DoG's greatest test match batting performances

[SJS]

We pay far too much importance to the winning of a Test. Some of the greatest innings are played with the back to the wall and the players goes down with the ship. Gavaskar's last innings in Tests (a 90 odd in a losing cause against Pakistan) comes to mind. Probably his greatest ever Test knock.

Then you could look at, say, Zimbabwe. In the first six years of Zimbabwe cricket, they won just one Test out of 30. A series loss by them was almost always on the cards and quickly decided. During this period of weakness, some fabulous innings were played by Andy and Grant Flower, David Houghton, Guy Whittal, Paul Strang etc. One cant give less weightage to those amongst these knocks which Zimbabwe did not win.

I was reading the other day, I think in Noble's autobiography, that a losing cause can at times bring out the real difference between a good and a great player. Those who played under Bradman in the all conquering 1948 side had surely a much more settled frame of mind than the Australians of 1928-29 or 1954-55

Harvey's 92 (out of 184) against a rampaging Tyson in the second Test (England won by 38 runs) comes to mind from the 1954-55 series.

What you are doing is commendable and I would love to see the results but these comments are meant to just put my view on weight-age for it is a tricky matter

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Australia weren't all that better either... They gave us roads after Melbourne...

 

[honestbharani]

We pay far too much importance to the winning of a Test. Some of the greatest innings are played with the back to the wall and the players goes down with the ship. Gavaskar's last innings in Tests (a 90 odd in a losing cause against Pakistan) comes to mind. Probably his greatest ever Test knock.

Then you could look at, say, Zimbabwe. In the first six years of Zimbabwe cricket, they won just one Test out of 30. A series loss by them was almost always on the cards and quickly decided. During this period of weakness, some fabulous innings were played by Andy and Grant Flower, David Houghton, Guy Whittal, Paul Strang etc. One cant give less weightage to those amongst these knocks which Zimbabwe did not win.

I was reading the other day, I think in Noble's autobiography, that a losing cause can at times bring out the real difference between a good and a great player. Those who played under Bradman in the all conquering 1948 side had surely a much more settled frame of mind than the Australians of 1928-29 or 1954-55

Harvey's 92 (out of 184) against a rampaging Tyson in the second Test (England won by 38 runs) comes to mind from the 1954-55 series.

What you are doing is commendable and I would love to see the results but these comments are meant to just put my view on weight-age for it is a tricky matter

indeed... some of Lara's knocks will fall under this too... Even some of Sachin's, most notably the Chennai knock..

 

[SJS]

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.

Sure, so for dead wickets have lower weightage, it will reduce the un-necessary advantage the tall cores of batsmen from the sub-continent will get otherwise.

As for drawn games, I agree that dead games (not all drawn games are dead) must be treated differently with lower weightage.

So an Indian (or Pakistani) batsman could have his innings 'weighed down' , one because it was a dead wicket (you can fix a criteria for example number of wickets that fall in the last three days) and secondly because the game was dead ( for example no/little chance of a result at the time/during the innings was being played)

 

[Goughy]

Interesting. I cant see how strike rate would be more valuable than winning the game. There is a reason teams take the field and it isnt to score fast.

Also how does the weighting for 'game situation' impact openers coming in at 0/0?

 

[The Sean]

While I can see the appeal of marking up a knock that helps to win a game - like SJS says it's not the be-all and end-all.

Of Stan McCabe's three once-in-a-lifetime innings during the 1930s, none came in an Australian victory. This in no way diminshes their status.

How does Viv's 120* in Multan in 1980 rate? I know he scored it out of a total of 249 in the 1st innings and it was a low scoring match.

 

[archie mac]

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?

Not a bad effort, what about the Slater effort at the SCG against England? I remember this being the only behind Bannerman as a % of an innings

And also what about the effort of Jessop circa 1902?

 

[Goughy]

We pay far too much importance to the winning of a Test.

I dont really agree with that.

There may be rare cases of great innings in drawn Tests but they are a minority.

Cricket isnt art (as much as some people would want it to be). Additional attention must be paid to those efforts that have value. ie the team accomplished its aim to win the match.

Just as a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un, a great performance in a win has to always be better than the equivelant in a draw.

 

[bagapath]

our love for great knocks in losing causes comes from a lot of romanticism. while such a knock has its own beauty a similar score against a similar bowling attack resulting in a victory deserves to be given more importance. winning is not everything. but it is pretty much everything.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

How does Deano's double rate?

 

[archie mac]

Australia weren't all that better either... They gave us roads after Melbourne...

That is all they give in Aust (these days)

 

[Days of Grace]

Just edited the list. Now a top 30. See the first post.


Interesting debate about how much weighage to give winning. At the moment it is 7.5%, which is hardly that high. I might put it down to 5%. But then Astle's knock would go above Lara's 153. Which do you think was greater?

SJS, the point you raised about high scoring draws is covered in the match average (no.3 in the criteria). Basically, how much is the batsmen's innings worth compared to others in the match. Gooch's knock (which is currently no.1) was almost 11x the average of all other batsman in the match (including himself in the 1st inns).

 

[Days of Grace]

Have thought of a new criteria:
% of runs scored with the tail.

Think of Clem Hill's great knock in this match:

Cricinfo - 4th Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Jan 29-Feb 2, 1898

If we take the tail as starting at 6 down, then he scored 81% of the runs scored whilst he was at the crease with the tail. You could argue that is one of the greatest knocks in test history.

An underrated player was Hill, esp. in comparison with Trumper.

 

[The Sean]

Just edited the list. Now a top 30. See the first post.


Interesting debate about how much weighage to give winning. At the moment it is 7.5%, which is hardly that high. I might put it down to 5%. But then Astle's knock would go above Lara's 153. Which do you think was greater?

SJS, the point you raised about high scoring draws is covered in the match average (no.3 in the criteria). Basically, how much is the batsmen's innings worth compared to others in the match. Gooch's knock (which is currently no.1) was almost 11x the average of all other batsman in the match (including himself in the 1st inns).

What was the change in criteria that lifted Gooch above Bradman?

 

[The Sean]

Have thought of a new criteria:
% of runs scored with the tail.

Think of Clem Hill's great knock in this match:

Cricinfo - 4th Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Jan 29-Feb 2, 1898

If we take the tail as starting at 6 down, then he scored 81% of the runs scored whilst he was at the crease with the tail. You could argue that is one of the greatest knocks in test history.

An underrated player was Hill, esp. in comparison with Trumper.

Dear old Clement has a few admirers on these boards - Archie Mac I believe is the president of his fan club.

 

[Goughy]

Interesting debate about how much weighage to give winning. At the moment it is 7.5%, which is hardly that high. I might put it down to 5%.

That would make no sense at all.

If anything the weighting to winning needs to increase.

 

[The Sean]

That would make no sense at all.

If anything the weighting to winning needs to increase.

I think it depends on how much influence the teammates had on the result as well.

Example A: Consider a team chasing 450 in the 4th innings to win - Player A scores a magnificent 200* but his teammates let him down and they're all out for 420, thus losing the match.

Example B: Now consider the same situation - Player A plays the exact same innings, but one of his teammates puts his head down and sticks around for an invaluable half century late on and they reach 450/8 to record an amazing win.

Player A played exactly the same innings in both cases there - would you rate Example B a better knock though?

 

[Goughy]

Player A played exactly the same innings in both cases there - would you rate Example B a better knock though?

Absolutely. They do not compare. There is a context to everything.

 

[The Sean]

Absolutely. They do not compare. There is a context to everything.

Fair enough, I'm not sure whether or not I would but I can see your point and it's a more than reasonable one.

 

[Xuhaib]

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?

It was a quick pitch and the bowling attack was absolute quality (Donald, Pollock, early Klusner and Fannie) the top order apart from Anwar was blown away and so he had to bat with the tail for a long time.

I think I would rate it slighly better then Akmal's 100 since he was facing a much better bowling attack though Akmal's 100 came from a more hopeless situation. But these two are easily the best 2 test innings I have seen by a Pakistani batsman.