Request for Top 10 PWC all-time Test innings

[-dude-]

Hello friends,

This is a nice site, I've just registered and have spent a few hours reading. I was wondering if anyone can give me a link to the top 10 PWC all-time test innings. Obviously, those details were on PWC'S site previously,(as an article, written after Matthew Hayden's 380) but now PWC is gone and the ICC site hasn't got historical data up yet. All I remember about the article is that Hayden's 380 at Perth, Laxman's 281 at Calcutta, Lara's 213 at Kingston and Gooch's 154* at Leeds were all in the top ten rate innings of all-time!

Thanks

 

[marc71178]

Was Hayden's 380 really there?

I'd be very doubtful if it were.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, he did score almost 30% of the runs in the test in a single innings, and Heath Streak for one was not actually rated THAT low at the time. It's a stretch, but I could maybe see it slotting in the bottom of the top 10 somewhere.

 

[SJS]

Hello friends,

This is a nice site, I've just registered and have spent a few hours reading. I was wondering if anyone can give me a link to the top 10 PWC all-time test innings. Obviously, those details were on PWC'S site previously,(as an article, written after Matthew Hayden's 380) but now PWC is gone and the ICC site hasn't got historical data up yet. All I remember about the article is that Hayden's 380 at Perth, Laxman's 281 at Calcutta, Lara's 213 at Kingston and Gooch's 154* at Leeds were all in the top ten rate innings of all-time!

Thanks

Position Name Score For Against Venue Season Wisden Rating
1 DG Bradman 270 Australia England Melbourne 1936-37 262.4
2 BC Lara 153* West Indies Australia Bridgetown 1998-99 255.2
3 GA Gooch 154* England West Indies Headingley 1991 252.0
4 IT Botham 149* England Australia Headingley 1981 240.8
5 DG Bradman 299* Australia South Africa Adelaide 1931-32 236.8
6 VVS Laxman 281 India Australia Calcutta 2000-01 234.8
7 C Hill 188 Australia England Melbourne 1897-98 234.2
8 Azhar Mahmood 132 Pakistan South Africa Durban 1997-98 232.6
9 KJ Hughes 100* Australia West Indies Melbourne 1981-82 229.7
10 BC Lara 375 West Indies England St John's 1993-94 228.1


AND AS A BONUS....top 10 BOWLING PERFORMANCES TOO

Position Name Figures For Against Venue Season Wisden Rating
1 HJ Tayfield 9 for113 South Africa England Johannesburg 1956-577 253.9
2 A Kumble 10 for 74 India Pakistan Delhi 1998-99 248.6
3 JC Laker 10 for 53 England Australia Old Trafford 1956 241.7
4 JC White 8 for 126 England Australia Adelaide 1928-29 238.8
5 RJ Hadlee 9 for 52 New Zealand Australia Brisbane 1985-86 237.1
6 DE Malcolm 9 for 57 England South Africa The Oval 1994 234.4
7 RGD Willis 8 for 43 England Australia Headingley 1981 226.1
8 H Verity 8 for 43 England Australia Lord's 1934 225.1
9 WJ O'Reilly 7 for 54 Australia England Trent Bridge 1934 224.3
10 GD McKenzie 8 for 71 Australia West Indies Melbourne 1968-69 224.1

 

[twctopcat]

This is a great site and i think i'm right in saying these are the pwc top 10 batting/bowling etc.

 

[-dude-]

Ok, I can see the Wisden top 10 is a fair subjective criteria of the top ten test innings.....but it is not the top 10 PWC algorithmic list. I know for sure that Hayden was there because Streak had a high bowling rating and 380 will always get a big rating anyway due to the sheer volume of the runs in a winning cause.

 

[twctopcat]

Ok, I can see the Wisden top 10 is a fair subjective criteria of the top ten test innings.....but it is not the top 10 PWC algorithmic list. I know for sure that Hayden was there because Streak had a high bowling rating and 380 will always get a big rating anyway due to the sheer volume of the runs in a winning cause.

On the contrary, it is an objective list taking into account the quality of opposition, the type of pitch, volume of runs and the situation it was scored(importance of innings). This is why Hayden's isn't up there as the attack was brilliant (granted Streak and Price) and it was made among other big scores by the australians.

 

[SJS]

Ok, I can see the Wisden top 10 is a fair subjective criteria of the top ten test innings.....but it is not the top 10 PWC algorithmic list. I know for sure that Hayden was there because Streak had a high bowling rating and 380 will always get a big rating anyway due to the sheer volume of the runs in a winning cause.

By the way, Hayden's 380 isnt in the top 100 also !!


http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat100.htm

 

[Black Thunder]

By the way, Hayden's 380 isnt in the top 100 also !!


http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat100.htm

i think this shows a bit of a flaw in the system.

I'm not saying it should be regarded as one of the very best innings of all times, but just the sheer volume of runs alone should really have it in the top 100 at least. Probably in the 70-80 range.

Once a batsmen gets himself set like that at the crease, the standard of the bowling becomes pretty irrelevant. You could have the bowlers bowling hand grenades to him, and whether he gets out or hits a six is usually only going to be decided by the batsmen himself. This far into an innings they'll generally only get themselves out be getting a little over confident.

 

[Dasa]

I think these ratings are a bit flawed as well. There was an interesting article in Wisden Asia Cricket recently (I think it was on CricInfo as well) about how Indian innings aren't rated very highly in this system because it places such an emphasis on the match result, and India hasn't been a team that has won a lot in it's history. Thus, most 'great' innings played by Indians haven't had any effect on the match result and aren't rated highly. This would affect other historically poor teams as well.

 

[SJS]

I think these ratings are a bit flawed as well. There was an interesting article in Wisden Asia Cricket recently (I think it was on CricInfo as well) about how Indian innings aren't rated very highly in this system because it places such an emphasis on the match result, and India hasn't been a team that has won a lot in it's history. Thus, most 'great' innings played by Indians haven't had any effect on the match result and aren't rated highly. This would affect other historically poor teams as well.

Yes. Thats right. It places too much emphasis on a win.

A team could be following on 400 runs behind and a batsman scores a big double or even triple hundred and gives his team a fighting chance but they lose. Surely the batsman could have done nothing more.

It gives too much advantage to those playing for stronger teams which is a bit unfair.

 

[SJS]

Laxmans 281 at Calcutta is recognised as the 6th alltime great innings but suppose he had scored the same number of runs but the Aussies had knocked off the target with six wickets to spare, would it have made his innings any lesser. How can anything that happens after his innings is over, affect his performance's assessment ?

 

[Jono]

Yes. Thats right. It places too much emphasis on a win.

A team could be following on 400 runs behind and a batsman scores a big double or even triple hundred and gives his team a fighting chance but they lose. Surely the batsman could have done nothing more.

It gives too much advantage to those playing for stronger teams which is a bit unfair.

No because in that case they 'choked' and are thus an overrated batsman and a 'FTB'

 

[marc71178]

This is a great site and i think i'm right in saying these are the pwc top 10 batting/bowling etc.

No, they're not.

PwC has Gooch's as number 1, but I can't remember the rest!

 

[marc71178]

By the way, Hayden's 380 isnt in the top 100 also !!


http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat100.htm

It's hardly surprising, seeing as in July 2001 he hadn't even played that innings!

 

[marc71178]

I think these ratings are a bit flawed as well. There was an interesting article in Wisden Asia Cricket recently (I think it was on CricInfo as well) about how Indian innings aren't rated very highly in this system because it places such an emphasis on the match result, and India hasn't been a team that has won a lot in it's history.

If that was so then there wouldn't be Indians up at number 1 so frequently.

The match result emphasis isn't that great.

 

[SJS]

It's hardly surprising, seeing as in July 2001 he hadn't even played that innings!

 

[marc71178]

It surprised me, but then again the actual page doesn't have a date on it!

 

[Neil Pickup]

The Wisden 100 was done with a computer algorithm, too.

 

[Dasa]

If that was so then there wouldn't be Indians up at number 1 so frequently.

The match result emphasis isn't that great.

Sorry, I got a bit confused there I think.
I was referring to the Wisden 100, not the PwC Top 10 ratings.