• 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.

New Feature: Top 100 Test Innings: Revised and Updated

Days of Grace

International Captain
As others have noted, great work Steve - I imagine it is a relief to be finished! Also appreciate the name check for Masterly Batting.

I did have one specific question - I notice that, in your era/decades list, for example there are 26 from the period 2000--2009 and only two from the '60s. Do you have an explanation for this?

Good question, there!

I guess it is related to the 1960s being a somewhat dour period for cricket, with many drawn matches and slow scoring rates. Thus not many statistically "great" or "stand-out" innings were played where the batsman scored substantially more runs than his teammates or the opposition in a given match.

There were obviously more matches played in the 2000s than any decade so far, and therefore there should be more great innings played. As to why many of these innings made the top 100, I cannot really say.

If you have any nominees from the 1960s, I could tally up their ratings for you.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
OK, but I assume some era adjustment was incorporated, given that Hill and Bannerman both featured in the top 10.

Have a look at this small selection (if there are too many do as many as you feel like):-

Alan Davidson, 80, t498
The Home of CricketArchive
(I presume Sobers 132 and O'Neill's 181 would be considered less impactful)

Ted Dexter, 70 and Basil Butcher, 133, t544
The Home of CricketArchive

Garry Sobers, 95*, t636
The Home of CricketArchive
(Two good innings there from Sobers; also Knott's 73* in the last innings)

Bruce Taylor, 124, and Seymour Nurse, 168, t648
The Home of CricketArchive

Garry Sobers, 163* and Colin Milburn, 126*, t606
The Home of CricketArchive

Bob Simpson, 92, t506
The Home of CricketArchive

Garry Sobers, 110, t645
The Home of CricketArchive

Basil D'Oliveira, 158*, t641
The Home of CricketArchive
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Assume you're too busy to run the above. Anyway I would like to make a couple of comments following on from the discussions between yourself and Goughy.

Rankings are either 100% objective or they're not - most rankings are not, including the ICC ratings which, though based entirely on the scorecard, incorporate some algorithm which weights innings differently. I try to make all of my rankings based on 100% objectivity and in 100% of cases I'm not 100% happy with them - one or more players may be ranked too high, one or more players too low, but if I have faith in the system I go with whatever it throws up. Masterly Batting, for which I was responsible for the ratings system, was a mix of objective and subjective inputs. - what I did there was, once we had decided on the parameters to be measured and collected the data, both objective and subjective, I stripped off as many identifying aspects as possible, save the era, to reduce the amount of favouritism. At the end of the day though, as the system incorporates subjective aspects like "Intangibles", coupled with the fact that the choice of weightings is inherently subjective, it still amounts to being a subjective list.

Your system is not 100% objective either, as it incorporates weightings which you have modified over time and, once you get away from 100% objectivity it becomes impossible to defend the final list. You made a comment earlier to the effect that you had a list which "looks about right", and therein lies the danger - if you modify weightings to get a list which looks right, or to offset those innings which are not ranked where you think they should be, you may as well just do a subjective list. This is unfortunate, as you have put in a tremendous amount of work to this system for it to be dismissed as just subjective.

It is more apparent when grading individual innings, as many criteria which impact individual performances, such as pressure, conditions, etc. can be evened out over a full career.

At the end of the day though, your list, subjective though it is, is as valid as anyone else's and, with the consideration and time behind it, more valid than most.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Solid list, really surprised Dean Jones' 210 isn't anywhere on there, especially given Williamson's 161 is on there.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
OK, but I assume some era adjustment was incorporated, given that Hill and Bannerman both featured in the top 10.

Have a look at this small selection (if there are too many do as many as you feel like):-

Alan Davidson, 80, t498
The Home of CricketArchive
(I presume Sobers 132 and O'Neill's 181 would be considered less impactful)

Ted Dexter, 70 and Basil Butcher, 133, t544
The Home of CricketArchive

Garry Sobers, 95*, t636
The Home of CricketArchive
(Two good innings there from Sobers; also Knott's 73* in the last innings)

Bruce Taylor, 124, and Seymour Nurse, 168, t648
The Home of CricketArchive

Garry Sobers, 163* and Colin Milburn, 126*, t606
The Home of CricketArchive

Bob Simpson, 92, t506
The Home of CricketArchive

Garry Sobers, 110, t645
The Home of CricketArchive

Basil D'Oliveira, 158*, t641
The Home of CricketArchive

Sorry for the late reply. Here are the ratings for the innings you listed:

Davidson 80 11.11
Sobers 132 12.13
O'Neill 181 12.70

Simpson 92 12.58

Butcher 133 14.84
Dexter 70 6.59

Sobers 163* 13.89
Milburn 126* 14.50

Sobers 152 10.46
Sobers 95* 10.31
Knott 73* 10.82

Sobers 110 9.28

Taylor 124 10.11
Nurse 168 15.09

D'Oliveira 158 11.67
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Solid list, really surprised Dean Jones' 210 isn't anywhere on there, especially given Williamson's 161 is on there.
The 210 gets a rating of 10.48. The reasons why it is rated so lowly include that it was made in a high team score in a high scoring match with a lot of support from the top order. Still a great innings though.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Assume you're too busy to run the above. Anyway I would like to make a couple of comments following on from the discussions between yourself and Goughy.

Rankings are either 100% objective or they're not - most rankings are not, including the ICC ratings which, though based entirely on the scorecard, incorporate some algorithm which weights innings differently. I try to make all of my rankings based on 100% objectivity and in 100% of cases I'm not 100% happy with them - one or more players may be ranked too high, one or more players too low, but if I have faith in the system I go with whatever it throws up. Masterly Batting, for which I was responsible for the ratings system, was a mix of objective and subjective inputs. - what I did there was, once we had decided on the parameters to be measured and collected the data, both objective and subjective, I stripped off as many identifying aspects as possible, save the era, to reduce the amount of favouritism. At the end of the day though, as the system incorporates subjective aspects like "Intangibles", coupled with the fact that the choice of weightings is inherently subjective, it still amounts to being a subjective list.

Your system is not 100% objective either, as it incorporates weightings which you have modified over time and, once you get away from 100% objectivity it becomes impossible to defend the final list. You made a comment earlier to the effect that you had a list which "looks about right", and therein lies the danger - if you modify weightings to get a list which looks right, or to offset those innings which are not ranked where you think they should be, you may as well just do a subjective list. This is unfortunate, as you have put in a tremendous amount of work to this system for it to be dismissed as just subjective.

It is more apparent when grading individual innings, as many criteria which impact individual performances, such as pressure, conditions, etc. can be evened out over a full career.

At the end of the day though, your list, subjective though it is, is as valid as anyone else's and, with the consideration and time behind it, more valid than most.
Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, it is a subjective list because I have decided on the criteria for ratings innings and then weighted each criteria based on my own feelings. I thought that VVS Laxman's century against Australia in 1999 was too high up the list so I adjusted the ratings given to 3rd innings innings in losing causes.

At the end of the day, I will never be 100% happy with the list and neither will everyone. MacCabe's 232 is too far down the list for my liking, but if I adjusted the weightings or criteria for that innings to move further up then I would be upset that another innings is now too high or too low in the list. You end up going around in circles and throwing your hands up.

What was important to me was getting a good-looking top 10 or top 20 list and then the rest would follow from there. Yes, it is subjective but also a lot of hard work so hopefully it will be appreciated and used as not a final answer on the worth of individual innings but a pretty good reference point :)


Btw, I'm interested in how you applied the weightings to individual innings. In my case, I average out the scores from the top 25 innings. Base runs are weighted as 15% of 12.00 so if the top 25 innings have an average of 195 base runs then I muliplied all base runs by 0.009, thus giving an average of about 15. Hope this makes sense.

I would also appreciate your thoughts on how I rate each opposition batting lineup/bowling lineup. Can I PM you?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The 210 gets a rating of 10.48. The reasons why it is rated so lowly include that it was made in a high team score in a high scoring match with a lot of support from the top order. Still a great innings though.
Incidentally, what's your cutoff for an innings to be considered 'great'? Seem to remember it being 12 in your old system.
 

Top