DoG's greatest test match batting performances

[Days of Grace]

After being inspired by the other thread, and needing to add this factor into my Test Career ratings, I came up with quite a simple formula. It takes into account:

1. Adjusted runs scored (dependent on bowling opposition) (worth 30%)
2. How much more the innings was worth then the average of other batsmen in the same innings (worth 20%)
3. How much more the innings was worth than the ave other batsmen in the same match (worth 15%)
4. Point of entry (coming to the crease at 30/3, 100/1, 40/5, etc.) (worth 12.5%)
5. Wickets falling whilst at the crease (worth 7.5%)
6. Strike-rate (worth 7.5%)
7. Match won (worth 5%)
8. Live series or dead rubber (worth 2.5%)

Final ratings are boosted by 35% of the innings was played in the 4th innings, or following on
Final ratings are boosted by 10% if the innings was played in the 3rd innings (exc. following on)


I came up with this provisional top 30:


1 Gooch 154 * West Indies 1991 Leeds 959
2 Bradman 270 England 1937 Melbourne 956
3 Botham 149 * Australia 1981 Leeds 952
4 Bannerman 165 * England 1877 Melbourne 931
5 Bradman 299 * South Africa 1932 Adelaide 929
6 Lara 153 * Australia 1999 Bridgetown 929
7 Laxman 281 Australia 2001 Kolkata 926
8 Sehwag 201 * Sri Lanka 2008 Galle 919
9 Astle 222 England 2002 Christchurch 900
10 Kamran Akmal 113 India 2006 Karachi 896
11 Jessop 104 Australia 1902 The Oval 891
12 Hughes 100 * West Indies 1981 Melbourne 835
13 Foster 287 Australia 1904 Sydney 832
14 Bradman 334 England 1930 Leeds 826
15 Hanif Mohammad 337 West Indies 1958 Bridgetown 817
16 Lara 213 Australia 1999 Kingston 814
17 Houghton 266 Sri Lanka 1994 Bulawayo 792
18 Gavaskar 236 * West Indies 1983 Chennai 792
19 Gilchrist 149 * Pakistan 1999 Brisbane 789
20 Saleem Malik 237 Australia 1995 Rawalpindi 785
21 Hill 188 England 1898 Melbourne 781
22 Walcott 220 England 1954 Bridgetown 777
23 Waugh 116 South Africa 1997 Port Elizabeth 755
24 Azhar Mahmood 132 South Africa 1998 Durban 751
25 Lloyd 161 India 1983 Kolkata 751
26 Jones 184 England 1987 Sydney 726
27 Flower 232 India 2000 Nagpur 713
28 McCabe 187 Australia 1932 Sydney 679
29 Richards 291 England 1976 The Oval 670
30 McCabe 232 England 1938 Nottingham 645

 

[Days of Grace]

If you guys could just look that over, and if you find something wrong, please let me know, esp. how much weighting to give each of the factors that I listed.

And is chasing a 4th innings target worth the same as batting when following-on?

 

[SJS]

My first reaction. A Test match is a contest by itself. To score a hundred (everything else being exactly the same) in a Test where the series has already been decided is no less than one in which it is open.

 

[bagapath]

If you guys could just look that over, and if you find something wrong, please let me know, esp. how much weighting to give each of the factors that I listed.

And is chasing a 4th innings target worth the same as batting when following-on?

the list doesnt just look right. it looks awesome. obviously you've got a lot of things right. good job.

of course, by altering the percentage share of the factors you've taken into consideration and by adding or removing one or two elements one may come up with another list. but my guess is most of these knocks will be there too coz they are rightfully some of the best knocks of all time.

DOG! can you please publish the top 100 list.

 

[Uppercut]

Why is there no bonus for not-outs? Scoring lots of runs without losing your wicket most certainly>>>scoring lots of runs then getting out. 10% is also way too much of a boost for 4th innings scores.

Bit hard to factor in, but i consider Adam Gilchrist's maiden test century to be one of the best ever because practically anyone else in that situation would have been stranded long before reaching the total. Sehwag's 201* is up there too, most openers would have scored about half of that before carrying their bat.

 

[bagapath]

My first reaction. A Test match is a contest by itself. To score a hundred (everything else being exactly the same) in a Test where the series has already been decided is no less than one in which it is open.

i kind of disagree. the effort may be similar but in my books a dead rubber century is less important than a match winning/ series winning hundred.

 

[0RI0N]

Very interesting DoG
Quick question:
how do you determine points 1 and 2?can you break it down and explain?

 

[SJS]

i kind of disagree. the effort may be similar but in my books a dead rubber century is less important than a match winning/ series winning hundred.

It can be a match winning effort in a rubber that is already decided.

 

[Days of Grace]

My first reaction. A Test match is a contest by itself. To score a hundred (everything else being exactly the same) in a Test where the series has already been decided is no less than one in which it is open.

Value your opinion SJS. It was actually one of the last factors I thought about.

Basically, the pressure a batsman is under is a key factor for me. If a series is already won or lost, logic would say that there is less pressure on the players.

 

[Days of Grace]

Why is there no bonus for not-outs? Scoring lots of runs without losing your wicket most certainly>>>scoring lots of runs then getting out. 10% is also way too much of a boost for 4th innings scores.

Bit hard to factor in, but i consider Adam Gilchrist's maiden test century to be one of the best ever because practically anyone else in that situation would have been stranded long before reaching the total. Sehwag's 201* is up there too, most openers would have scored about half of that before carrying their bat.

I have actually only done about 30 innings. So, I will do Gilchrist and Segwag's knocks later and see where they end up.

Also, I actually made a mistake! It is 35% boost to 4th innings scores or batting in a follow-on. Basically, I figured that is when a batsmen is under the most pressure, and it is a sitaution where many innings are remembered. If you cut this out, then Lara's 153* wouldn't even make the top 10, which is just wrong.

 

[Days of Grace]

Do any Pakistan fans have an opinion on Azhar Mahmood's 132 vs South Africa? He also played another great knock in the series. Such a great start to a career, and all downhill basically.

Anyway, does anyone remember that or Mark Waugh's century?

 

[The Sean]

Anyway, does anyone remember that or Mark Waugh's century?

You mean Mark Waugh's debut century? It was a very fine innnings, but Junior played better - I think his finest hour was his 116 in Port Elizabeth in 1997. IIRC only one other player from either side (McMillan, I think it was) passed 50 for the match and his innings was the cornerstone of a successful (and unlikely) 4th innings run chase.

 

[Furball]

Value your opinion SJS. It was actually one of the last factors I thought about.

Basically, the pressure a batsman is under is a key factor for me. If a series is already won or lost, logic would say that there is less pressure on the players.

But a player may be under severe pressure for his place.

Had Hayden scored a massive ton in the Sydney Test against South Africa, then while it would ultimately have been meaningless in terms of the series, it might potentially have saved his career.

 

[Furball]

Point of entry might need a bit of tweaking - in the last Test in the 1st innings, Graeme Smith entered at 0/0 as an opener, but South Africa were 2 down before Smith faced a ball.

 

[SJS]

Value your opinion SJS. It was actually one of the last factors I thought about.

Basically, the pressure a batsman is under is a key factor for me. If a series is already won or lost, logic would say that there is less pressure on the players.

Okay lets say Australia are playing Bangladesh. They win 5-0 as expected but the series isn't decided till the end of the third Test. How does a century by a Bangladeshi have more value in the first three matches than in the last two ? Similarly, while the rubber is alive, a match may be played on a dead wicket thousands of runs maybe scored and the matche ends in draw. Then the series is decided and in the last game, on a tricky wicket, a batsman plays a great innings to win the game or save it from disaster be any less. Even if the match is lost by his side, it maybe a better innings than the one he played in the dead match.

My whole idea of stressing this point is that the match conditions, the conditions at the time the innings was played (both underfoot and on the score card) etc are the one's that will determine the value of an innings. I am sure if I made the effort I would fish out some great inings from so called 'dead' rubbers.

My point is that a Test match is a Test match. A Test match can be dead(recent matches Pakistan/Sri Lanka and England WIndies come to mind) with no possibility of result where a century is meaningless while a fighting knock in a desperate situation in the last game could be the best knock of the series.

When you are batting in the Test, its where the match stands that affects the batsman's mental state and tests his mental strength. If his team is 300 runs behind, even if they have already won/or lost the series, that puts pressure on him.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Had Hayden scored a massive ton in the Sydney Test against South Africa, then while it would ultimately have been meaningless in terms of the series, it might potentially have saved his career.

What about his 138 at the Oval in 2005? The innings that actually did save his career, against a form bowling attack, in tough conditions, which was meaningful to the series because Australia were trying to draw the match to retain the Ashes?

 

[Furball]

What about his 138 at the Oval in 2005? The innings that actually did save his career, against a form bowling attack, in tough conditions, which was meaningful to the series because Australia were trying to draw the match to retain the Ashes?

True, that's a very good example, my point was more to do with how just because a series has been won, doesn't mean that there's no pressure on the batsman to make runs.

 

[Days of Grace]

I think his finest hour was his 116 in Port Elizabeth in 1997. IIRC only one other player from either side (McMillan, I think it was) passed 50 for the match and his innings was the cornerstone of a successful (and unlikely) 4th innings run chase.

That is the one I was talking about, and is in the top 20.

 

[Days of Grace]

Similarly, while the rubber is alive, a match may be played on a dead wicket thousands of runs maybe scored and the matche ends in draw. .

But it is a common policy for the home team to prepare result pitches whilst the series is alive, and then prepares roads once their team goes 1-up.

India, Pakistan, and West Indies are past masters at doing this.

 

[The Sean]

That is the one I was talking about, and is in the top 20.

That'll teach me for not reading down to the end of the list.

Without having seen even close to every innings ever played, I'm more than comfortable with that knock by Waugh's rating as one of the highest of the modern era. I think there's a strong argument for it to be rated among the top 10-15 innings ever by an Australian in Test cricket. A place in the all time world top 20 is probably too high - but it's worthy of being included in the discussion.