Ranking the Test Scores Over 300

[Goughy]

Not really. If an Andy Flower made a high score for Zimbabwe and they lost a match, I don't see why it should be considered less valuable than if he was in Australia and they had won the game.

Noone has scored a 300+ score an lost the game. It is these massive scores that are being looked at. In the context of these high scores a victory is very important as it illustrates that the the innings was played on a track that allowed wickets to be taken.

 

[Pratters]

Noone has scored a 300+ score an lost the game. It is these massive scores that are being looked at. In the context of these high scores a victory is very important as it illustrates that the the innings was played on a track that allowed wickets to be taken.

Look dude, we will agree to disagree. For me, a player can have an equally good inning regardless of his team winning/losing/drawng the game.

 

[Goughy]

I asked if the points could be tabulated without the not outs and winning taken into account just because I was curious how the results would come up. Not meant to enter into a debate on this and well done to you for coming up with a formula.

Dude, as requested

Top 5 with NO and result ignored

304 Bradman Draw Out 12.37
334 Bradman Draw Out 11.81
329 Inzamam Won Out 11.59
364 Hutton Won Out 10.71
333 Gooch Won Out 10.62

 

[nightprowler10]

Look dude, we will agree to disagree. For me, a player can have an equally good inning regardless of his team winning/losing/drawng the game.

Your argument would hold weight if we were talking about centuries, but we're not. We're talking about scores over 300+, in which case I agree with Goughy.

That said, I think Sachin's century at Chennai in 99 was one of the best ever, and that was in a losing cause.

 

[adharcric]

Noone has scored a 300+ score an lost the game. It is these massive scores that are being looked at. In the context of these high scores a victory is very important as it illustrates that the the innings was played on a track that allowed wickets to be taken.

If the player's team can't force a victory, it could just mean that their bowling attack is trash or that the captain didn't have the guts to declare at the right time. You've got some better indicators in your formula like "was it easy for others to score?" and "did good bowlers struggle on the wicket?" I know it's all a little iffy because you can say a bowler was out-of-form and that's why he struggled, etc. I agree with Pratyush that the win isn't THAT important a criterion when it comes to these 300+ scores, but given that it's not easy to pinpoint reasons for runs scored, wins, etc. with a formula the win-loss aspect should definitely have SOME significance. Good work.

 

[Pratters]

Dude, as requested

Top 5 with NO and result ignored

304 Bradman Draw Out 12.37
334 Bradman Draw Out 11.81
329 Inzamam Won Out 11.59
364 Hutton Won Out 10.71
333 Gooch Won Out 10.62

Interesting Bradman's two go ahead of Inzaman. Thanks!

 

[archie mac]

Anything below the Hayden innings must have been a shocker, as it was scored by a flat track bully on a flat track against powder puff bowling.

Bradman scored 300 in a day, which included a century before lunch on the first day of a Test Match (one of only four in the history of Test cricket) I will never be convinced that was not the best 300 in the history of Test cricket

 

[silentstriker]

Anything below the Hayden innings must have been a shocker, as it was scored by a flat track bully on a flat track against powder puff bowling.

Bradman scored 300 in a day, which included a century before lunch on the first day of a Test Match (one of only four in the history of Test cricket) I will never be convinced that was not the best 300 in the history of Test cricket

IMO his other triple century was better. Yea, woo-hoo he scored fast. So what? The other one was more amazing in my eyes.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hanif's is probably the best IMO. It's one of the best rear-guard innings ever played. Disappointing that it is so low.

 

[open365]

I can't believe someone would have the motivation to do that, ah well. kudos.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Lara's 400 comes right at the bottom, no team needs to bat half the match and make 750 runs, pure selfishness that ultimately contributed to the West Indies not winning.

 

[archie mac]

IMO his other triple century was better. Yea, woo-hoo he scored fast. So what? The other one was more amazing in my eyes.

The fast scoring is a very important fact, apart from the fact that only four players have managed it in almost 130 years. The Tests of this series were only of four days duration, so it was paramount to score your runs quickly if you were going to win a Test.

Why was the other one more amazing? I am hoping for a better answer then woo-hoo

 

[silentstriker]

The fast scoring is a very important fact, apart from the fact that only four players have managed it in almost 130 years. The Tests of this series were only of four days duration, so it was paramount to score your runs quickly if you were going to win a Test.

Why was the other one more amazing? I am hoping for a better answer then woo-hoo

Err, someone made a really good defense of it in the battle of the test innings thread I believe. Though by all accounts, his 270 was the best of Bradmans innings.

 

[archie mac]

Err, someone made a really good defense of it in the battle of the test innings thread I believe. Though by all accounts, his 270 was the best of Bradmans innings.

I would give his 103 in the fourth Test of 1938 as his best. Bradman thought his 254 at Lords in 1930 his best technically.

Here is Aust. author Ken Piesse's top 5 innings of all time

1. Bradman 270 1937/37 V England

2. Brian Lara 153* 1998/99 v Aust

3. Gooch 154* 1991 V WI

4. Botham 149* 1981 V Aust

5. V.V.S Laxman 281 200/01 V Aust

 

[silentstriker]

I would give his 103 in the fourth Test of 1938 as his best. Bradman thought his 254 at Lords in 1930 his best technically.

Here is Aust. author Ken Piesse's top 5 innings of all time

1. Bradman 270 1937/37 V England

2. Brian Lara 153* 1998/99 v Aust

3. Gooch 154* 1991 V WI

4. Botham 149* 1981 V Aust

5. V.V.S Laxman 281 200/01 V Aust

Odd that 4/5 innings involve Australia in some way.

 

[archie mac]

Odd that 4/5 innings involve Australia in some way.

Yes and 2,4, and 5 still give me nightmares

 

[Perm]

Since I also have alot of spare time I thought I would do a bit of testing for myself. Using the formula that Goughy posted in his first post I went through the Ashes last year and used it for all the centuries scored. Here are the results if anybody cares.


Score Player Rating
158 KP Pietersen 5.740
166 MP Vaughan 5.600
102 A Flintoff 5.496
156 RT Ponting 5.220
138 ML Hayden 4.906
129 AJ Strauss 4.542
105 JL Langer 3.606
106 AJ Strauss 3.409

 

[Goughy]

Since I also have alot of spare time I thought I would do a bit of testing for myself. Using the formula that Goughy posted in his first post I went through the Ashes last year and used it for all the centuries scored. Here are the results if anybody cares.


Score Player Rating
158 KP Pietersen 5.740
166 MP Vaughan 5.600
102 A Flintoff 5.496
156 RT Ponting 5.220
138 ML Hayden 4.906
129 AJ Strauss 4.542
105 JL Langer 3.606
106 AJ Strauss 3.409

Seems fair that the innings that won the Ashes tops the list.

 

[C_C]

My top two innings of alltime are pretty much fixed firmly right now- Lara's 153* and Laxman's 281.Braddle's score can tuck in after but not before.
Gooch 154* doesnt deserve to be there. It was special to be in the top 10-15 perhaps but not that special-there are one or two other knocks like that in the west indies facing their fourprong that superseeds it too.
would probably slot in Hanif's innings at 4th.
5th i cant deciede on really.

 

[Goughy]

My top two innings of alltime are pretty much fixed firmly right now- Lara's 153* and Laxman's 281.Braddle's score can tuck in after but not before.
Gooch 154* doesnt deserve to be there. It was special to be in the top 10-15 perhaps but not that special-there are one or two other knocks like that in the west indies facing their fourprong that superseeds it too.
would probably slot in Hanif's innings at 4th.
5th i cant deciede on really.

Can you ever hide your anti-english sentiment? Whilst I respect your right to hold an opinion, that one is clueless.

That innings by Gooch was possibly the best ever. Noone else in the game could score a run and he dominated a very strong attack on a green seamer at Headingley. Taking Gooch's innings out of the equation the average score per wicket was 16.18 and he scored 154*. Possibly the greatest example of one man standing tall and winning a game single handedly.

Please tell me how it was not that special and which other similar innings are better?