that didn't make the top 100.

 

[bagapath]

what a guy you are!!!!

thanks so much for all the effort, mate.

just skimmed through the list and loved it.

will study it in depth and ask whatever questions that may arise.

congrats.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Great list and fascinating methodology. Ponting's Machester ton being in the top 100 and the complete absence of Kallis tons means this is a pretty accurate list

Only one thing bothered me a bit. Trott's hundred in that infamous Oval test was rated all the way up atno.29, while Broad's 169 wasn't anywhere in the 100. What's it rated btw? I presume it's lower because Trott was at the crease for the entire collapse, but it looks like Broad's knock got a bit underrated there.

 

[weldone]

What about the match-winning 214 against Australia here? Scorecard - 2010-2011 Border-Gavaskar Trophy - 2nd Test - 09/10/2010

 

[fredfertang]

Amazing piece of work, though I have to say I don't really understand how refining the approach can result in Stan McCabe's 1938 knock dropping from 10 to nowhere

 

[ImpatientLime]

Graham Thorpe was such a gun.

 

[Teja.]

While Laxman's 167 probably should not be in the top 7 innings, it's peculiar to see a list where it's not in the top 30 let alone top 200. It was a scary good knock simply based on domination of ATG quality of bowling though India didn't have a chance of winning. Of the knocks in the last few years, I'd say it's better than say, Clarke in Capetown, Matthews's match-winning knock in England and Sachin in Durban, for instance. Can't think of a recent knock as good as it, tbh. Winning is really overrated while determining what innings was better though 'greater'/'top' is a more subjective term.

Great work though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

While Laxman's 167 probably should not be in the top 7 innings, it's peculiar to see a list where it's not in the top 30 let alone top 200. It was a scary good knock simply based on domination of ATG quality of bowling though India didn't have a chance of winning. Of the knocks in the last few years, I'd say it's better than say, Clarke in Capetown, Matthews's match-winning knock in England and Sachin in Durban, for instance. Can't think of a recent knock as good as it, tbh. Winning is really overrated while determining what innings was better though 'greater'/'top' is a more subjective term.

Great work though.

It's not about winning, but when the innings came. The game was virtually dead and that probably contributed to Laxman opening up and playing freely. Still took an extraordinary amount of skill to hit around an attack of that calibre. But it was meaningless.

Disagree massively that its better than Clarke at Capetown too. That's top 5 among the ones I've seen.

 

[Days of Grace]

Great list and fascinating methodology. Ponting's Machester ton being in the top 100 and the complete absence of Kallis tons means this is a pretty accurate list

Only one thing bothered me a bit. Trott's hundred in that infamous Oval test was rated all the way up atno.29, while Broad's 169 wasn't anywhere in the 100. What's it rated btw? I presume it's lower because Trott was at the crease for the entire collapse, but it looks like Broad's knock got a bit underrated there.

Broad is at no.107 with a rating of 15.06. The main difference is that 8 wickets fell whilst Trott was at the crease but none whilst Broad was at the crease. I could give less weight to wickets falling whilst at the crease, but in turn I might have to give more weight to runs scored with the lower order and that gives too much of an advantage to lower order batsmen.

Anyway, the thing to remember is that there is only just over two points difference between the two innings, which equates to 80 or so positions only due to the large number of innings played over the history of the game.

Likewise, people who question the absence of this innings or that innings should remember that only 100 innings can actually fit into the top 100! And that the innings they are wondering about are probably only 1 point away from the top 100 at most.

 

[Days of Grace]

What about the match-winning 214 against Australia here? Scorecard - 2010-2011 Border-Gavaskar Trophy - 2nd Test - 09/10/2010

14.45, which makes it Tendulkar's second highest rated innings.

 

[Days of Grace]

Amazing piece of work, though I have to say I don't really understand how refining the approach can result in Stan McCabe's 1938 knock dropping from 10 to nowhere

The methodology has changed a lot over the last three years, and sadly McCabe's knock has dropped out of the top 100. It has a base rating of 11.87, which is the 53rd highest (The base rating is the innings in isolation, without taking into account result of match, opposition bowlers or match situation).

Laxman's 167 has a base rating of 11.95.

The base rating is worth about double that of the qualifiers (result, series result, opposition strength, match situation).

 

[Days of Grace]

Hey DoG,
Could you please share the rating for

Laxman\'s 96 vs SA 2010
SR Waugh\'s 200 vs WI 1995
Gavaskar\'s 96 vs Pak 1987
Pietersen\'s 158 vs Aus 2005

Additionally, what were the highest rated knocks for some of the greats who missed out - Hobbs,
Hutton, Barrington, Pollock, Kallis, Miandad, Richards(!) etc? Thanks.



Comment by JC | 5:56am gmt 27 Sep 2014

Sure.

Laxman 96 - 14.00 (his second best innings)
Waugh 200 - 13.41
Gavaskar 96 - 13.16
Pietersen 158 - 15.39 (this actually sneaks into the top 100 at no.98 after I gave more points to draws)

Highest innings for the following players (of the innings I have checked):

Hobbs 126* vs. Australia at Melbourne 1912 - 14.22
Hutton 205 vs. West Indies at Kingston 1954 - 14.01
Barrington 109* vs. Pakistan at Nottingham 1967 - 13.52
Pollock 125 vs. England at Nottingham 1965 - 14.98
Kallis 162 vs. England at Durban 2004 - 13.55
Javed Miandad 102 vs. West Indies at Port of Spain 1988 - 15.31
Richards 182* vs. England at Bridgetown 1981 - 14.88

 

[OverratedSanity]

Broad is at no.107 with a rating of 15.06. The main difference is that 8 wickets fell whilst Trott was at the crease but none whilst Broad was at the crease. I could give less weight to wickets falling whilst at the crease, but in turn I might have to give more weight to runs scored with the lower order and that gives too much of an advantage to lower order batsmen.

Anyway, the thing to remember is that there is only just over two points difference between the two innings, which equates to 80 or so positions only due to the large number of innings played over the history of the game.

Likewise, people who question the absence of this innings or that innings should remember that only 100 innings can actually fit into the top 100! And that the innings they are wondering about are probably only 1 point away from the top 100 at most.

Oh, yeah, I totally get how close all the innings in the top 100-150 must be, so some are bound to miss out. Just wanted to know where Broad's innings stood relative to Trott's. No.107 is not bad at all.

Btw, could you rate this Sherwin Campbell hundred from the famous Lara Bridgetown test:
3rd Test: West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown, Mar 26-30, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Gave the West Indies score some respectability after they looked likely to concede a 250+ lead atleast. Without his ton and Walsh's 5fer, Lara couldn't have done anything in the 4th innings. One of the more underrated tons imo because Lara's epicness overshadowed everything else in the match.

 

[ankitj]

Remember that an earlier version of this ranking had 3 of G Pollock's knocks in top 100. Any understanding of reasons?

 

[Spark]

Broad is at no.107 with a rating of 15.06. The main difference is that 8 wickets fell whilst Trott was at the crease but none whilst Broad was at the crease. I could give less weight to wickets falling whilst at the crease, but in turn I might have to give more weight to runs scored with the lower order and that gives too much of an advantage to lower order batsmen.

Is there any weighting for a large clump of wickets falling immediately before the batsman gets to the crease or is it just considered as a flat 8/whatever?

 

[Days of Grace]

Is there any weighting for a large clump of wickets falling immediately before the batsman gets to the crease or is it just considered as a flat 8/whatever?

Pressure (Fall of wickets whilst at the crease) (only for innings of 25 or more runs)
1. For batsmen 1-7, the highest value chosen from values attained by being present at
the crease at the fall of either the 3rd, 4th, or 5th wicket when the team score is below a certain value.
3rd wicket: Under 120 (score divided by 120)*-1.5556+1.5556. Max score: 1.40
4th wicket: Under 160 (score divided by 160)*-1.8889+1.8889. Max score: 1.70
5th wicket: Under 200 (score divided by 200)*-2.2222+2.2222. Max score: 2.00

e.g. Clem Hill's 188: 3rd wicket: (25/120)*-1.5556+1.5556 = 1.23
4th wicket: (26/160)*-1.8889+1.8889 = 1.58
5th wicket: (32/200)*-2.2222+2.2222 = 1.87

2. For batsmen 8-11, the team score when coming to the crease if the team score is below a certain value
6th wicket: Under 230 (team runs divided by 230)*-2.5556+2.5556. Max score: 2.30
7th wicket: Under 260 (team runs divided by 260)* -2.8889+2.8889. Max score: 2.60
8th wicket: Under 280 (team runs divided by 280)*-3.2222+3.2222. Max score: 2.90
9th wicket: Under 295 (team runs divided by 295)*-3.5556+3.5556. Max score: 3.20

 

[Days of Grace]

Oh, yeah, I totally get how close all the innings in the top 100-150 must be, so some are bound to miss out. Just wanted to know where Broad's innings stood relative to Trott's. No.107 is not bad at all.

Btw, could you rate this Sherwin Campbell hundred from the famous Lara Bridgetown test:
3rd Test: West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown, Mar 26-30, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Gave the West Indies score some respectability after they looked likely to concede a 250+ lead atleast. Without his ton and Walsh's 5fer, Lara couldn't have done anything in the 4th innings. One of the more underrated tons imo because Lara's epicness overshadowed everything else in the match.

14.14. Would have been higher if the West Indies managed to finish a little closer to Australia on the first innings.

Incidentally, I'm now rating test bowling performances, and Walsh's 5-fer is comfortably in the top 100 at this stage.

 

[Days of Grace]

Remember that an earlier version of this ranking had 3 of G Pollock's knocks in top 100. Any understanding of reasons?

The 125 at Trent Bridge in 1965 was close to cracking the top 100 in the new version, but the 209 and 274 were in losses and large wins respectively. The 209 was scored against a fairly weak attack too if you look at the scorecard.

 

[Goughy]

While I am not doubting 1 and 2 (Lara over Gooch) I do notice that Lara ranks over Gooch based on "1. Match result and closeness of result (max 3.98 points for a 1 run victory)"

Lara's innings is for batting second and a 1 wicket win - great innings.

Let us ignore that and look at Gooch's innings in isolation.

England scored 198
WI scored 173
England scored 252 (Gooch 154*)
WI scored 162

England win by 115 runs.

Now WI only scored so few runs as the track was nearly impossible to bat on and the margin of victory is only so great because Gooch played a freak innings. When Gooch batted what happened next in the WI (4th) innings was irrelevant as it all happened after the fact. The closeness of the result is irrelevant (though the actual result is very important.)

Winning a match by 1 run isnt important here as the batsman's innings is independent of the bowling attack in the 4th innings.

Im interested in this theoretical calculation. If batting was easier in that Test and the WI scored 275 in the 4th innings to lose by 1 run (England to win by 1 run) - what would Gooch's innings have scored in the ranking system? If it is significantly lower than the current ranking then OK. I am interested to see if an innings like Gooch's is being punished as the result wasnt so close only because he was the only person able to score runs.

 

[ankitj]

The 125 at Trent Bridge in 1965 was close to cracking the top 100 in the new version, but the 209 and 274 were in losses and large wins respectively. The 209 was scored against a fairly weak attack too if you look at the scorecard.

Thanks.