• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

High Impact - Assessing the Great Batting Performances

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Great stuff, thanks. A notable player not in there is Tendulkar. What is the highest one of his knocks came?

Also, I wonder if there is a way of doing this for bowlers - their contribution with regards to the difficulty of their team winning.
 
Last edited:

chasingthedon

International Regular
Great stuff, thanks. A notable player not in there is Tendulkar. What is the highest one of his knocks came?

Also, I wonder if there is a way of doing this for bowlers - their contribution with regards to the difficulty of their team winning.
Thanks Ikki. Tendulkar's highest rated innings by this measure was his 103*. I'm already working on the bowlers equivalent, should be up in a week or so.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
wow......great work.......didn't see it in detail in terms of methodology but a pleasant surprise to see Shakib Al Hasan up there in the top 10
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fascinating stuff Dave - top 5 probably just about right I suppose - will always have Butcher's as a personal favourite but I suppose that goes with the territory!

Interesting about the 30's - I blame Bradman - killed off most Tests with his first visit to the crease :)
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Posted by J_C in the comments section..

Good analysis. Interestingly Yuvraj makes the list for his 85* even though Sehwag (87) and Tendulkar (103*) don't make the cut. Hmmm....
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Posted by J_C in the comments section..

Quote:
Good analysis. Interestingly Yuvraj makes the list for his 85* even though Sehwag (87) and Tendulkar (103*) don't make the cut. Hmmm....
It's all to do with the win probability at the time each batsman came in compared to when he was out or when the game was won - at 163 still to get with six wickets left, India still only had about a one in eight win probability, so Yuvraj gets a higher share than Tendulkar, who came in at 246 to get with eight wickets remaining (about 32.2% share for Tendy). Sehwag's 83 only improved the win probability by about 20% and Sehwag gets around 14% of that.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
No Sachin again- its the Wisden top 100 all over again!!!!!
Sachin's omission from the Wisden list is of far greater significance in my opinion - my analysis looks only at individual innings in successful fourth-innings run chases, whereas the Wisden list considered ALL innings.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Fascinating stuff Dave - top 5 probably just about right I suppose - will always have Butcher's as a personal favourite but I suppose that goes with the territory!

Interesting about the 30's - I blame Bradman - killed off most Tests with his first visit to the crease :)
Which is of course why he doesn't figure much in this analysis - his Aussie teams didn't figure in many run chases.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's all to do with the win probability at the time each batsman came in compared to when he was out or when the game was won - at 163 still to get with six wickets left, India still only had about a one in eight win probability, so Yuvraj gets a higher share than Tendulkar, who came in at 246 to get with eight wickets remaining (about 32.2% share for Tendy). Sehwag's 83 only improved the win probability by about 20% and Sehwag gets around 14% of that.
OK.. thanks for explaining your methodology. :)
 

abmk

State 12th Man
pretty flawed to say the least ... there's no way that yuvraj's 85 was in any way close to sehwag's or sachin's knocks , let alone better than both of them ....

where's Mark waugh's 116(?) vs SA btw ?
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
the singh innings of 80 odd that ranks ahead of the 103 of tendulkar's (in the same innings) surely gives the lie to this analysis.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Or maybe it actually shows that the SRT innings was over-rated as even with it, they were still behind the game and needed another innings to get them there?
 

abmk

State 12th Man
Or maybe it actually shows that the SRT innings was over-rated as even with it, they were still behind the game and needed another innings to get them there?
huh ? use some logic will you ? so sehwag's innings was also over-rated as even with it 2 other 50s and a hundred was required ? 8-)

its insane in how many places people just can't use plain common sense ; common sense is not so common after all !
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
the singh innings of 80 odd that ranks ahead of the 103 of tendulkar's (in the same innings) surely gives the lie to this analysis.
Read:

It's all to do with the win probability at the time each batsman came in compared to when he was out or when the game was won - at 163 still to get with six wickets left, India still only had about a one in eight win probability, so Yuvraj gets a higher share than Tendulkar, who came in at 246 to get with eight wickets remaining (about 32.2% share for Tendy). Sehwag's 83 only improved the win probability by about 20% and Sehwag gets around 14% of that.
 

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
Great analysis Chasing the don. No surprise there for seeing Lara and Gilchrist up there amongst the other greats. Truly wonderful players, and a pleasure to watch.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
How about Harbhajan's match-saving innings against NZ recently? Came in at 6/60 or thereabouts and added 150 runs with Laxman. Though I suppose this exercise was only done for wins.

Ah, actually this is where this analysis fails. If a batsman comes in at 1/100 chasing 350, suddenly sees four partners depart in the space of 10 runs, and then puts on a 240 run partnership with the No. 7 batsman, he won't get much credit at all compared to the No. 7 batsman (if I'm understanding the method correctly). Langer probably got screwed in this analysis in that Hobart Test match against Pakistan where they chased 360.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yeah that's the obvious issue with this (and other similarly-justified) measures, it's pretty tough to filter batsmen who come in at the top of the collapse and then survive it.
 

Noble One

International Vice-Captain
Likely the first and only top five that Shane Thompson will ever make.

Interesting read. It would be interesting to see the analysis spread to different innings.
 

Top