Ranking the Test Scores Over 300

[Goughy]

Obviously Im a little bored at the moment and just spent a fair bit of valuable time I will never get back doing this.

Below is a list of the BEST Test innings over 300.

Criteria

• Strength of Opposition
• Was it a Not Out?
• Did it come in a victory?
• How easy was it for other batsmen to score runs?
• Runs scored
• Did good bowlers struggle to get wickets?

The List

Score Player Index
329 Inzamam 16.23
364 Hutton 14.99
333 Gooch 14.87
365 Sobers 14.27
310 Edrich 14.00
304 Bradman 12.37
309 Sehwag 12.11
334 Bradman 11.81
374 Jayawardene 9.81
380 Hayden 9.69
336 Hammond 9.11
400 Lara 9.07
337 Hanif Mohammad 8.72
302 Rowe 8.66
334 Taylor 7.61
307 Cowper 7.38
317 Gayle 6.64
325 Sandham 5.54
311 Simpson 5.51
375 Lara 4.73
340 Jayasuriya 4.44

 

[Neil Pickup]

Can I see the formula?

 

[Goughy]

{Batsmans runs/(Runs per wicket in the test ignoring the batsmans innings)}*(1.4 if game was won)*(1.5 if the oppostition possessed one or more World Class Bowler)*(1.2 if not out)/(1.3 if batsmans team possessed one or more World Class Bowler)/(1.5 if the opposition was very weak ie Zim or early NZ)

There are subjective elements but the values are a result of trial and error in order to create a good grouping and reward not outs in games won against quality bowling on tracks that not everyone scored big runs on.

I certainly did not expect Inzamam to win, though I think he owes a lot of it to Shoaib

 

[silentstriker]

I like it. And the 400* is rightly lower down the list. Though, Bradmans 334 I kind of wanted to win .

Good work, time well spent I say .

Maybe you should add like a *(1.2 if opposition was very strong). Since you have world class bowler, AND very weak oppnents, It makes sense to have world class bowler and very strong opponent as well.



EDIT: Can you run this criteria for Laxmans 281, just to see? I know its not 300+, but its close, and I'm curious .

 

[Jamee999]

It does. At the start.

 

[silentstriker]

Also, since it does take into account the number of runs, you could run this same forula for any batting innings, correct? Gooch's epic innings, and Laras, might also be cool to know.

Maybe instead of the number of runs, you could have percentage of total runs for his side? Because 153 out of 200 is at least as valuble as 400 out of 700.

 

[Goughy]

EDIT: Can you run this criteria for Laxmans 281, just to see? I know its not 300+, but its close, and I'm curious .

Also, since it does take into account the number of runs, you could run this same forula for any batting innings, correct? Gooch's epic innings, and Laras, might also be cool to know.

Gooch's innings scores an amazing 23.99

Laxman beats all of the 300+ innings with a score of 17.64

Lara's genius was in the context of the situation and carrying his teammates rather than the weight of runs and the state of the track. His 153* scores 10.3.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Obviously it's all very subjective though, so it's essentially using a formula to arrive at an opinion.

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously it's all very subjective though, so it's essentially using a formula to arrive at an opinion.

The formula is subjective, but the advantage of doing it with a formula is that you can thereafter rank the innings objectively (unless the formula is devised specifically to enchance one innings, with crazy criteria...which this one isn't).

 

[luffy]

So Inzaman has had the best ever innings.

 

[Jono]

Goodidea, but can't believe Hayden's 380 was better than many other knocks it is higher than.

 

[Xuhaib]

Hanif's 337 is easily the best innings ever played by a Pakistani,maybe you should add stuff like was it played in a home game or an away game.

 

[FRAZ]

Considering relatively limited strength of Pakistan at that time + West Indies at home and with all those fasties and Sobers etc + Pakistan following on and under pressure ,I think Hanif's innings was much much better than Inzamam . I have heard so many stories about this inning and also once Hanif told that "In those days a batsman had at least 7-8 blue spots on the body at the end of a day .

 

[Burgey]

Interesting that Bradman's 334 is rated below his 304 of four years later.

England's attack in the 1930 test was Larwood, Tate, Geary, Tydesley and Hammond.

In 1934 it was Bowes Hammond Mitchell Verity Hopwood. Larwood had retired by then, as had Tate.

Wish I had seen them both.....

Hutton's innings being up so high is als interesting. Dead rubber (the Ashes were lost), timeless test (his innings was later used as one of the reasons to get rid of them) and Australia had virtually no fast bowlers at all. He faced 847 balls for it and Australia's attack was Waite (medium-pace bowler who also bowled offbreaks), McCabe, O'Reilly, Fleetwood-Smith and Barnes.

Cardus wrote:

"The fact remains that the wicket prepared for this engagement
was unfair to skilled bowlers and not in the interests of the
game. The game has left an unpleasant taste in the mouth ... No
cricket match should occur again in which the wicket is contrived
so that an innings of 900 is possible against any bowling".

In his reports, Cardus was especially critical of what he perceived to be slow England batting after they had reached 700.

 

[Pratters]

Will be interesting to see what comes up excluding the not outs factor and 'did it come in a win' factor.

 

[nightprowler10]

Will be interesting to see what comes up excluding the not outs factor and 'did it come in a win' factor.

Those two are definitely important factors, although I have seen one of the best test centuries by Sachin (Chennai 99) that didn't feature these two factors.

 

[Pratters]

I don't consider them as important factors. A person may have played a great inning and his team may have screwed up - no fault of the specific player.

 

[Goughy]

I don't consider them as important factors. A person may have played a great inning and his team may have screwed up - no fault of the specific player.

They are very important factors when ranking high scores.

The victory aspect is crucial as it shows that, although a player scored a mammoth score, the wicket enabled one team to take 20 wickets (usually). Ie it shows that the track was not just a road that anyone could score boatloads of runs on and that bowlers could take wickets. In games where a team won, it shows that batsmen did not have it all their own way.

Also, the reason why the games are played is to win them. An innings that results in a win is always more valuable than that in a draw.

As for the not out, at the end of the day the bowlers could not dismiss you and there is no knowing where the innings would end. To be undefeated and completely blunt an attack deserves a bonus.

 

[NZTailender]

[annoying mode on]What about Astle's 150 odd not out vs Australia at Perth in 01/02? [annoying mode off]

 

[Pratters]

They are very important factors when ranking high scores.

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.

As for the not out, at the end of the day the bowlers could not dismiss you and there is no knowing where the innings would end. To be undefeated and completely blunt an attack deserves a bonus.

Yeah a small bonus which I am willing to disregard as I don't consider it that important.

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.