Figuring out the most impressive individual performances during a test series ever

[Howe_zat]

Don't really like the fewer tests multiplier. I'd say hitting 100 in three separate innings does more for the team than hitting one 300.

You get diminishing returns on runs in the same innings after a while or we wouldn't have declarations.

 

[srbhkshk]

Don't really like the fewer tests multiplier. I'd say hitting 100 in three separate innings does more for the team than hitting one 300.

You get diminishing returns on runs in the same innings after a while or we wouldn't have declarations.

They are diminishing, otherwise 4 would be 1.33 and 3 would be 1.66. Not that I disagree with the point but no one will ever agree on the exact numbers anyway.

 

[a massive zebra]

Decided to be less lazy and wrote a code for calculating the numbers, here are the top 20 - View attachment 23571

Thanks for the table. I think catches should count for something. Any chance you could redo the table with catches counting as 10 points each?

It is pretty weird that Giffen has the very best performance over a five test series when you consider that his overall record is pretty mediocre by the standards of the great allrounders:

1894/95 Ashes: 475 runs at 52.77 with one century and three fifties, 34 wickets at 24.11 with three five fours
Rest of career: 763 runs at 17.34 with three fifties, 69 wickets at 28.56 with four five fours

 

[srbhkshk]

Thanks for the table. I think catches should count for something. Any chance you could redo the table with catches counting as 10 points each?

Added 10 for catches and stumping.

 

[a massive zebra]

Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572

Thank you! :-)

 

[AndrewB]

Feels like Denis Lindsay in 1966/7 - 606 runs and 24 catches - deserves to be in the list.

 

[a massive zebra]

Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572

Shouldn't Imran 1982/83 vs India be in there? 40 wickets, 247 runs, 4 catches. 1,087 points if my mental arithmetic is up to scratch.

 

[srbhkshk]

Shouldn't Imran 1982/83 vs India be in there? 40 wickets, 247 runs, 4 catches. 1,087 points if my mental arithmetic is up to scratch.

He has 6 matches, so he gets downgraded by 10%.

 

[a massive zebra]

Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572

Bradman does not appear in the top 20 even though he holds the world record for most runs in a test series and also had three of the top nine most prolific series ever by total runs scored.

This does not sit comfortably with me. I wonder if 20 points is too heavy a weighting for a wicket, or if the weightings for 3 and 4 match series are too high. What do you think?

 

[a massive zebra]

Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572

He has 6 matches, so he gets downgraded by 10%.

Understood. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Furball]

Bradman does not appear in the top 20 even though he holds the world record for most runs in a test series and also had three of the top nine most prolific series ever by total runs scored.

This does not sit comfortably with me. I wonder if 20 points is too heavy a weighting for a wicket, or if the weightings for 3 and 4 match series are too high. What do you think?

The formula isn't fair to batsmen.

 

[Starfighter]

The formula isn't fair to batsmen.

About the only thing in cricket that isn't.

 

[AndrewB]

Bradman does not appear in the top 20 even though he holds the world record for most runs in a test series and also had three of the top nine most prolific series ever by total runs scored.

This does not sit comfortably with me. I wonder if 20 points is too heavy a weighting for a wicket, or if the weightings for 3 and 4 match series are too high. What do you think?

Since 5 of the 6 instance of a bowler taking over 40 wickets in a series also don't appear in the list, I don't think you can claim it's biased in favour of bowlers... there's only three appearance by bowlers who hardly scored any runs plus a couple who scored just over 100; but on the other hand there are four batsmen in the list who took 0 or 1 wickets. I think the weighting for short series is more to blame.

(Also, fwiw, I think when players (e.g Barnes and Richards) play 4 matches in a 5 match series, the weighting should be 1).

 

[cnerd123]

Maybe assign points in terms of a % of the total runs scored in a series?

Therefore scoring 500 runs in a series where a total of 2000 runs were scored is worth more than scoring 600 runs in a series where 3000 runs were scored.

Wickets probably don't need to be treated this way since you can only ever take 20 wickets in a game, but maybe doing so might help us find stand-out bowling performances in batting-heavy series that otherwise get overlooked. This does rely on the assumption that the conditions were the reason behind the series being high scoring rather than the bowling quality through. Being the least-bad bowler on show isn't what we want to reward.

 

[mr_mister]

How about 1.2 and 1.4 multipliers instead? I think that's actually more fair. I just pulled the original 2 numbers out of my ass

Because and 3 and 4 are 60% and 80% of 5 not 50% and 75% ike the original multiplier implies

 

[mr_mister]

Also, I think the 20 = 1 rule is fine.


Look at the best ever bowling performance (19 wickets in a match). It equals the second best ever batting performance (Haydens 380) exactly points wise

And if someone ever manages to take all 20 in a match, they'l equal Lara's 400 exactly as well.


I think the issue is that every bowler still gets a chance to tonk some runs, but not every batsman gets a go at bowling, so yes it may skew more toward all rounders and bowlers, but hey that's cricket

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah and I am not sure catches are a fair reflection either. Its more a function of your team being good enough to create the opportunities, right? And bowlers don't always occupy catching positions, so not fully fair to them either. I wont mind them being downgraded if they are not specialist wicket keepers.

 

[mr_mister]

also, great work on the spreadsheet srbhsk. more inspiration than i could ever hope for

 

[Howe_zat]

Allrounders should rule a list like this. They are almost always inconsistent with bat and ball, the trade off is the chance that everything clicks at once and they just dominate a series. A list of best series should be about allround performances because allround performances that hold up statistically are just the best performances

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah and I am not sure catches are a fair reflection either. Its more a function of your team being good enough to create the opportunities, right? And bowlers don't always occupy catching positions, so not fully fair to them either. I wont mind them being downgraded if they are not specialist wicket keepers.

Yeah catches shouldn't be in the at all IMO. Its not a reflection of how well someone played at all, especially if you're a wicket keeper. How many catches you get is like 98% how many opportunities your bowlers create and 2% you catching them or not.