text:
All-time visiting XIs - part one
I must thank Pawan Mathur for providing the spark, by asking for the best all-time XI to tour India. That enabled me to think of going all the way and creating this pair of articles. This was indeed a massive task inasmuch as it combined raw analysis, objective deductions, some subjective considerations and finally, nuanced team-selection processes. Some elements of my own personal preferences come in but I would put that at no more than five percent. I have been true to the numbers as much as I could have been.
What is the objective? Stated in a single sentence, it is to determine the best XI to tour each of the major Test-playing countries. All the selected players should have performed outstandingly in the respective countries but must also form an effective balanced XI which should be capable of doing well in imaginary series on the Elysian fields against the best XI the home team(s) could put together. Of course, the local conditions of the country would be replicated for these Tests: a few renowned pitch curators would already have reached there! All the players who visited the concerned country should be considered and should have equal chances. Most importantly I had to constantly remind myself that this was a true case of peer performance appraisal, despite the fact that I was analysing players from different teams. The common ground between the players was the country they visited.
There is a world of difference between selecting an all-time XI that visited a specific country and performed well there and selecting an all-time XI for the country. A lot of data is necessary but we cannot let the data overwhelm us. We must be able to clearly understand the importance of players being productive, performing and having a clear understanding of the level of opposition faced by the player. At rare times we should be prepared to take left-field decisions. We should not select the bowler combination blindly, based on pre-conceived ideas. We must be able to go against the wind.
Finally I want this analysis and tables to provide a comprehensive insight into the away performances of players: batsmen, bowlers, allrounders and wicketkeepers.
Batsmen analysis
Let me outline the steps below. Let us first take batsmen.
1. A cut-off of 500 runs is used to determine all the qualifying batsmen. England had 129 batsmen and Sri Lanka 14. But some base has to be laid down. This means that the player participated in a very good four-match series or a good five-match series at a minimum. If the player achieved this in a three-Test series, let us accept that he has achieved something spectacular. Enough care has been taken to ensure that flashes in the pan do not find their way in.
2. Scoring runs is an important factor. More runs indicate productivity and experience in handling the local conditions. But it is also true that more tours and more Tests mean more runs. Hence this is assigned 33.33% weight. The points to each batsman are allocated in a firm top-down manner. The scorer of the maximum runs in this country is assigned 33.33 points and the others are assigned proportionate points. This will ensure equality whether it is Australia (highest by Jack Hobbs, with 2493 runs) or New Zealand (Javed Miandad leading with 928 runs), and ensure that the concept of peer comparisons is very strongly implemented.
3. If there is a single reason why I considered abandoning batting average in favour of the highly nuanced RpAI (Runs per Adjusted Innings), it is the case of Jimmy Adams. Adams played three Tests in India, scoring 39, 81, 125*, 23, 174* and 78*, and came out with an average of 173.33. This is a monster number which would kill all logical processes. No way am I going to take the 400*, 365* and in Adams' case, 174* as "zero innings". Most readers would be familiar with the RpAI concept. A brief explanation follows.
Let us say that a batsman has a career RpI (Runs per Innings) of 40 and scores of 15, 24*, 86*, 12*, 18, 30*, 121*, 140, 91 and 23* in ten innings under consideration. His batting average is a way-out 140.00 (560/4). His raw RpI is an unfair 56.00 (560/10), since he has remained not out on four small scores. To determine the RpAI, my own creation used extensively for my analyses, I take the innings as completed (1.0) if it exceeds the career RpI or he is dismissed. This is a very fair base indeed. To take care of the contentious low not-outs I take the proportionate value of the innings. In this example, the RpAI is 68.50 (560/(1.0 + 0.6 + 1.0 + 0.3 + 0.75 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.525). It is a very balanced measure and does not penalise the middle-order batsmen for their not outs (as the raw RpI would have done), nor the early batsmen for their getting out more often than others (as the average does).
So I will use the RpAI, which is a total performance measure for this analysis. In view of the importance of this measure, it is assigned 44.44% weight (two-thirds of the remaining 66.667%). The points to each batsman are allocated in a firm top-down manner. The highest RpAI value in the country is assigned 44.44 points and the others are assigned proportionate points. This will work well whether it is New Zealand (Highest by Wally Hammond, with RpAI of 214.00) or Australia (Hobbs, leading with a middling RpAI of 73.20).
4. David Gower scored 746 runs in the West Indies against a collection of the most devastating pace bowlers who set foot on the Test arena: Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Malcolm Marshall, Colin Croft, Joel Garner, Patrick Patterson and Courtney Walsh. Ricky Ponting scored 1169 runs in the West Indies against a collection of average bowlers. These two are not comparable. To take care of this, I have determined the weighted average of the bowling quality faced by each batsman. Every innings he played is weighted by the bowling quality specific to that innings, and an average arrived at. This weighted average of bowling quality is measured against the median value and an index arrived at.
This index is determined at either side of 1.0. Gower's index is a very high 1.33 and Ponting's a somewhat low 0.84. Thus it can be seen that this is an exact measure and does not make any assumptions or estimates. This measure is assigned 22.22% weight. Points to each batsman are allocated in a different manner. An index value of 1.0 is allotted 22.22 points and the others proportionately. This is to take care of the wide variations in bowling quality across the ages. The index is an exact number and the batsman gets above-par or below-par values depending on the type of bowling faced.
The three values are summed and a total Batting Index arrived at. The top ten batsmen for each country are taken for selection. To the extent possible, I would do the selection from this lot of ten batsmen per country. The only reason I might have to go out is if there is a dearth of batsmen for a specialist batting position, like opening. I am happy to state that I had to do this just twice.
Bowlers analysis
1. A cut-off of 25 wickets (20 for Pakistan, because of paucity of Tests) is used to determine all the qualifying bowlers. This indicates a very good performance in a four-Test series. England had 86 bowlers who qualified and Sri Lanka 11.
2. Capturing wickets is an important factor. More wickets indicate productivity and experience in handling the local conditions. But it is also true that more tours and more Tests mean more wickets. Hence this is assigned 33.33% weight. The points to each bowler are allocated in a firm top-down manner. The bowler with the maximum wickets in this country is assigned 33.33 points and the others are assigned proportionate points. This will ensure whether it is England (highest by Shane Warne, with 129 wickets) or Sri Lanka (highest, again Warne, with 48 wickets), the concept of peer comparisons is very strongly implemented.
3. There is no problem with the wonderful measure of bowling average, which is a lovely composite of the strike rate and bowling accuracy. The bowling average, in my opinion, is the best cricketing measure available, especially across many Tests. So I will use the bowling average, which is a total performance measure for this analysis. In view of the importance of this measure, it is assigned a 44.44% weight (two-thirds of the remaining 66.667%). The points to each bowler are allocated in a firm top-down manner. The lowest bowling average value in the country is assigned 44.44 points and the others are assigned proportionate points. This will ensure that whether it is South Africa (lowest by George Lohmann, with 5.80, which I have normalised to 10.00) or Pakistan (Muttiah Muralitharan with 21.46), the concept of peer comparisons is very strongly implemented.
4. Iqbal Qasim captured 29 wickets in India against a collection of some of the toughest batsmen who ever assembled: Sunil Gavaskar, Dilip Vengsarkar, Mohinder Amarnath and Mohammad Azharuddin. Fazal Mahmood also captured 29 wickets against India against a very much pedestrian collection of batsmen. To take care of this, I have determined a weighted average of the batting quality faced by each bowler. The wickets a bowler captured in every spell are weighed by the batting quality of that innings and an average arrived at. This weighted average of batting quality is measured against the median value and an index arrived at, as explained under batting.
This index is determined at either side of 1.0. Qasim's index is a high 1.12 and Mahmood's, a somewhat low 0.71. Thus it can be seen that this is an exact measure and does not make any assumptions or estimates. This measure is assigned 22.22% weight. The points to each bowler are allocated in a different manner. An index value of 1.0 is allotted 22.22 points and the others proportionately. This is to take care of the wide variations in batting quality across the ages. The index is an exact number and the bowler gets above-par or below-par values depending on the type of batting he bowled to.
The three values are summed and a total Bowling Index arrived at. The top ten bowlers for each country are taken for selection. To the extent possible, I would do the selection from this lot of ten bowlers per country. The only reason I might have to go out is if there is a total dearth of a spinner. I am happy to state that I did not have to go out of this collection of ten top bowlers for any country.
The wicketkeeper has his own index which is 60% for the keeping ability, the sole measure available being DpT (Dismissals per Test) and 40% for the batting index. The allrounders are evaluated on an equal 50-50 allocation between batsmen and bowlers.
The six Tests Pakistan played at Dacca will be considered home Tests for Pakistan since Dacca was part of Pakistan then. The UAE Tests are strictly neutral since UAE does not play Test cricket. However, there are six other Tests which need some explanation. The three Tests in 1912 in England between Australia and South Africa, the two Tests in 2010 in England between Australia and Pakistan and the Test in 2002 in Sri Lanka between Australia and Pakistan. All these Tests have been considered as visiting Tests for both teams. Out of these six, the last one is the most relevant since Ponting and Warne did very well for Australia. In view of the smaller number of players who have played in Sri Lanka, I cannot really afford to leave out this Test. The matches in England do not add much to the key players' numbers.
We can debate till the cows come home, and until they leave the next morning, whether the base longevity measure like runs/wickets should get 25% weight or 40% weight. I have gone on common sense and my own insights. There are three important measures. The longevity-related measure has been given a third of the weight and the two other performance and quality measures share two-thirds. Any argument on this can only be theoretical.
Team composition
To the extent possible, I would select six batsmen, a keeper and four bowlers. I would make sure that one of the batsmen is a real allrounder and could easily share the extra bowling load. Among the batsmen, I would strive to select two opening batsmen and if not possible, one opening batsmen and another top-order batsman who has successfully opened in Tests. The bowler combination is likely to be three pacers and one spinner. In rare cases, and if there is an excellent spinner available, this might change to two plus two.
I will provide the top-ten tables for batsmen and bowlers for each country and the final XI. Then the selection will be covered in reasonable detail. In view of the length of the introduction and process descriptions, the first part will include the first three Test-playing countries: Australia, England and South Africa. The second part will cover the other five countries/regions: India, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. At the end I will provide a brief summary of the selected players.
I have to apologise to the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe followers. It is impossible for me to get sufficient data for these two late entrants. Tables with three batsmen or three bowlers do not help in team selection.
A captain will be selected based on my own familiarity with the players' achievements. Maybe a selection or two would be a surprise. Readers must remember that I have followed Test cricket for well over half a century.
1. Australia
First, the tables listing the top ten batsmen and bowlers to visit Australia.
|JB Hobbs
|WR Hammond
|H Sutcliffe
|GA Faulkner
|SR Tendulkar
|IVA Richards
|KF Barrington
|CH Lloyd
|DI Gower
|V Kohli
|RJ Hadlee
|CEL Ambrose
|SF Barnes
|MA Holding
|RGD Willis
|GA Lohmann
|IT Botham
|Kapil Dev
|H Larwood
|R Peel
The selection of the eleven players to tour Australia is quite easy because we have a history of over 13 decades of Test cricket. The multitude of Tests ensures that the cream always rises to the top. Barring a single position, the team virtually selects itself.
The best ever opening combination that walked side-by-side on to the cricket field is there at the top of the table. Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe scored over 4300 runs across a span of 26 years. They opened the innings 15 times and scored 1202 runs at an average of just over 80. This glittering opening saga was studded with six partnerships over 100. They are followed by another equally great England batsman, Wally Hammond. Over 1500 runs at a RpAI value just over 56 makes this trio at the top a formidable one.
Then come two modern greats: Sachin Tendulkar and Viv Richards. Significant experience, but with RpAI values, just below 50. The wealth of experience at the top is unmatched. At No.6 is Aubrey Faulkner, whose performances in Australia are way above what the other allrounders have achieved. The bowling of the two allrounders, Hammond and Faulkner, is a bonus. Note Virat Kohli's presence in the top ten. Another good tour, he would be in the top five and it would be difficult to leave him out.
The keeping position presents a dilemma. Overall, Junior Murray of West Indies has better figures, however achieved across five Tests only. So I have gone for the overall excellence of Alan Knott, exhibited over many years and Tests. In 13 Tests, he dismissed 51 batsmen and scored 643 runs at 29.62.
The three pace bowlers select themselves. The performances of Richard Hadlee, Curtly Ambrose and Sydney Barnes, with over 70 wickets at excellent averages mean that they would just have to walk into the team. The fourth position presents a dilemma. Michael Holding is there in the fourth position. However I need to strike a balance and all the pitches in Australia help spinners, with their bounce. So I have selected Bobby Peel, who played between 1884 and 1896, to fill the spinner's position. He is placed in the tenth position. The next spinner is Lance Gibbs, in the 20th position with a high average of 33. Hence I am going to stick with Peel, who had three good tours of Australia.
The final team for Australia:
I have selected Richards as the captain to lead this team to Australia. Lest we forget, the only time Richards captained in Australia, it was an overwhelming win for West Indies.
2. England
|DG Bradman
|IVA Richards
|GC Smith
|AR Border
|CG Greenidge
|GS Sobers
|R Dravid
|SR Waugh
|SR Tendulkar
|MA Taylor
|SK Warne
|MD Marshall
|GD McGrath
|DK Lillee
|TM Alderman
|CEL Ambrose
|J Garner
|RR Lindwall
|CA Walsh
|MA Holding
The selection for the all-time best XI to tour England is less cut and dry. Surprisingly, the modern players have done quite well in England. Graeme Smith was magnificent in England and scored well over 100 runs per Test. His RpAI was a superb 64 and he walks in as the first choice opener. Gordon Greenidge suffers only in comparison with Smith. Otherwise he has done very well in England and is the obvious choice to partner Smith. The availability of two world class openers precludes the necessity of selecting someone like Rahul Dravid to open the batting.
For about fifteen seconds I thought of leaving out the No.3 batsman and then decided to play it safe. I did not want to get lynched. Don Bradman it is at No.3. His RpAI in England at 91.14 is better than his career RpAI of 89.50. He loved touring England.
Richards and Dravid get in at Nos. 4 and 5 by comfortably out-performing their rivals for these positions. Their RpAI values are above 60, truly remarkable performances. This measure gets Dravid ahead of Allan Border, who is placed above him in the table. At No.6 is arguably, the greatest batting allrounder ever, Garry Sobers. The numbers speak for what Sobers achieved in England: 1800 runs at a near-50 RpAI and 62 wickets at just over 30.
The keeper's place is taken by Gilchrist, although I must say that Brad Haddin ran him close. They played ten Tests each, scored just over 500 runs and dismissed 45 and 49 batsmen respectively. Gilchrist had the better RpAI (37.21 vs 28.50). In fact, Haddin had higher rating points. However it came down to whom I wanted batting at No.7 and I decided that would be Gilchrist.
The bowling selection was rather easy. Warne is the only bowler to have captured over 100 wickets in a foreign country. He dismissed Mike Gatting with his first ball, and Steve Harmison with the last ball he bowled in England. In between he delivered 6749 balls and captured 127 wickets. All at a pace-bowler like average of around 22. The next two bowlers, Marshall and Glenn McGrath have almost similar bowling stints in England and finished with identical rating points. They select themselves also. Then come a host of fast bowlers, Dennis Lillee, Terry Alderman, Ambrose and Garner with similar rating points. I decided that I have no reason to go past Lillee, the first among these lot.
The final team to tour England:
It is not rocket science to anoint Bradman as the captain.
3. South Africa
|WR Hammond
|DA Warner
|JB Hobbs
|SR Tendulkar
|KF Barrington
|SP Fleming
|RT Ponting
|RN Harvey
|BC Lara
|E Paynter
|SF Barnes
|SK Warne
|CV Grimmett
|J Srinath
|MG Johnson
|GA Lohmann
|JH Wardle
|WJ O'Reilly
|GD McGrath
|AK Davidson
The selection of the team to tour South Africa was not easy. Two positions presented dilemmas.
The first opener selected himself as he did against Australia. Jack Hobbs, with nearly 1000 runs at an excellent RpAI of 60.62, brooks no argument. However his partner was a real headache for me. The candidates were David Warner (very high rating points but only 543 runs) and Andrew Strauss (926 runs at 48.59). For quite some time I seriously considered having Brian Lara open. Finally I plumped for Warner. I did not want to incur the wrath of the South African followers by foisting Strauss on them when Warner was available. His numbers are also outstanding. And to see Hobbs and Warner (not "Plum" but "David") walk out at Kingsmead would have been something. Each could have learnt something from the other.
Hammond, with nearly 1500 runs, is an automatic choice for the No. 3 position. South Africa is not the place where high averages were obtained and most of the top batsmen were at RpAI figures below 50. I thought long and hard and finally settled on Lara, Sachin Tendulkar and Neil Harvey, all within the top 10. Let me say that these are my personal selections. Any one of those who missed out could be selected. Although I must say that Barrington, Ponting and Fleming sounds much less exciting that Harvey, Tendulkar and Lara.
Gilchrist gets the wicketkeeper position quite comfortably. He and Russell are comparable on the wicketkeeping front, but Gilchrist wins hand down in the batting stakes. In six Tests, he dismissed 26 batsmen and scored 523 runs at 52.30.
The single series of four Tests in which Sydney Barnes captured 49 wickets is enough to pencil his name first within seconds of starting the bowler selection. Warne is second; his good haul of 61 wickets at a sub-25 average lets him get in quite comfortably. Clarrie Grimmett's numbers are very good: 44 wickets at 14.59 cannot be ignored despite the fact that he was also a legspinner. It really does not matter. Two great legspinners in action would be a sight to behold. The last position left me in a dilemma. Javagal Srinath and Mitchell Johnson had almost identical bowling numbers, including the average, varying only in the second decimal point. However, Johnson's much better batting skills got him the fourth bowling spot. The allrounder, of course, is Hammond.
The final team to tour South Africa:
Hammond is the designated captain. One of England's best captains ever, he would do an excellent job of leading this collection of greats.
Part two will follow in two weeks' time. I will cover the all-time best XIs to India, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in that article. I will also provide a summary of the selections.
Please do send in your comments on the methodology and these three teams. However, you might be tempted to send in your selections for the remaining five teams. Per se, I have no problem with that. But I will not provide any response and will just publish your comment, as it was sent. It may be a better idea to post such comments after part two is published.
Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems
Comments have now been closed for this article
pramathesh on February 21, 2017, 7:04 GMT
Article could scope out that in selection of all time best visiting XI from 15 March 1877 till date, following do not matter-1) official max duration of test to be played was 3 days/4days/5days/6 days/timeless 2) player also had to give time to T20 or 50 over odi or both or just play test cricket 3) an over had 4 balls or 6 balls or 8 balls. 4) SA did not play test for 20 years or reason for lack of tour was not due to fault of player. 5)presence or absence of limit on use of no. of bouncers/over, neutral umpires, DRS, 3rd umpire & protective equipment .
SANDEEP7282 on February 20, 2017, 2:58 GMT
Even though exprience of following brings you wisdom, it is still an assumption . I don't think yesteryear players are not that great as they are glorified. They are not athletic as these days nor professional. I see videos of old cricket, there is s day lite difference. I guess every cricketer believes the generation they played or watched is the best or the hardest and we are fed into this with emotional bonding. Be practical! sport is getting better not going down the hill
Kartikeya on February 19, 2017, 11:10 GMT
Ananth, This series is also an excellent way of determining the greatest players of all time. If a player makes these teams, its highly probable that this player is an all-time-great. This has been a terrific series.... cheers Kartikeya
alastair on February 18, 2017, 13:52 GMT
For South Africa don't you think lara,tendulkar and ponting would've been the better choice? ........Although i do acknowledge harvey's figures, concept of having these 3 in your batting order just amazes me.
cornel1376908 on February 18, 2017, 9:29 GMT
The analysis is flawed because of the use of subjective percentage weightings. The reason? Those weightings were chosen by the author. A different author can use different weights and get very different results.
Much better to use the average or the median or both - assuming the sample is large enough - say 30 innings for batsmen and bowlers and the redo the analysis.
cornel1376908 on February 18, 2017, 8:26 GMT
Choose different % "weights" and you will get different results.
MUZZ@MIL on February 18, 2017, 7:46 GMT
I always see people arguing or discussing whether Kohli can score the same amount of runs that he is scoring now in home test series or say Ashwin Jadeja these three most key players how would they perform against say Srilanka and Pakistan who are probably the only sides that can give real competition to India in India.The last time Srilanka played India in India was in 2009 which India won quite comfortably and against Pakistan was in 2007 which also India but the present 3 teams India,Srilanka and pakistan are completely different teams so really that would be some series India v Srilanka or India v Pakistan say at least 3 match test series In India ofcourse.
mmb6262651981 on February 18, 2017, 7:29 GMT
Dear Sir,
I am sure Fed's triumph at AO was a personal pleasure for you. The feelings are mutual. Don't you think England get the toughest of visitors!
Mohan on February 18, 2017, 7:13 GMT
Hi Anantha, My apologies for being a late reader. I had a query about the all-time visiting bowlers list to SA.
Could you take me through the computation of the BQ for S Barnes. He picked his 43 wickets there against a very weak SA batting line-up. At the risk of sounding harsh, not one name in any of the batting line ups have much pedigree. So, how did he end up with a BQ of 0.9 assigned to him when someone like a Warne has only a marginally higher 1.1. The batting line-ups Warne bowled against (although not immense), had some very good batsmen. I was expecting there to be a much larger difference in the BQ assigned to the two.
Footnote: Although I respect the stats of SF Barnes and appreciate the reported skills he had at his disposal (fast bowler who could bowl cutters), I've always felt the 7 tests he played against a very weak SA take his numbers to the stratosphere. 106 wickets of 20 matches at 21.58 (his record excluding SA) seems far more mortal.
Go not confuse the South African team of 2010/12 with the earlier teams. This had some world class players. Herbie Taylor, Dave Nourse, Aubrey Faulkner. And the Bow quality is also influenced a little with the period situation in terms of averages.
Suganthan on February 16, 2017, 10:12 GMT
Thank you for your reply Mr. Anantha Narayanan. Yeah, I know that. I know Kohli's run of form will come to an end. But again your comment regarding Kohli is in negative vibe. You are telling that it will be a tough task for Kohli to score runs/hundreds in SA(atleast more tough than Australia, right?). In Johannesburg, 119 runs in his very first Innings and almost another century (96 runs) in the second innings(wicket taken by part-timer JP Duminy). In second test, another good 46 in first innings, only failure in terms of runs (11 runs) in second innings. 4 Innings 272 runs, Avg - 68. This is Kohli's record for you in SA in 2013 tour. And these runs he scored against probably the best possible attack in SA in recent years which includes the likes of Steyn, Morkel,Philander, Kallis, Tahir,etc,. Do you think Kohli doesn't have the calibre to tackle the current SA pace attack which actually not in the league of their own predecessors.
pramathesh on February 21, 2017, 7:04 GMT
Article could scope out that in selection of all time best visiting XI from 15 March 1877 till date, following do not matter-1) official max duration of test to be played was 3 days/4days/5days/6 days/timeless 2) player also had to give time to T20 or 50 over odi or both or just play test cricket 3) an over had 4 balls or 6 balls or 8 balls. 4) SA did not play test for 20 years or reason for lack of tour was not due to fault of player. 5)presence or absence of limit on use of no. of bouncers/over, neutral umpires, DRS, 3rd umpire & protective equipment .
SANDEEP7282 on February 20, 2017, 2:58 GMT
Even though exprience of following brings you wisdom, it is still an assumption . I don't think yesteryear players are not that great as they are glorified. They are not athletic as these days nor professional. I see videos of old cricket, there is s day lite difference. I guess every cricketer believes the generation they played or watched is the best or the hardest and we are fed into this with emotional bonding. Be practical! sport is getting better not going down the hill
Kartikeya on February 19, 2017, 11:10 GMT
Ananth, This series is also an excellent way of determining the greatest players of all time. If a player makes these teams, its highly probable that this player is an all-time-great. This has been a terrific series.... cheers Kartikeya
alastair on February 18, 2017, 13:52 GMT
For South Africa don't you think lara,tendulkar and ponting would've been the better choice? ........Although i do acknowledge harvey's figures, concept of having these 3 in your batting order just amazes me.
cornel1376908 on February 18, 2017, 9:29 GMT
The analysis is flawed because of the use of subjective percentage weightings. The reason? Those weightings were chosen by the author. A different author can use different weights and get very different results.
Much better to use the average or the median or both - assuming the sample is large enough - say 30 innings for batsmen and bowlers and the redo the analysis.
cornel1376908 on February 18, 2017, 8:26 GMT
Choose different % "weights" and you will get different results.
MUZZ@MIL on February 18, 2017, 7:46 GMT
I always see people arguing or discussing whether Kohli can score the same amount of runs that he is scoring now in home test series or say Ashwin Jadeja these three most key players how would they perform against say Srilanka and Pakistan who are probably the only sides that can give real competition to India in India.The last time Srilanka played India in India was in 2009 which India won quite comfortably and against Pakistan was in 2007 which also India but the present 3 teams India,Srilanka and pakistan are completely different teams so really that would be some series India v Srilanka or India v Pakistan say at least 3 match test series In India ofcourse.
mmb6262651981 on February 18, 2017, 7:29 GMT
Dear Sir,
I am sure Fed's triumph at AO was a personal pleasure for you. The feelings are mutual. Don't you think England get the toughest of visitors!
Mohan on February 18, 2017, 7:13 GMT
Hi Anantha, My apologies for being a late reader. I had a query about the all-time visiting bowlers list to SA.
Could you take me through the computation of the BQ for S Barnes. He picked his 43 wickets there against a very weak SA batting line-up. At the risk of sounding harsh, not one name in any of the batting line ups have much pedigree. So, how did he end up with a BQ of 0.9 assigned to him when someone like a Warne has only a marginally higher 1.1. The batting line-ups Warne bowled against (although not immense), had some very good batsmen. I was expecting there to be a much larger difference in the BQ assigned to the two.
Footnote: Although I respect the stats of SF Barnes and appreciate the reported skills he had at his disposal (fast bowler who could bowl cutters), I've always felt the 7 tests he played against a very weak SA take his numbers to the stratosphere. 106 wickets of 20 matches at 21.58 (his record excluding SA) seems far more mortal.
Go not confuse the South African team of 2010/12 with the earlier teams. This had some world class players. Herbie Taylor, Dave Nourse, Aubrey Faulkner. And the Bow quality is also influenced a little with the period situation in terms of averages.
Suganthan on February 16, 2017, 10:12 GMT
Thank you for your reply Mr. Anantha Narayanan. Yeah, I know that. I know Kohli's run of form will come to an end. But again your comment regarding Kohli is in negative vibe. You are telling that it will be a tough task for Kohli to score runs/hundreds in SA(atleast more tough than Australia, right?). In Johannesburg, 119 runs in his very first Innings and almost another century (96 runs) in the second innings(wicket taken by part-timer JP Duminy). In second test, another good 46 in first innings, only failure in terms of runs (11 runs) in second innings. 4 Innings 272 runs, Avg - 68. This is Kohli's record for you in SA in 2013 tour. And these runs he scored against probably the best possible attack in SA in recent years which includes the likes of Steyn, Morkel,Philander, Kallis, Tahir,etc,. Do you think Kohli doesn't have the calibre to tackle the current SA pace attack which actually not in the league of their own predecessors.
Suganthan on February 16, 2017, 5:40 GMT
@SANTSEQ ON FEB 9, 2017, 11:49 GMT:Same question I wanted to ask him After Bangladesh match (Mat- 54, Inn - 92, NO - 6, Runs - 4451, Highest - 235, Average - 51.76). For reaching 60 avg he has to score 1189 runs in 8 inns. Going by Kohli's form (Just for calculation only) he will score around 600 runs in the upcoming Australia series which will move his avg from 51 .76 to around 55. Mr. Ananth how can you still believe that he wont achieve that 60 avg? "RE. Kohli, it is only my gut-feel and I would be very happy to see that my prediction is wrong. This is also substantiated by the feeling that he does not seem to be a big-innings batsman. Do I think he will cross 200 regularly? Probably not". What is your opinion now about his record breaking four double hundreds in as many as series? You told that he wont cross regularly but he is making 200s for fun and he becomes the first man in Test history to score four in four series. I am very happy that your prediction went wrong.
Please remember the platinum streaks during the past 15 years of Ponting, Mohd Yousuf, Sangakkara, Voges. All these end. Kohli has four more Tests to really get to as near 55 as possible. Then the tough Tests start.South Africa is not Australia, in terms of free strokeplay.
Ravee on February 15, 2017, 6:23 GMT
Ananth, From Nov 2016, "Player support...." article: I was wondering whether you did find out the answer for: What is the largest (+ and -) difference between a player's own index value and TSI for a match, series and career? Thank you. [[ Ravi, give me a day or two. Some nifty 'C' work is called for. Ananth ]]
Ravi, I was tied with multiple articles. I have some spare time now. Will look into it.
roshan4432430 on February 12, 2017, 5:13 GMT
Hi Ananth, I know this request is a little off-track. I just wonder if you can set up a dream match-up (or a 5 test series) between The Living XI vs The Departed XI (12th man and a manager also needed). Just the thought of having the likes of Sobers, Viv Richards, Lara, Sachin, Warne up against Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond(?), Marshall.
Why don't you yourself select two XIs and I will comment on that.
santys7554492 on February 9, 2017, 11:49 GMT
Hi Ananth thoroughly enjoyed this piece. Waiting for the follow up. On a different note, Kohli's just completed another ton as I write. Going by his form for the past season, just wanted to remind you on your words a few months ago "Let me put the Kohli requirement in another practical way. I will give Kohli a career total of 100 Tests and 168 dismissed innings. Well within the realms of possibility. Then, to reach a 60.0 average, he has to score another 7100 runs in the next 100 dismissed innings at an average of 71.0 (or an alternate presentation: 7100 runs in 59 Tests (no one barring Bradman has done this)). So the 60.0 average looks like a mirage for Kohli. " Looks like he is doing better than that. Good you haven't promised to go on a date with anyone like Eugenie Bouchard.
Without denying that he has outperformed beyond what is expected over the past six Tests (all at home), let us see whether a). Kohli would do that against Australia and b) in the forthcoming tough tours away. As of yesterday, he needed to score 2700 runs in the next 30 dismissed innings (possibly 20 Tests) to reach 60.0. I would still say 'Very, very difficult".
Pawan Mathur on February 9, 2017, 8:59 GMT
Also In the second part of the article - I am eagerly looking forward for two aspects - 1) The bowling combination selected for India - Whether it will be 3 fast bowlers + 1 spinner combination or 2 fast bowler+ 2 spinner combination (considering how Indian pitches behave) with perhaps a certain England all rounder who averaged 61 with the bat and 26 with filling the 5th bowler slot. 2) The bowling combination for West Indies - With no stand out performance by a spinner, have you gone for a all out 4 men pace attack. Looking eagerly for the answers in Part 2.
Have you checked out Murali's numbers in West Indies.
Pawan Mathur on February 9, 2017, 8:32 GMT
As I read this article along with the tables and the reply to the comments over and over again, I realize that it is impossible to leave out any of the names in these three lists of all time XI which have picked the top of the cream performers. A case in point is regarding my earlier comment on Imran Khan in England. All I can now is that if Imran was good in England, there was Sobers who was even better to fill the all-rounders slot. Perhaps the only subjective discretion one could exercise in these three tables is a choice between Bobby Peel and Michael Holding for the 4th bowler spot in Australia. Also, If you were allowed to take a squad of 14 to these three countries, whom would you chosen as three remaining players considering factors such team balance and pitch conditions. My choices: For Australia -Holding, Kapil and Gower, For England - Imran, Border, and Ambrose; For South Africa: Ponting, Lohmann and Mcgrath
Probably not a bad idea if the readers like you select the additional three players. I will only select the eleven, even in Part-2.
pramathesh on February 9, 2017, 8:15 GMT
Dear Ananth-Yes quantitative info is unavailable. Still one cannot deny that keepers have cleverly run-out the batsman & saved runs by trapping those extra deliveries. One instance of suggestion from keeper to bowler came In 2014 Lords test when Dhoni exposed to media that he had suggested Ishant to use short-pitch deliveries & hence India won. But a team like Aus will keep bowler-keeper communication total secret from anyone outside their team. Yes chemistry info is not explicitly available, one implicit info is 95 batters got out as 'c Lillee b Marsh'. Many batters were out as c Gilchrist b McGrath yet Gilchrist twittered an apology to McGrath for dropping a few off him. Spinner Saqlain Mushtaq was frustrated when keeper Moin Khan failed to stump-out Tendulkar on 90 in 1999 Chennai test or imagine how Kapil or Indians felt when Gooch went on to make 333 after keeper More dropped him on 33 off Kapil's delivery in 1990 Lords test.
pramathesh on February 9, 2017, 4:56 GMT
Dear Ananth-Thanks for the replies. I hope that keeper selection has been done by giving primary importance to stumpings+catches+runouts+runs saved by trapping bouncers, byes & wides & secondary importance to the runs scored by the keeper. Wicket keeping is specialized skill-keeper must have good chemistry with his bowlers, spot out quickly flaw of the batsman, place himself properly, quickly spot the chance to appeal for dismissal & keep on giving suggestions to the bowler on what line & length to use & also on other field placements. Expecting him also to bat well is too much.
A completely utopian, impractical and subjective set of statements. Where is this information available. Where is this chemistry information available. How does one quantify communications and suggestions. Where is the information on runouts available. Where is information on runs saved available.
pramathesh on February 8, 2017, 11:28 GMT
Dear Ananth, coming to your response on wicket-keeper: Against Eng &SA Russell is close to Gilchrist? Against Aus, which of the keepers from India, Pakistan, Eng, WI & NZ is coming close to Alan Knott?
I have already responded on England. It is Haddin who gives Gilchrist a run for his money.
In Australia, other than Junior Murray, Jacobs and Dujon are in the proximity of Knott. Dhoni's batting in Australia has been very poor (311 at 17.57). Wasim Bari's even poorer (198 at 7.91). But the scene is dominated by West Indian and English keepers.
pramathesh on February 8, 2017, 6:49 GMT
Dear Ananth, Coming to wicket-keeping:how do Syed Kirmani, Kiran More, MS Dhoni, Wasim Bari, Moin Khan, Kamran Akmal, Bob Taylor, Godfrey Evans, Jack Russell, Alec Stewart, Rohan Kanhai, Jeff Dujon, Deryck Murray, Ian Smith, Adam Parore, B Mccullum,Rod Marsh, Ian Healy compare with Alan Knott for Aus & with Adam Gilchrist for Eng & SA? Exclude English players for list vs Eng & exclude Australian players for list vs Aus. But i wont like to c Rod Marsh, Nayan Mongia & Akmal as their career was tainted by betting & match-fixing.
Too much information to give. Suffice to say that only Jack Russell was close to Gilchrist.
Ravee on February 7, 2017, 21:30 GMT
Bollo, You've taken that line out of context. I was purely talking about the bowling quality index Anantha has in the last column. Either way, you're gonna waste everyone's time if you're here to talk about that partial extract. To save us all time, McGrath, Warne and two part timers > any South African attack ever assembled! Over and out.
Just for the record, I have given the highest values below.
Highest avge bow quality faced: Gower's 746 runs against West indies at 1.33. Gooch's 864 runs against WI are at 1.32. Ulyett's 698 runs/Bates' 656 runs against Australia at 1.31. Sangakkara's 572 runs against South Africa are at 1.30.
Highest avge bat quality faced: Kumble's 49 wickets against Australia at 1.37. O'Reilly's 50 wkts against England are at 1.36. Steyn's 31 wkts against Australia are at 1.32. Harbhajan's 26 wickets against Sri Lanka are at 1.30.
pramathesh on February 7, 2017, 17:26 GMT
India toured Aus 11 times in 70 years for playing tests but has not won even a single test series in Aus. India toured Eng 18 times in 85 years for playing tests & has won test series 3 times in Eng. In tours upto 1946 India played 3-day tests in Eng. India toured South Africa 6 times in 25 years for playing tests but has not won even a single test series in SA. To win test series, team needs consistently good bowlers which Indian teams have never found. As expected no Indian bowler in visiting bowler list in Eng, SA & Aus -so no series win in SA, Aus for India & 3 series won in Eng are a surprise. Respect Sachin for standing out as the highest run maker for India in 1991 & 1999 Aus tours which India lost 4-0 and 3-0 in those 8 tests. Salute Laxman for 148 at Adelaide 2003 win, 79 at Perth 2008 win, 73 at Johannesburg 2006 win & 96 at Durban 2010 win.
A few years back I did a monumental exercise. I asked readers to select their all-time best XV and send to me. I wrote complex programs to extract the player names from the responses and created Excel files. Then I selected the all-time Readers' XV, based on the selections. I received well over 500 responses. I put no restrictions at all. A reader could have selected a team of 'Z's (Zampa. Zaheer Abbas, Zulqarnain, Zaheer Khan et al).
In that case you could have selected the team yourself. This is a different exercise. I am doing the selection, based on the weighted numbers. I cannot just go gallivanting in the table and select someone in the 34th position or 17th position because .................. His numbers have to stand up. . Laxman instead of Tendulkar, Ponting instead of Tendulkar, Sobers instead of Faulkner, Lara instead of Richards, Muralitharan in place of Warne et al are all suggestions which are fine for the readers but not for me. I set myself the tough condition that I will limit myself to the top-10. In Part-2, I had to cross that line once or twice (I am not sure of that as I write this). That is all.
Sure I want Bradman and Lara in all the 9 teams they can tour. But that is not a luxury I have given myself. All the readers should understand that.
I still think this exercise can be improved: Probably the Pitch quality and support available. Also change the weights for the five measures. One day I will do that. Until then I value your suggestions but have to stay within the almost rigid framework I have created.
pramathesh on February 7, 2017, 15:14 GMT
Sachin managed to tour Aus in 1991, 1999, 2003, 2008 & 2012. With experience of batting in 8 tests in Aus as part of Indian team in 1991 & 1999 tours, it was expected that Sachin will bat still better in 2003 series but he did so only in last test of that series. He had started facing fitness problems around 2003.After 2012 India tour to Aus, wished that he had retired before going to that tour. If his batting performance for only 2003 to 2012 Indian tours to Aus (12 tests) is considered then will he still be selected in the best all time visiting team XI to Aus?
Jay on February 7, 2017, 15:13 GMT
Everyone will have their choices, specially in case of weightage of each parameter. Leaving that aside, a great article!
Pawan Mathur on February 7, 2017, 13:12 GMT
1. You have rightly mentioned about taking care of 'flash in the pan' performances' such as Jimmy Adams scores in 1994-95 in India. Confining to the teams chosen for this article only and doing a statsguru check it looks as one time wonders and that too performing overseas have been very few in these three countries. i did not do a check on other countries, but have a feeling that such performances may be more in the subcontinent 2) I do not agree with readers who are asking for selecting a special home XI for each country. In most of the case this is likely to be an exact replica of each country's all time XI and the latter has been done many times in the past. Infact, it was this frequent selection of all time country XI, especially India ,on cricinfo (and other forums also), that led to me to think that the purpose of such exercise is incomplete unless the best opponent XI is identified and hence made a request to you for an all time visiting India XI.
It is possible. I would say that there might be surprises but not many. In any case there has not been a single collection of the all-time best HOME XIs. And India has been overkilled, I agree. Bit where have you seen similar XIs for, say, New Zealand or Sri Lanka.
Dave on February 7, 2017, 10:39 GMT
Is someone else going to speak to Ravim re. this..."One last thing. I couldn't help but notice that the South African bowling quality is consistently (significantly) higher than the Australians in the last 25 years"...or am I going to have to do it?
You are welcome to speak to Ravi !!!
Nyameko on February 7, 2017, 9:58 GMT
You do know Aubrey Faulkner was an excellent legspinner right. As a legspinning allrounder he should allow Micheal Holding into your team in Australia.
You will notice that in no team have I an all-rounder as a full-time bowler. But I understand your point. I did not want to deviate from the four bowlers concept.
anilsn9902680 on February 7, 2017, 9:18 GMT
Also, what measure did you use to quantify the bowling quality (faced by candidate batsmen) and vice-versa? Was it career RpAI / bowling averages? Thanks.
Batting quality is based on CTD-Home-RpAI and Bowling quality is based on CTD-Home-BowAverage.
Bilal on February 7, 2017, 9:15 GMT
does the criteria favour those who have played more games ?
... and performed.
Awais Khan Sherwani on February 7, 2017, 9:14 GMT
well waiting for XIs for SL & Ind where we can have some pakistanies , just like Akram,Imran,Younis,inzi & Saeed Anwar .... what about compiling XI for Trans continents , Asians to Europe or Australias & Vice Versa ....
anilsn9902680 on February 7, 2017, 9:13 GMT
Excellent statistical insights as always, Ananth. The weightings may seem ad-hoc at first glance but then, really, they aren't as the same yardstick gets applied to all candidates. A comment on comparing wicketkeepers: Do you think the DpT ought to be tempered with both the bowling quality (of one's own team) and the batting quality in front of the stumps? Although, I reckon this may not affect the eventual outcome as the set of wicketkeeping candidates is a relatively constricted one?
On wicket-keepers, maybe a better idea is to have both the number of dismissals (experience/longevity) and DpT (performance).
How does one relate bowler's quality to Wicket-keeping. There are pace bowlers who dismiss more batsmen caught behind and there would be pace bowlers who would get more bowled/lbw dismissals.
partha on February 7, 2017, 8:13 GMT
Ananth, Exactly you asked the right question . What is the point ? I am not making any general statement but specific to your article as its very theoretical and it cannot be proved by stating that Ponting scored more runs in west indies against weak bowling. To answer your question let me ask you a question " good batsmen never get out against weak bowling " or specific to your article you think Ponting would have have scored if he would have faced the windies pace battery. Let me add that the current crop of batsmen have much better adaptability to face extreme pace bowling I also include Ponting as he was very gutsy and Pull short was his bread and butter shot .
Palash on February 7, 2017, 7:58 GMT
"Do not go by number of Tests but by number of runs." ~ Dear Ananth, your comment on Warner's selection somewhat contradicts your objective to avoid flashes in the pan :) One shouldn't walk into an all time XI based on one successful series, that's my take on Warner's selection.
I stand by what I said. It would be funny if Warner got disqualified after scoring 523 runs in 3 Tests and another player got in after scoring 522 runs in 5 Tests.
dhanus3581378 on February 7, 2017, 7:48 GMT
Al Right selection is good but you should also select players from the host nation (who should face them)
Will do.
Ravee on February 7, 2017, 7:34 GMT
One last thing. I couldn't help but notice that the South African bowling quality is consistently (significantly) higher than the Australians in the last 25 years. I believe it's partly due to always having exceptional stand-in bowlers like Abbott.
Does this go on to show how much more amazing McGrath (& Warne) was than most people thought? Gillespie was a quality bowler and Fleming/Clark did well in their short careers. Lee was quite ordinary in Tests and there wasn't a fourth bowler of a decent longevity and quality.
Home XI vs RoW is a nice concept. Expecting Australia to field a superior XI is understandable. England and WI could field quite serious teams too. Unfortunately, in England's case, the rest of the world will have superior firepower.
I will probably complete the exercise by selecting the Home XIs. I may use my discretion a little bit more to get a really good side since it is possible for way-out performances in fewer matches at home rather than away. I have to take care of that.
Rangarajan on February 7, 2017, 6:59 GMT
This is awesome, Ananth. Should say, near perfect selections in most teams (or on all teams). South Africa can be discussed but then, you can't find fault - Whom do you leave between Ponting, Sachin & Lara? You picked the two best, considering the support (or lack of it - bowling for Sachin and batting for Lara). I do feel that in terms of performance, Sachin touched 40 towards the end (2010 tour) and that he did have a tough time there, as he did in West Indies. I also feel a spinner is probably not necessary in Aus(considering it to be graveyard for spinners other than Benaud and Warne, despite bounce being a logic). Again, might be tempted to put in another express like Holding - or another thinking swinger - Kapil (who lost to Hadlee here). Skill-wise, Kapil's numbers are awesome, knowing Indian bowling and fielding that supported him. An aside, the quality of comments published are also getting better - with personal prejudices expressed well and objective comparisons made.
Tongue-in-cheek, maybe because a certain gentleman has been selected in two of the teams. Not really. I get the feeling the average reader comment quality has generally been very good nowadays.
Ravee on February 7, 2017, 6:35 GMT
Just out of curiosity, does including world series and other rest of the world XI stats make any significant changes to your team composition?
Probably Yes. Sobers might have got in ahead of Faulkner. I cannot see any other change.
]] ------
Off-topic, if and when you decide to write the statistical equivalent of the "Religious Experience" article, please do give me a shout. I will have some ideas/points to ponder, although I'm sure you'd have them covered already.
Apologies for the off topic, it's only been 18(0) odd hours since IT happened! #GOAT
Ravee on February 7, 2017, 6:20 GMT
Ananth, First of all, hope you thoroughly enjoyed the #18! I'm still recovering! #GOAT.
The team for a SA tour is understandably the weakest of the 3. A number of West Indians probably would have made the list if SA played cricket in the 70s & 80s. Having said that, as big a fan of numbers as I am, the team doesn't quite sound right without Ponting, whose stats got significantly worse everywhere, except in India (where it could only go up), in the last few years of his career.
Ponting or Tendulkar was a toss-up really. Their figures are not that great. However these were against really tough teams. One could have been selected as the other.
]] It's a pity that Benaud only toured SA once, incredible 300+ runs at 55 and 30 wickets at sub-22. In fact, since 1900, Benaud was the only player to manage the 300/30 double in a 5-Test series.
The team touring England is easily the strongest unit. 7 of them will easily make my overall all-time XI.
I look fwd to the touring teams of Ind/Pak and WI.
I have a feeling that the eventual summary would be a crowning moment for McGrath more than anyone else (especially if touring UAE = Pakistan).
Harsh on February 7, 2017, 5:34 GMT
Ananth,still would select Hutton in place of Sutcliffe.Remember his outstanding batting on bad wickets in the post-war era in Australia like his 37 at Sydney and 62 at Brisbane.Hutton was outstanding against the likes of Lindwall and Miller.Imran Khan and Gary Sobers to me would replace Hammond and Faulkner, an ideal combination of a batting and fast-bowling all-rounder.Infact even selecting Jacques Kallis could have been a better consideration.
I will again repeat, you are making a lot of subjective statements. How do you select someone who has 15/1170/43.09 against someone with 14/1529/63.68. Then you are flying in the face of numbers. That is fine, but not for me.
]] You had rated Brian Lara to be the best test batsmen after Bradman but here he has not been selected in an xi to tour Australia or England ,with Tendulkar and Viv Richards chosen. This is somewhat contradictory as Lara was at his best oversea in Australia.Viv wast he best match-winner amongst batsmen and thus merited his place.
Again if I had made a personal selection from the heart, Lara would have been the first choice. But I have gone by numbers to the extent possible. Maybe if the weights varied, one or two changes might have been there. But I will not deliberately go against what I have set out to do. Lara is still the second Test batsmen, as far as I am concerned. But the best batsman gets selected only to tour one country. Do I then make Bradman a honorary selection against all countries.
]] The exclusion of Imran Khan,Wasim Akram,Gavaskar,Sobers or Kallis proves that statistics does not put everything in correct light.
Lastly,morally Barry Richards could have made it in Australia.
Harsh on February 7, 2017, 5:20 GMT
Ananth great effort,however some important disagreements. Irrespective of conditions Gary Sobers was the giant amongst all -rounders who even in Australia exhibited supremacy as no cricketer did .Remember the tied test 132 or his 6-73 at Brisbane.Infact unfair toi exclude his scores for rest of the world.Sobers would turn the course of game more than Hammond or Faulkner.I also felt considering his left-arm prowess which was magical at his best Wasim Akram would have been more effective than Sydney Barnes.No paceman posessed could make a ball talk in the manner Wasim did whose reverse swing could be unplayable.Although Greenidge was more attacking I feel Sunil Gavaskar was a better choice in England with his outstanding technique and temperament. Applaud your selection of Viv Richards in Australia and England but feel at his best Lara could turn the course of game more than Tendulkar.Sachin's selection testifies that he was more consistent overall,overseas.
I have not gone on specifics: Whether Wasim Akram would have been more effective than Barnes and the like. All your comments are very valid but subjective. How do we know that Barnes could not make the ball talk, for that matter, sing. Lohmann could probably make the ball dance. Faulkner deserves his place ahead of Sobers, on figures.
jasprit on February 7, 2017, 5:07 GMT
All in all Great work! Looking forward to Part 2. And Part 3 of Home XI's I think should be just each country's own All Time XI, with maybe an odd variation. But that should be an interesting one too.
Like I said, once you come out with your facts, its hard to argue against them. I guess all we can do is predict, and see how close we are.
Here are my very loose general guessess.
Visitors to India : Cook Hayden Amla Weekes Lloyd Sobers Flower Benaud Andy Roberts Walsh Underwood
Visitors to Pak : Gavaskar Sehwag Manjrekar Border Samaraweera Amarnath/Kallis Marshall Benaud Walsh Murali
Visitors to SL : Sehwag Anwar Fleming Tendulkar Lara Inzamam/Hussey Sarfaraz Akram Warne Hadlee Ajmal/Starc
Visitors to WI : Gavaskar Boycott Dravid Amarnath Waugh Kallis Knott/Stewart Imran Fraser McGrath Murali
Visitors to NZ : Gibbs Dravid Hammond Chappell Miandad Cullinan/Nurse Stewart Akram Warne McGrath Garner
jasprit on February 7, 2017, 5:03 GMT
Hi Anantha Great work, As Always! Your work is so exhaustive and detailed, based on research that it leaves little to be added to. What can one add when you have already worked out everything based on research of facts and figures over the history of Cricket? I can only learn. And this article is no less. Enlightened me on a lot of fine things. At first, my only concern was that the total number of runs is given undue importance at 33%. Once the cutoff is reached, then the RPAI should take over. (I think Gavaskar should make it into Australia XI based on this). And the cutoff should be set a little higher than 3 Tests. And one of your readers has 'EXACTLY' raised those points in a way better than I can say. But then, you have come up with your own reasons for those that cannot be argued against either. (How can Murali be taken at 8/48 over Warne 22/129.).....cont...
Jasprit, I have to recognize the value of 523 runs whether it is scored in 3 Tests or 5 Tests. So I should never limit the number of Tests. Also if anyone scored 523 in 3, his RpAI would be much higher. I also have to give credit for scoring more runs and capturing more wickets.
People always talk about goals for the team. Then only do they talk about goals/match. I think I have found the correct methodology. It is just that the weights could be tweaked.
Maybe 20% for runs/wkts, 40% for RpAI/Avge, 15% for bow/bat quality, 15% for Pitch quality and 10% for Support available.
Hamish on February 7, 2017, 4:59 GMT
@Jameckin, I'd say Lara is a long way off certainly the best batsman of his generation against Australia. He played some great innings but overall his record in Australia drags him down a fair way. In Australian conditions McGrath's bounce made it hard for him to get over the ball on his backfoot drive and he kept going for it which got him out caught around point/gully a lot. With the ball not quite bouncing as much in the Windies he did better consistently there. Not sure who would be the best batsman of his generation against Australia, Tendulkar always stakes a claim and he did adjust his game better than Lara but IMO Lara's peaks against Australia were higher (but his troughs lower)
Hamish on February 7, 2017, 4:47 GMT
@BanuaBoyz As far as bowlers in India go McGrath 8 tests 33 wickets @21.30 is probably going to be a pretty good chance of selection, Gillespie got the same number of wickets in 1 less test at a marginally higher average. Could go either way pretty easily depending on feel. I suspect Courtney Walsh will be in the team, 7 tests 43 wickets @18.55 but his last test in India was in 1994 (time flies) and probably slightly weaker batting.Not sure who'd be picked as a spinner for India Benaud took 52 wickets @18.38 from 8 tests but I have no idea what the batting was like. Interesting to see. Could be Sobers in and doing the spin bowling.
Saagar on February 7, 2017, 1:04 GMT
(2/2) likely other batting line-ups - Sri Lanka: opening pair is tricky. Sehwag and maybe Lara to open; Younis Khan, Sachin, Stephen Fleming, Ashraful - Pakistan: and here we seem to be spoiled for openers. The Sultan of Multan may be the first among equals- others being Kirsten, Gavaskar, Mark Taylor, Jayasuriya). Maybe Sehwag + Gavaskar, though Sehwag + Jayasuriya would be tempting, particularly with AB and Sanga to follow. Kallis is peerless and Samaraweera may also get in. Sanga donning the gloves might allow one the luxury of Gavaskar/Taylor as the other opener and Jayasuriya down the order - India (a.k.a. every visiting batsman's dream): Hayden, Cook; Amla, Clive Lloyd, Weekes and Sobers. Seems a shame to leave out Younis Khan so maybe play Sobers as a spinner. Won't be surprised if a certain wicket-keeper from Zim (a.k.a. He Who May Not Be Dismissed in India) leads the batting charts here. 3. There may not be (m)any bowlers in the India list post 1995, except the great McGrath
Remember to keep your selections and compare with the next article. You are not too far off, let me say.
Saagar on February 7, 2017, 0:39 GMT
(1/2) Anantha- this is a brilliant and insightful article. So captivating that I couldn't bear to wait 2 weeks to see part 2 and tried to do some crude analysis of my own to second guess the results (with a little bit of help from Statsguru). 3 things I realise / am guessing: 1. There's no one to touch Shane Warne: I'm guessing he makes it to all nations barring India and the West Indies. Classic case of an unstoppable force meeting immovable objects (called Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar and Brian Charles Lara respectively)? 2. Likely batting line-ups: - Windies: Gavaskar, Boycott; Dravid, Amarnath, Cowdrey, Steve Waugh - NZ: tricky one. Gibbs, Greenidge (?); Miandad, Wally Hammond and Greg Chappell would be shoo-ins but would you go for Seymour Nurse's magnificent swansong or a toss-up between Sachin and Dravid. I guess Dravid's superior RpAI may give him the nod though Sachin would have more runs and a lower RpAI brough about by one Sir Richard Hadlee. Or you could get Dravid to open
Syed on February 6, 2017, 23:44 GMT
With figures like 19/1469/41.97, Brian Lara falls on 13th place. This is quite surprising but very well may be true in this derivation.
Lara, unarguably, was the best batsmen of his generation against the Aussies. McGrath, Gillispie, Ponting, MacGill, Hayden and Gilchrist tends to agree with this statement.
Kevin on February 6, 2017, 20:05 GMT
Surprised over Murali's exclusion for the England list. It's worth a note that he only got 48 wickets in 10 innings (averaging almost a 5 wicket haul each innings) at a bowling average of 19.20. Compare that to the leader, Warne, who was able to play 44 innings in England to get his 129 wickets (around 3 wickets an innings). I think the point allocation system in that sense may be slightly flawed and should have the number of innings played factored in. For example, you have two players against the same opposition (assuming lowest bowling average is 10 in the country): Player A with 100 wickets from 40 matches at an average of 40 and Player B with 40 wickets from 5 matches at an average of 20. Player A will have 44.44 (33.33 + 11.11) while Player B will have 35.54 ( 13.32 + 22.22). Player A gets too many points from simply being the leading wickettaker in the country and only lose a few points for having a significantly worse average (which should be more important)
Where do you draw the line? Is 25 in 4 Tests better than 50 in 10 Tests or 100 in 22 Tests. There has to be a recognition of the fact that scoring runs and capturing wickets is an essential part of the game. What I have always realized that this measure should get a share of the credit. In this case I have given it 33.33%. Maybe I might reduce it to 25%, as I have suggested in a comment.
I think Murali's 48 in 6 Tests is extraordinary. However you have to give due credit to the near-6 wickets per Test of Warne, done over 22 Tests.
In sports analyses, credit is always given to runs/wickets/goals/points/home-runs/touchdowns/grand-slams/titles/majors/gold-medals. This is because these indicate longevity, excellence over a period of time, multiple scaling of peaks etc.
What I have done, hopefully successfully, is not to get bowled over by either runs/wickets on the one hand nor by average/rpt/wpt on the other hand. There is a weight to each and this is always subject to change. I have already mooted 25% for runs/wickets. I may not even have a problem with 20% for runs/wickets if other factors such as Pitch quality and Support are considered.
While at it, I get the feeling that Spofforth (7/38/17.13) might get the nod, although the batsmen quality was abysmal.
If you are ready to have Sobers as the third seamer, would you look at selecting Murali for Lillee. I would not do it, even though my favourite bowler is Murali.
Sahil on February 6, 2017, 19:35 GMT
Hi Ananth, This is a terrific piece of work..! Sorry, this is unrelated to the above analysis, but I was wondering if you could write something about projected scores in limited over games. I mean, it's commonly said that in ODIs teams typically double their scores after the 30th over, so, I was wondering how often this happens with different variables : - - Venues - Teams - Different eras - How many wickets were lost at the 30th over - etc And then probably, we repeat the exercise for T20, and see what the magic number is (probably, 10th or the 12th over).. I feel it might be an interesting dig for us.. - Sahil
I think it is an excellent idea, Sahil. I have also done most of the work on Tests. So will be a nice thing to do this relating to the Limited Overs matches. Only problem is that for ODIs, this can only be done for about 2100 matches, from 2001 onwards, for which ball data is available.
Shuhab on February 6, 2017, 19:30 GMT
No Murali? WHAT?! .......
S on February 6, 2017, 19:19 GMT
Excellent insight. I am eagerly waiting for Part 2. I believe that the best team to have visited India will consist of most of the following players
Alistair Cook, Mathew Hayden, Gary Kirsten, Viv Richards (C), Younis Khan, Kumara Sangakkara (wk) , Courtney Walsh, Jason Gillespei, Saqlain Mushtaq (played only 3 tests but made Indians dance), Iqbal Qasim
I have a feeling Chanderpaul, Javed Miandad, Inzamam, Greenidge, may just make it or just not make it. I wont be surprised if Jimmy Adams is the wk based on his stellar performance in the 1994-95 series although if I understand your analysis right, just one series performance will not cut it. For the bowlers, I dont think McGrath will make it. May see Wasim in though. Again, Imran may make it for captaincy and allround performance.
Looking forward to see it
Jay on February 6, 2017, 19:01 GMT
I knew Hadlee had very good sucess against Australia in Australia. But I will still a little surprised to see he was the best ever at beating the Aussie at home with the ball.
Only Kiwi to make one of these teams, but he steps on as the first pick for that team, so that's all good.
Ian on February 6, 2017, 17:14 GMT
I'd pick Ponting over Tendulkar in South Africa. I'd pick someone who has won every single test series he played in that country (ok 2011 was a ridiculously short 2 test series that was drawn), over someone who has won 2 tests over 5 series.
Sudhanshu Dhar on February 6, 2017, 13:33 GMT
Brilliant piece. Ananth, would love to see an All time XI to have toured India please.
girish5919580 on February 6, 2017, 13:22 GMT
Difficult to believe that Lara does not make the cut for an Australian tour!!!
Yours is the 100th comment published.
With figures like 19/1469/41.97, Lara is in 13th place. It is difficult to fit him when the top-6 all have excellent figures. Either they have scored well over 1500 runs or or they have terrific RpAI values.
Andrew Briscoe on February 6, 2017, 12:13 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece, having seen in a couple days back and then specifically digging it up today to read through it. Thanks for the analysis. The recurrence of a few notable names (SRT, Ambrose, Lillee, Viv, Warne, Marshall, Bradman, Hobbs) is telling. I expect to see Kallis feature in Part 2.
Niraj on February 6, 2017, 12:05 GMT
Great & mind stirring exercise Ananth.
Richard on February 6, 2017, 10:01 GMT
BOLLO ON FEBRUARY 4, 2017, 14:12 GMT [[ Maybe the wrong leggie. one captured 52 in 8 and the other, 34 in 9. Ananth ]]
Interesting, isn't it? Bill 'Tiger' O'Reilly has a first class average of 16.60 from 135 matches. He would be first picked every IPL season.
Unni on February 6, 2017, 8:27 GMT
re; VVS not in team to tour Australia - While numbers dont do justice, fact is VVS scored his runs against the best Australian team ever and that too at their prime - Mcgrath, Lee, Gillespie, Kasperowiz, Warne etc. Also unlike today, Australian pitches were no road to bat.
pramathesh on February 6, 2017, 8:17 GMT
Dear Ananth refering to your reply to my post of 6 feb2017, 5:59 GMT- some suggestions (i) remove the players who retired before 1992 from all time list-only consider those who played in period from 1992 to 2016-these 24 years have seen SA playing tests, India vs Pak test, India in Aus tests, even Bangladesh & Zim playing test (ii) make separate all time list for players who played 6 day tests & 8 ball overs, with no drs, no neutral umpires, no 3rd umpire and with limited poor quality protective equipment (iii) select based on 20 year performance instead of all time-20 year may help as time for which SA did not play test or India did not tour Aus for test is near to 20 years.
All this to achieve what, let me ask. Cricket existed in its many hues during the period 1992-1877 also. Part of the pleasure in following the game is the fact that we are able to understand greatness, not just of the players who we saw or followed but those who are old enough to have played 100 years back.
Ravi on February 6, 2017, 8:13 GMT
Thrilled to see your lightning responses. Thanq. Fair point. But could be considered during selection of final team members out of 10 + 10 shortlisted. Anyway eagerly look forward to part II & I am sure part III as hinted by you to one of the reader's responses.
Palash on February 6, 2017, 7:57 GMT
Am a subscriber of 5 bowler theory in Test cricket, specially when the top 5 is as illustrious as these. Also don't agree with Warner being selected on the merit of 3 tests only.
Would it be more acceptable if Warner had scored 543 runs in 5 Tests, not 3. Do not go by number of Tests but by number of runs.
Ravi on February 6, 2017, 7:18 GMT
Great & mind stirring Ananth. Thanks a trillion for this. Iam wondering why u did not consider batsmen/bowler's performance in a winning cause. Should have considered giving a booster on the overall points of 1.2x for each wins & 0.8x for losses. Draws can be neutral 1.0x With that the scenario becomes more exciting no? One of the use cases that justifies the above being, batting average when someone had batted quickly in the 3rd innings for instance to enable early declaration to force a result may not be right, but this booster should compensate.
Then this would discriminate against some of the weaker country players.
Cameron on February 6, 2017, 6:43 GMT
I love the analysis and I love the results. I only question the choice of Dravid over Border for England? Is that because the RpAI is weighted at 44% compared to the Index weighting of 22%? Runs scored is weighted 33%? It is just confusing as the order shown uses the Index, rather than the total of the percentages.
Nothing other than the way Dravid batted in some of the innings. In the unlikely event of a Don failure, Dravid might be needed. Having said that I would have no problems with Border there.
chuckd2157205 on February 6, 2017, 6:23 GMT
would be interesting to see VVS Laxman's stats against Aus
Pl see previous responses. Has already been presented. Although would repeat it so that you need not look at previous comments on this. Laxman was placed 21st and had figures of 15/1236/43.20/1.07.
pramathesh on February 6, 2017, 5:59 GMT
Wikipedia search on Indian cricket tours of Aus shows that India did not tour Aus in period between 1947 to 1967, then again between 1967-1977 , then again between 1985-1991 & between 1991-1999. After 1999, India has been touring Aus after every 4 years & Sachin has been playing from 1991 to 2012. This is strong reason for only batsman from India to be Sachin in visiting side to Aus. This type of selection is unfair to players like Amarnath or Vishwanath or Shastri or Vijay Hazare or generation between 1947-1967 who did not get much chance to tour Aus due to reasons outside their control. Amarnath was called as frequently dropped or frequent comebacker-totally at the mercy of selectors.
We really cannot adjust to such off-the-normal happenings. Let me ask you. What do we do with the prodigious talent from South Africa that went to waste during the two decades between 1970 and 1992. I think these things happen and we have to live with it.
pramathesh on February 6, 2017, 5:18 GMT
Coming back to Ravi Shastri, it is commendable how he started as tail-ender batsman & then went up the test batting order for India. In 1990 Eng tour & in 1991 Aus tour he was the opener batsman for India, trying to stick on the wicket, oldening the new ball & tiring the pacer. He made 100 & 187 in Eng & 206 at Sydney test of 1991-first indian to make 200 vs Aus & in Aus. 391 runs from 7 batting chances @ 55.85 in Aus for a man who debuted to bat when India were 9 wickets down-Ravi gave tough fight to Aus.
vinish0052294 on February 6, 2017, 4:06 GMT
Another excellent analysis. Interesting to see that no batsman from Pakistan or Sri Lanka have made it to any of these 3 lists. It speaks of Tendulkar's and Dravid's role in Indian cricket. PS: I am little surprised to see Gavaskar missing out for AUS or ENG but numbers justify his omission. Curious to see the same lists for other countries.
The Asian players will have their day when we come to Part-2.
Prashant on February 6, 2017, 0:28 GMT
I think total number of runs has been given an unduly high weight. Example, let's compare just 2 batsmen facing same quality of attack. Batsman 1 scores 1200 runs in 20 innings (Average = 60). Batsman 2 may score 1800 runs in 40 innings (Average = 45) and his weighted score will still be the same as the first batsman.
I have explained why in the article. The additional 600 runs is 6-8 more Tests and additional experience. Couple of examples. Worrell (1031 in England) vs Sobers (1820). Sobers has played 7 Tests more and the 800 runs mean something. In this case it is 10 Rating points (22.68 vs 12.85). I think it is very fair.
]] I think RpAI is a good measure. Once a cutoff has been established for total number of runs, only RpAI and bowling quality should be used to rank the players. Cutoff may be increased to eliminate one series wonders.
Maybe 25% for runs/wkts, 40% for RpAI/Avge, 15% for bow/bat quality, 10% for Pitch quality and 10% for Support available.
Shithin Ramesh on February 5, 2017, 23:37 GMT
Brilliant analysis Ananth. Looking forward to see the India XI.
Jay Gadsdon on February 5, 2017, 23:34 GMT
As i read this i wondered who is the best visiting batsman without warm-up matches like we see more and more of these days, no offence to the 48 invincibles but they had a long tour 6 months i think. How did Bill Ponsford go in england does Bradman lower his scores??
Maybe 6 months is too long a tour and 1 month is too short a tour.
Ponsford is in 14th place in England (10/936/59.73).
David on February 5, 2017, 22:50 GMT
Very good lists; and pretty much as good as it gets; although surprised that Bill O'Reilly and Murali didn't make the cut in England.
Murali (6/48/19.21) is in 11th place and O'Reilly (9/50/26.16) is in 12th place. But they are dwarfed by the behemoth, Warne.
Edward on February 5, 2017, 22:13 GMT
Any article which posits a bowling attack of Richard Hadlee, Curtley Ambrose, Robert Peel and Sydney Barnes rocks. A fascinating treatment of what could have been quite a dry subject.
Thanks for both your comments, more for the later one. That is what I have always striven to do.
Jamie on February 5, 2017, 22:03 GMT
I enjoyed your article and have a couple of comments. I'm surprised you describe Wally Hammond as a great captain, I'm not sure that many of his contemporaries would have agreed with you. You're right to have him bat at 3, that was the position he made his own at the peak of his career. He was a reluctant though very good bowler. You certainly shouldn't think of him as a work-horse, more as an occasional change bowler. Thanks, Jamie.
I agree with you on the captaincy. There are conflicting reports on his captaincy and I went by some of the reading I had done. But I am reluctant to make either Lara (who did not have a good time as a captain in SA) or Tendulkar as the captain. Pushed against the wall, I would say Lara leads the side.
aravind on February 5, 2017, 21:46 GMT
Sir, where was Murali in the list in England despite 48 wickets @ 19.20? Was he not in the top 10 due to the relatively lesser Batquality index of the English batsmen that faced him?
It would be imprudent on my part to select a team to England with 2 spinners and 2 pace bowlers. Warne is the top bowler, by a mile. Sadly, Murali, 11th in the table with figures of 6/48/19.21 misses out. And Sobers is there to provide additional spinning support.
Jonathan on February 5, 2017, 21:15 GMT
Also, I suspect the lack of Waqar and Wasim in England can be put down to the fact that both carried on too long when past their prime, and in Wasim's case, his early series was just a bit too early. Both were very fine (Wasim a little more so than Waqar) in 1992: in 1996 they both had a good series too, although one might say good rather than spectacular, averaging 25 or 26 rather than 20-21, it was enough to win: but both were far past their best for the short 2001 series, Wasim in particular did badly. And Wasim also came off as no better than average in the 1987 series, before he had really shown his full class as a bowler. Likewise, for batting, Javed Miandad had a horrible series in England in 1978, a mediocre one in 1982, only 100 runs across the whole first four matches in 1987 - then suddenly 260 in the last match, followed by a fine series in 1992. One good series and one good match out of four series isn't enough to make him a "top tourist in England".
And let us not forget that England is not a place where you get a touring spot easily in these selections. 32 batsmen over 1000 runs and 23 with RpAI values exceeding 50. On the bowling front 20 bowlers got 50 or more wickets.
thomas on February 5, 2017, 21:09 GMT
Great article as always, looking forward to the next one with anticipation. In fact, there are only two point where I dare to disagree. 1. with Faulkner in the side, a full-time spinner might not be needed in Aus. In fact, as spinners are so absent from that list, they may not be all that effective down under (at least not the visitors). 2. personal choice, but for South Africa I'd pick Lohmann's ability to be totally unplayable over Johnson's batting supremacy. With that batting lineup, you could probably field four bowlers with Chris Martin's batting abilities.
Faulkner was not the classical spinner. Rather the slow medium type, quite effective indeed. A compromise would be to replace Peel with even Sobers. Would Sobers and Faulkner take care of the spin department? Maybe? Then Sobers and Faulkner at no.6 & & would take care of the batting very well indeed.
I was very tempted to take Lohmann. After all he is the only bowler whose numbers stand comparison with Bradman's. His index points are just one behind Johnson's. What finally settled the place for Johnson were the five wins in eight Tests. Johnson helped Australia win 2 out of 3 tough series. It was that winning pattern which got Johnson the nod over Srinath.
Prashant on February 5, 2017, 19:04 GMT
I wonder how these teams would fare against the all time best (in home conditions) from the host country. I would expect Rest of World should beat the hosts except maybe AUS due to Bradman.
A logical conclusion, if readers want it, is for me to come out with a Part-3, which would select the all-time best Home XIs.
Nahim on February 5, 2017, 16:04 GMT
Wonderful article Ananth. Looking forward to Part 2. I am surprised at many of the comments suggesting Smith should not be in the all-time visiting team to England. His stats alone are outstanding, but his impact goes even beyond that. Both in 2003 and especially in 2008, his batting was absolutely crucial to SA's success; his 154* in Edgbaston was one of the all-time great innings. As a captain he won 2 series and drew 1 series in England; few other captains can boast such a record, and were Don Bradman not available to captain, I think you could make a convincing case that Smith would be the next-best candidate.
Thank you, Nahim. Graeme Smith indeed played some of the most influential innings in England over the past couple of decades. And captained very well indeed. Numbers do not lie. I make sure that I am not a servant of the numbers. However I know that in a country like England you do not really get cheap runs.
Manjunath on February 5, 2017, 11:46 GMT
Very detailed analysis. Curious to know, which place was VVS Laxman in your list of batsmen touring Australia?
Already replied. Pl see earlier responses.
David on February 5, 2017, 11:32 GMT
This is an exercise in picking teams only on the basis of performance in the country where the match will be played. In real life, though, teams are picked also taking into account performance in other countries. For instance, any reasonable selection panel picking a team to visit South Africa would include Bradman if available, and if he'd never been there that wouldn't stop them.
I think there are better options than RPAI, like injecting fake runs and wickets into the average to represent the record in first class cricket that got the batsman selected for tests. (Use the debutant average.) This has a big effect on perceived average initially, then gradually fades in importance. It would be interesting to see which model did best at predicting a batsman's next score.
Amey on February 5, 2017, 9:44 GMT
Sir, your take on 18th Grandslam of Federer.... I thought you would mention this in last para.
The article was already long. Hence I desisted from doing so. For those of us who were hoping against hope that the elusive no.18 was there, that hope receded last year after Fed's loss to Raonic at Wimbledon. If he had not served those two double faults he might have won in four sets and might have had a good chance against Murray.
But 2017 AO, after a 6-month lay-off. I do not know the odds. Fed might have been a 50-1 outsider at the beginning of the tournament. But to win: I place this win even above the RG 2009.
It is amazing that two break points in each of the semi finals could have such an impact. If Wawrinka had converted either of the break-points in the early games of the fifth set, we were probably looking at a Wawrinka-Nadal Final. If Dimitrov had converted either of the break-points in the latter games of the fifth set, we were probably looking at a Federer-Dimitrov Final. If both the gallant losers had done these, we were probably looking at a Wawrinka-Dimitrov Final.
But the fifth set, despite the early break against, was always there because of Nadal's average serve and the fact that Fed was getting breakpoints. Finally the conversion rate of 30% (6 out of 20) worked out for Fed. That second break in the fifth set was not expected. I expected a Wimbledon-2008 type 9-7 scoreline.
Now who is going to bet against Nadal and Federer winning the next two Grand Slams.
cricfan34340726 on February 5, 2017, 9:28 GMT
Graeme Smith will always be remembered as the slayer of English captains
partha on February 5, 2017, 9:06 GMT
The analysis looks exhaustive but i do not agree with any such theory. This theory misses the point that comparing tow players of different era makes no sense at all. You cannot compare Gavaskar and Kohl. both are equally good . The game has changed so much and fitness level keeps evolving. the current cricketers are having much better fitness levels but you cannot demand old players in their comparison similarly if certain batsman have scored huge runs against so called weak bowling you cannot ignore it . End of the day your batting average matters let it be at any era. Consistency is the whole mark .
What is your point?
If you have any problems with any of the selections, you should make those.
If your problems are with the methodology, please state so.
But a general statement does not do any good. What sort of statement is "You cannot compare Gavaskar and Kohl. both are equally good .". Of course they are. But that should not stop me from selecting one over the other based on some objective criteria.
We compare all the time. That is the base on which most cricketing analyses are done.
Weak bowling attacks are taken care of.
pramathesh on February 5, 2017, 8:55 GMT
Mohinder Amarnath played 8 tests in Aus (1977 &1985), got the chance to bat in 13 innings from these 8 tests & made total 668 runs. 1977 Aus bowling attack had Jeff Thomson & that in 1985 had a young Bruce Reid. 1977 Series had 6 day tests with 8 balls to be delivered per over & a rest day after day 3. 1985 series had 5 day tests with 6 balls/over & no rest day. I will give more credit to a batsman who is batting well in 6 day test with 8 balls per over.Where does Amarnath stand in your batting list in Australia?Batting in era before 90's was tough due to no restrictions on using bouncers per over, limited protection equipment to the batsman & that period had pacers like Marshall & Imran who could retire hurt a batsman. Also there were no neutral umpires, 3rd umpires & DRS.
Amarnath was in a respectable 30th place: 8/668/55.34.
Dave on February 5, 2017, 8:38 GMT
@cricfan08270811 - I agree with a lot of your thoughts there. I would probably give the indices you mention slightly more weight as well, but Ananth`s reasons for not doing so are well-argued and clearly justifiable.
With regards Kumble ( and I`m a big fan) - his first series in Aus (1999/00?), when he took 5 wickets at 90 in 3 tests, obviously works against him. Apart from that, he played two wonderful series. Just looking through the list of top wicket-takers in Australia shows you how difficult it has been for opposition spinners - in stark contrast to spinners in South Africa, or England. I`m happy with Peel, and have enjoyed reading a bit more about him.
I probably would`ve gone with Ponting (or Lara) over Tendulkar in SAf as well, but that`s a personal call - once again I think Anath`s comment that "some elements of my own personal preferences come in but I would put that at no more than five percent" is fair enough...as a skipper I`d be pretty happy with any one of them.
Maybe that is the only one in which I have selected a player myself. Even Dravid in England over Border is nowehere near that. Dravid was really outstanding in England.
pramathesh on February 5, 2017, 8:33 GMT
Ravi Shastri played 6 tests in Aus (1985 & 1991) to get the chance to bat in 7 innings & made total 391 runs. This is lower than 500 run constraint though no. of innings to make those 500 have not been specified. Ravi was also a spinner & Ravi was opening batsman in 1991 tour though Ravi debuted as tail-ender batsman. Will constraint be relaxed to include Ravi in the list of visiting batters in Australia?
When we have 103 batsmen who crossed 500 runs in Australia, why should we really consider someone who scored 400 runs. Included in these 103 are probably 15 all-rounders who are better than Shastri.
Abdul on February 5, 2017, 8:16 GMT
Great job Ananth. Really enjoyed your dissection. This got mentioned earlier, and I completely agree that the pitch should have a weight in the analysis. Uncovered potches from the 50s, surely should have an impact on the ratings. Also, some of the IND PAK series from the 70s and 80s were played on really batting friendly pitches and is bound to mess up the touring bowlers figures. Thoughts??
I have already replied for some of these comments in my recent replies. Maybe I have to get two/three more factors, considering that this has been one of the most important project I have recently undertaken.
dwowor8664332 on February 5, 2017, 7:28 GMT
Excellent analysis as always Ananth, although I feel that the respective BowlQuality and BatQuanlity indices should be given more weight than the 22.22% assigned. For example, in Australia, Kumble 49 wickets @ 37.73; BatQuality 1.37, having to bowl to the strongest Australian batting order at their peak is worth far more than Peel's 63 wickets @ 21.56; BatQuality 0.66 in an era of uncovered pitches. Likewise, going by this metric, Ponting should have made the team to tour South Africa; but all in all a very calculated and fair analysis!
A very fair observation. I was determined not to go a third all the way since since I feel that the averages should have higher weights. One possibility was to split the 66.67 into 40 & 26.67. But would not have made serious difference. With these modifications it would have been Gibbs and Underwood who would have come into serious consideration, not Kumble.
pramathesh on February 5, 2017, 7:23 GMT
True- WI bowling attack in 1971 Indian visit was average-this questions if its worthy to have an all-time list. Tendulkar managed to tour Aus in 1991, 1999, 2003, 2008 & 2012. Only in 1999 tour, Aus team had quality bowler in Glen McGrath. In remaining 4 tours an Aus team without McGrath made an average bowling attack vs India. Tendulkar's bat flopped in 2012 series-even Dravid & Laxman failed in that tour as all 3 had got old.
Dave on February 5, 2017, 6:59 GMT
@cricfan6399...re. "Steyn and Kallis must surely be in the NZ tour team" - Steyn took 9 wickets in NZ at 27?
talha on February 5, 2017, 6:45 GMT
Its so sad to see that every team is struggling to win outside home. AUS lost 5-0 in Saf and now 2-0 in Nzl. And they are the official world champs.
pramathesh on February 5, 2017, 5:48 GMT
Where do Dilip Vengsarkar & Sunil Gavaskar come in batting list vs England? Also for batting list in Australia, how come no names of Sunil Gavaskar or VVS Laxman or Gundappa Vishwanath? Vishy batted well vs Thomson, Lillee and Pascoe in 1977 & 1981 Aus tours. In bowling list vs England, where do Abdul Qadir, Wasim Akram & Waqar Younis stand? In bowling list vs Australia, where do Qadir & Akram stand?
I have already covered Vengsarkar and Gavaskar in England in an earlier response.
Laxman and Gavaskar in Australia has also been covered.
Vishwanath is placed at no.40 against Australia (8/686/45.73).
Akram and Younis in England have also been covered earlier.
Qadir captured a total of 68 away wickets at 48. He captured only 21 in England and 12 in Australia,. So he did not even qualify.
pramathesh on February 5, 2017, 5:34 GMT
South Africa did not play test cricket from 1970-1992 . India-Pakistan test series tours had many breaks with no test played in 1989 -1999 period. So fans never saw much of Sachin vs young pacy Wasim & Waqar as fast bowlers change a lot with age. Even Sachin's batting changed with his age. Currently no team tours Pakistan. Hence for South Africa & Pakistan, selection of member of all time best visiting 11 has to be done carefully. West Indies of 1980's-1990's was totally different side compared to what it is today or after 2000. In 1980's, Gavaskars' 100 vs WI had the worth what Laxman or Sachin's 100 vs Aus in 2000 had. Instead of all time it will be better to confine it to best visiting side of a decade.
ALl these factors notwithstanding, the South African tour team has come out quite well. The worth of Gavaskar's 100 in WI has been taken care, to a certain extent, with the Bowler quality. But let me tell you this. Often Gavaskar faced average bowling in West Indies. For instance in the first tour.
Ramarao on February 5, 2017, 5:06 GMT
Thanks for once again coming up with a great analysis. We should not be asking for more comprehensive analysis. Thanks for reader who requested such interesting analysis. I know that something like pitch quality index could make it more complex and sometimes cannot be quantified. Presence of Kohli(playing on flat roads) in top ten against Australia and Absolute dominance of Warner against SA making other greats like sachin, lara, pontings stats look silly inspires a request to consider pitch quality index. I strongly believe a Tapas Bhasya or Joginder Sharma on a green green pitch can be more threatening than a Wasim Akram or Glenn McGrath on a Flat road. I would also congratulate most of your readers who are posting comments which discover aspects that are otherwise not recognized by main stream writers. Thanks again.
Yes, I understand. PQI may very well be important to help us understand that there are 500 runs and there are 500 runs. Maybe the solution is that I have for each innings, a Bowler quality index. Team support index and Pitch quality index. Then the runs can be weighted on these three factors. But then we are almost getting to Innings Ratings work. Match and innings context would be asked for. Again I will repeat what I have mentioned already. IF, and when, I re-do these tables, I might be tempted to colour the runs with these shades.
Senthil on February 5, 2017, 4:57 GMT
I was surprised Holding not in Autralia list. Is it because mostly he shared the spoils with the Pace quartet?
If you see the Australia top bowler table, you would see thaty Holding was fantastic in Australia. He was fourth. Just that I selected the first three bowlers.
Jonathan on February 5, 2017, 2:02 GMT
Interesting that only one specialist pace bowler is in the team to tour South Africa - a place where, before their exile, spinners flourished, but after readmission, hardly a spinner to be seen, South African grounds are all about pace. Who is Johnson going to share the new ball with - maybe Wally Hammond? He's the only other person capable of bowling at pace.
What about Barnes?
]] But then, there are not many modern bowlers on the South Africa list at all - only Srinath, Johnson, McGrath and Warne figure highly, and I'd be prepared to bet that Warne is the only modern spinner who figures anywhere on the list. So supposing we wanted an attack with more quicks, for modern conditions? Although Srinath has slightly the better numbers, there is no way you would ever pick him ahead of McGrath anywhere, so McGrath it is. Barnes is pretty much undroppable, so is Warne, so the man to miss out for McGrath would have to be Grimmett. Hammond is still third seamer.
If I positively need a pace bowler, it would be McGrath.
Avi on February 5, 2017, 0:04 GMT
Hi Ananth, nice article. Read with interest the selection of the middle-order batsmen to tour South Africa, indeed a very close call! Which got me thinking though - would someone like Fleming be helped by taking into account his share of team runs scored on the tours he played in those countries? As this measure would help understand which batsmen had more burden on them based on the level of support provided by team-mates (I suspect Fleming would have had one of the higher burdens!). In some ways it would be a slight inversion of what was proposed by 'Gojigoronootoko' below, but with the added advantage of being measurable across all of Test cricket's history (which as you noted was not the case with the proposal by 'Gojigoronootoko'). And in combination with the Bowling Quality Index, it could be quite revealing as to who did best against the best with the least support! Thoughts? Thanks again for the very interesting piece, looking forward to Part 2!
What a name to select: 'GojigoroNoOtoko'.
I have already responded to Paaji that maybe it would be a good idea to take 'Own team support'; as a factor if, and when, I re-do these. Lara/Fleming/Tendulkar(earlier days)/Murali/Hadlee would benefit.
bhmemo1769674 on February 4, 2017, 22:41 GMT
A fascinating article. Insightful, interesting, challenging. Perfect!
garyha1264765 on February 4, 2017, 21:40 GMT
Hi Anantha, quite brillant selections. But being an old timer I have a constant memory of Ken Barrington and Bill Lawry been champions in respective visits to opposing countries, do they not measure up with your method? Also in relation to fast bowlers what about Frank Tyson in Australia (1950's) and Ted McDonald in England (1920's)?
As I have mentioned in a different respoonse, Barrington could easily have got into the Australia-touring team. He is seventh. Just that the first six batsmen selected themselves. Lawry in England is placed only in 37th position (14/1007/45.48/1.07).
Tyson is in 35th position in bowling (7/31/25.03).
Ted McDonald is in 57th position (5/27/24.74). 24 is a rather high average in England.
R on February 4, 2017, 21:30 GMT
Thanks for this series. Absolutely loving it. One small observation though. I notice Tendulkar playing against 1.06 bowling quality Aus but 1.15 bowling quality SA. Players of similar era, Fleming, Ponting and Lara played against 1.21, 1.24 and 1,22 quality SA attacks. Although, Tendulkar had an unusually long career, it is a little tough to put Donald, Pollock and later Steyn (in 2010) above McGrath and Warne.
Every Test innings is weighed by the average quality of bowling. So a hundred against an attack missing a top bowler would bring down the index slightkly. Also when we are looking at over 1000 runs it is difficult to pinpoint a single value. And thes ebatsmen played for different teams.
Taushulu on February 4, 2017, 20:43 GMT
Steyn and Kallis must surely be in the NZ tour team.
talha on February 4, 2017, 20:06 GMT
Ananth Wasim Akram did played a couple of tests in Saf. But performed averagely.
My mistake and apologies. Wasim played 2 Tests in SA during the 1990s and captured 7 wickets.
talha on February 4, 2017, 20:04 GMT
My query is where does Imran Khan stand as a bowler in Eng?? Surely he would have been selected had the bowling and batting were both considered while selecting an all rounder. Great work again. Eagerly waiting for part 2.
Rachit on February 4, 2017, 19:33 GMT
@knowhow - Sachin does average 49.5 in NZ and 47.7 in WI. he did under-perform in Pakistan ... his record in WI and NZ goes under the radar as India did not win the series he played in WI (1997 and 2002), while India won the series in 2006 and 2011 when he was out injured ... so in way Sachin has been a bit unlucky in getting victories outside India ... his 150 in Sydney 2007 and 155 in bloemfontein in 2001 were great innings whose value as reduced to a statistical value due to collapses in 2nd innings .. while Dravid's 233 gets remembered as one of the all time great innings because India won the match, when Agarkar's 6 wicket haul was one of the biggest shocks ever. somehow the bowlers never came to the party when Sachin scored outside India .Note that Sachin is not my fav batsman but I am sick of the Sachin not being a match winner whining by most of the people on these forums . count the number of matches where he was the only Indian who played well but the stars never aligned
Rachit on February 4, 2017, 19:18 GMT
Great article as usual ... puts to rest a lot of doubts people have on these forums regarding certain players ... On a side note, I remember you did an article on the best team in every country a while back and had selected Lara to play in all the countries ... Lara does not make it to the top 10 batsmen in Aus and Eng and he will not be there in NZ, India and Pakistan based on this analysis .. so he would make it to only SL and SA ... was there a fundamental difference in the 2 analysis ... Lara was a king in WI but apart from a great innings every odd series, he never did perform consistently outside home ... something evident from the fact that apart from WI and SL (one series impact), he does not average more than 50 in any other country and less than 42 in Aus, Ind and NZ ... Sachin on the other hand averages more than 50 in Aus/Eng/SL/NZ (49.5) ... Lara's magical 1999 series covers the fact that he never did win any matches for his team outside home ...
I do not remember such a specific analysis. How would I have selected Lara in every country. He has not done anything of note in India and Pakistan.
Prasanna on February 4, 2017, 19:07 GMT
Surprised to see a few comments questioning SRT's place in SAF. He's played both Donald and Steyn at their peaks and did quite well.
I understand the conditions hardly come in this analysis but the pitches there since the readmission haven't been anything but bowler friendly. It makes sense that Lara, Ponting, SRT all average just about 46 there.
Also this idea of batsmen scoring "match winning hundreds" needs to go. It's one thing to play "crucial innings" against ageing Pollock with Warne and Lee behind you and it's whole another to put bat on ball against Steyn's fury hoping Zaheer and Ishant to back you up. Barring the ultra rare fourth innings chases, I'd think there's no such thing as match-winning innings. Bowlers are the real champions.
Prasanna on February 4, 2017, 18:51 GMT
Excellent analysis. Most of teams to play in Aus and SA select themselves. For England, though, Dravid walking in at 3 down feels strange/redundant. After Don and Viv had their day-out, you need someone to flex (relatively) decent muscle at #5. I would have sent in Steve Waugh or even Tendulkar. Out of curiosity, can you provide the bat index and bowl quality of following: Aus- Gomes, Crowe, Vaughan, Amla, Gavaskar, Kallis, Thorpe, Cook. SA- Waughs, Hutton, Mead, Clarke, VVS, Tyldesley. Eng- Ganguly, Chanderpaul, Malik, Younis, Ponsford, Amla, Lara.
Aus-Gomes: 12th (8/844/59.23/1.06.
Crowe: 19th (8/870/59.02/0.90.
Vaughan: 14th (5/633/63.30/1.03.
Gavaskar: 33rd (11/920/48.42/0.98).
Cook: 16th (15/1288/47.70/1.04.
I am sorry, too much work. I have other comments to take care of. Ask for 1/2 players' data.
Pag on February 4, 2017, 18:08 GMT
'David Gower scored 746 runs in the West Indies against a collection of the most devastating pace bowlers ...Ponting scored 1169 runs in the West Indies against a collection of average bowlers. These two are not comparable. To take care of this, I have determined the weighted average of the bowling quality faced by each batsman. Every innings he played is weighted by the bowling quality specific to that innings, and an average arrived at. This weighted average of bowling quality is measured against the median value and an index arrived at.' Tennis needs something like this.That would put paid to the GOAT talk.e.g.:Federer's GS wins against Bagdadtis and Gongalez may could as 0.25 (each) GS title.Nadal's and Djo's GS wins (in finals) against the maestro would really be would worth 1.5 GS title each.Serena 23 GS would realyy be 7. Such tats (using something like 'value of opposition' may be dismissive of the maestro and would show that Djo (gulp!) is really the GOAT.
Pawan Mathur on February 4, 2017, 18:00 GMT
Before I comment on the article, I would first express my thanks to you for to respond to my request with a much anticipated analysis. 1. As regards an all time XI to visit Australia, while the batsmen and fast bowlers were automatic choices relatively, I was expecting any one of Kumble, Prasanna, or Bedi to occupy the spinner slot for their excellent records in Australia. Would either of these three be the next best choices to Bobby Peel or any other spinner 2) As regards the all time XI to tour England, the absence of a Pakistani player comes at a surprise considering that some of the most outstanding performances by Pakistani bowlers especially have been in England. In your team composition, I would make thus make one change. Replace Smith with Imran Khan ( 47 wickets in England @ 24 and 500 runs @ 35 with 2 centuries) and make Dravid the opening batsmen with Greenidge, which means that Sobers bats at number 5 and Imran comes in at 6.
In earlier comment I have already explained where Kumble's deyails and where he is placed is in Australia (29th). Bedi is 44th (35 @ 37.51-ABQ 0.86 only), Prasanna is in 52nd position (31 @ 31.13) and Chandra is in 58th (29 @ 30.28). For that matter Gibbs is at 20 (59 @ 33.39) and Underwood is at 21 (50 @ 31.48). So how can I seriously look at ignoring Peel's claims and the other two pr three. Also Geoff Miller is at 26 (36 @ 22.47).
Ignoring Smith in England would be very very wrong. Look at his figures and the quality of bowling faced. I do not mind selecting a no.12 guy instead of a no.8 guy. But I must be true to what the numbers present to me. I could easily open with Dravid but not to displace Smith. I also do not think I would select a team with Imran at 6 to tour England. Finally with four top quality bowlers and Sobers, why would you need one more full time bowler.
Paaji on February 4, 2017, 17:48 GMT
2 of 2 In your list, spinners suffer on two counts. One, they traditionally have low wicket quality as they come on to bowl much later, and have lesser chances of capturing top order wickets (higher WPT values compensate somewhat, but not in this exercise). Two, they suffer due to lack of support, much more than isolated great fast bowlers (Eg. Hadlee). Therefore, in my opinion, it is better that they are "corrected" with this in mind.
All the spinners suffer from the same problem. So if I am selecting a single spinner, there is no problem. Peel got in because he out-performed Kumble, Underwood etc. Ultimately the bowler selection is pace-bowler centric.
]] 4) I feel a temporal baseline should also be considered here. A pre-WW1 great batting performance is not the same as today's. Without a comparision with the baseline, this information is lost.
Again, over-complication. But I agree that the runs scored could easily be weighted by a period index. To a certain extent the bowling quality takes care of it. Look at Hammond's average bowling quality index in New Zealand,
]] Great analysis overall, and I look forward to the second list. I think Richie Benaud will be the top spinner in India's list.
saihem5845636 on February 4, 2017, 17:46 GMT
Great article. Thank you. But can you please explain the part about the "weighted average of the bowling quality faced by each batsman"? Does it cover important factors like pitch (Aussie wickets have gone flat lately, for instance) ? How does this handle the cases of those batsmen who were surrounded by a lot of weak/out-of-form team members? (It seems to take care of it, I do not see Lara there, for instance. I am not able to understand how) Lastly, it seems, for a batsman, only the runs matter. This, I believe, is not accurate for winning/saving a test. I remember that, on one of India's visits to SAF, Dravid may not have scored the most runs, but he surely survived for the most balls (against Steyn at his most lethal). I think that should count for something in tests. A top order bat tiring out the opposition bowlers is the one way for the no5s and no6s score big.
On own player support, please see response to previous comment.
The bowling quality or batting quality faced is done using the appropriate home team's career-to-fate home averages. When Tendulkar scored 116 against Australia during 1999(Test # 1479), the numerator's addition factor is 116*(the vareer-todate-home bowling averages of McGrath/Lee/Fleming/Warne who bowled in the match). These are summed and divided by the runs scored to get a weighted average quality faced. The Index ois derived using this average value.
When Bracewell captured 6 wickets against Wraner/Hughes/Khawaja/Ponting/Clarke/Hussey/Haddin during December 2011, similarly it is 6*career-todate-home-batting-average of these seven batsmen and then getting the index.
Runs matter to an extent of 33.33%. I have already indicated that balls faced is anot available for well over half the number of Tests.
Paaji on February 4, 2017, 17:44 GMT
Dear Ananth, Fantastic analysis. Some comments: 1) You could have given a worked example or at least links to your articles containing RPAI and Wicket quality. It would have improved readability and/or made life easier for people not familiar with your earlier work.
Length of the article ??? Anyhow RpAI has been explained. clearly.
]] 2) I feel you have ignored one important factor here in your lists: People who have performed with very poor support. A person scoring 500 runs with excellent teammates is not the same as someone who's done it with no support. Your measure does not contain this factor. Of course, I could also argue that "pressure" situations have not been captured, but that is a different discussion, and it would complicate matters further.
I agreed that a fourth factor could have been 'Quality of support'. I thought of it and decided not to over-complicate things. Allocating weights would have been a problem. Maybe if this is repeated couple of years down the line, with the Kohlis, Smiths, Roots and Kanes having their say more, it could be done.
]] 3) I feel a special consideration must be given to visiting spinners. Reason being, our research has shown that spinners don't have great records against good teams in away conditions, without the support of good fast bowling colleagues.... (contd.) 1 of 2
Murray on February 4, 2017, 17:29 GMT
Thank you Ananth. Another gem ! In particular I always love to see Aubrey Faulkner be remembered and his bowling is quite a bit more than a bonus ! ( By the way re: an earlier reply - Sobers didn't play WSC and didn't bat well in Rest of the World tour until that MCG masterpiece - unlike the total dominance he'd shown in the World tour of England). Thank you for picking Harvey in Sth Africa (although there's a lot of lefties in that side). I would so love to watch Hobbs and Warner's running/calling. I suspect there might be a few harsh glares from the master while insisting NO ! Great stuff to imagine :)
Thanks, Murray for the correction. My apologies.
I meant the RoW XI Test during 1972. At least THAT innings of 254 should get Sobers the place.
asad on February 4, 2017, 17:14 GMT
How far was Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis from England team?
Karthik on February 4, 2017, 17:09 GMT
@Karthikeyan007 - Well Most pakistan batsmen have done well in NZ&india. Sangakkara has also done very well in NZ. Probably in list2 they would feature very regularly. Kallis would feature in list which includes pak,ind and nz. However he was pretty avg in sl. RD had similar performances in nz and england. would be surprising if he doesnt fit in nz list. Similarly lara name could be there in sl as he had that magical series over there. Sachin was quite outstanding sl too. I agree with u that sachin was superior to most batsmen while playing away. However i am sure his record in pak(he did not perform well due to injuries) and wi (only 2 series often marred by poor form) and nz (may be due to very few three test series) isnt great. he would not be figuring in all these list. I expect pak batsmen name in SL too. Overall ananth it is a very interesting article as i always believe true ability is tested when one plays in away condition.
Lot of revelations, all based on knowledge.
anamay7778548 on February 4, 2017, 17:06 GMT
A very fascinating read and well thought out on the criteria for selection. Does kumble come anywhere in the picture particularly for Australia?
For his lion-hearted bowling, Kumble is in a reasonable 29th position. 10 Tests/49 wickets at 37.73. The last is a killer. But he has one of the highest Batsman quality index values ever: 1.37.
Pratik on February 4, 2017, 17:04 GMT
what do you mean when you said "Fazal Mahmood also captured 29 wickets against India against a very much pedestrian collection of batsmen ??" what does the phrase "pedestrian collection of batsmen" means.....
Please look at some of the Indian players of early-1950s. You will know what I mean.
krishnan on February 4, 2017, 16:57 GMT
Surprised to see Lara missing in Australia.Amla & Kallis in England
Lara in Australia: Very good (12th in table). 19 Tests/1469 runs at RpAI of 41.97. The last figure quite low.
Amla in England: Very good (11th in table). 7 Tests/757 runs at RpAI of 63.08. Not too many runs compared to Bradman's 2674.
Where did you get Kallis in England. 15 Tests/848 runs at RpAI of 33.92. All-rounders like Pollard, Dhoni, Watson had much better figures.
T on February 4, 2017, 16:31 GMT
Surprise! No Wasim Akram in any team? The greatest left arm FB, points system may have some flaws.
1. Wait for Part 2.
2. Wasim Akram in England has already been given in a separate answer.
Akram in Australia: Just above average (18th). 9 Tests/36 wickets at 24.06.
Akram never played in SOuth Africa.
Angshuman on February 4, 2017, 16:27 GMT
Is value only in scoring personal runs? I read a stats study of Dravid..not only did he face most balls in Tests but also most runs were scored while he was at crease. I would reckon that in away matches THAT (team runs scored in a player's presence) should constitute at least 25% of rating points, if not more.
That information is not available for 75% of Test matches. I never take a measure like that. It will be unfair to over 120 years of Test cricketers.
]] This will favour Dravid more..but that is not why I am asking. I ask because I value players like Dravid more because of this aspect of their cricket. E.g he scored 3 tons in England 2011 at good averages but India lost all 4. But that is not a measure. See how many runs were scored in that series in his presence. That is the measure of what he meant to his side's batting efforts. One more century from him may not have made much difference..but some more runs from OTHERS while he was at crease would have made a world of difference. Which has been the case for him..the reason why those 3 were 3 of the only 4 tons he scored in losing causes. Think about it.
Shiva on February 4, 2017, 16:09 GMT
Good read. Am surprised that Zaheer Abbas/Javed Miandad didn't make it on the England touring time (especially remember Zaheer having a good time there). Similar surprise on Wasim Akram/Waqar Younis - thought they would have perhaps made it on Aus/Eng touring sides (at least on top 10) SRT in SAF was a bit surprising to me - thought none of the so called modern Indian greats had good consistent performances there. Oh well.
In SAF, it was a toss-up between SRT and RTP.
Wasim Akram in England was way down (48th) in the table. 14 Tests/53 wickets at 28.74.
Waqar Younis in England was way down (46th) in the table. 10 Tests/45 wickets at 27.49.
Zaheer Abbas in England was quite good (16th in the table). 9 Tests/841 runs at RpAI of 56.07.
Miandad in England was very average (44th in the table). 16 Tests/979 runs at RpAI of 41.64.
gagan on February 4, 2017, 15:49 GMT
@yobro : right mate..and he has the highest average in cricketers who scored more than 10k in odis although he was an opener and scored 18k himself..noone can match SRT..
Sumeet Dugar on February 4, 2017, 15:48 GMT
Great read. Thanks!
A couple of the present generation should be able to break into the teams in a possible future edit.
Looking forward to part 2.
Newton Fernandez on February 4, 2017, 15:30 GMT
Great article. A little off topic here Ananth, but perhaps you could put my mind at ease. Given Tendulkar's consistency and ability to score on any ground in the world, one would be tempted to include Tendulkar in any playing 11. He has great scores in all three outcomes (win, loss, draw). Yet, for all his batting genius and prowess and records, how is it possible that not one of his innings -in 12 years of cricket (89-01) - made it into Wisden's Top 100 Test Innings?
Consistency is totally different to great innings. If a batsman scored 60 in every innings he is going to average 60. Another batsman with scores in four innings like 0, 0, 0, 200 would have an average of 50 but may very well have played the innings of a lifetime. I have answered this in many fora. I have responded to Harsha Bhogle's queries on Tendulkar's 155 in 2001. I have explained every single big innings of Tendulkar.
Do not confuse the greatness of a player with the great individual performances. Hirwani and Massie would be in anybody's list of top-10 Test bowling performances. With luck they would be in the top-500 bowlers ever. There Murali, Warne, McGrath, Kumble et al would ride high.
]] I've debated this at length with a friend and just can't see a way past it. I've never posed this question on any blog or site, but couldn't resist the opportunity after reading your article. Your response would be invaluable!
cricfan24426674 on February 4, 2017, 15:30 GMT
Hi Ananth. Nice work, although I am a bit surprised with VVS Laxman missing out on the touring party to Australia. Besides, there should be a cut-off of 10 test match. GA Faulkner's RpaI might read impressive but 5 test matches is really small sample size. Looking forward to part 2 of the article.
Not really. What you suggest will mean that Lara's 706 runs in 4 Tests and Fleming's 733 runs in 5 Tests in Sri Lanka should be shelved in favour of Dravid's 662 runs in 12 Tests. It is possible that for countries like Australia and England I could increase the cut-off.
But let me say that if I did not select Faulkner for Australia, I would have selected Barrington. Laxman was too far down. Even Kohli is way above Laxman. And Martin Crowe, Vaughan, Gomes et al.
NITISH on February 4, 2017, 15:23 GMT
Sir, Another intriguing and brilliant piece; just made my weekend better. A query wrt the team touring Aus. "...Junior Murray of West Indies ..... Alan Knott.... In 13 Tests, he dismissed 51 batsmen and scored 643 runs at 29.62." Sangakkara played only 5 tests in Aus. He doesn't have many dismissals to his name. Incidentally he was the WK in only one of them (P. Jayawardene took the gloves in 3, Romesh Kalu in 1) and pouched 6 catches in that match. His batting average in Aus is 60.33 (only 1 NO). I understand that Kumar could not have found a place solely as a batsman. But that being said, could the ratios of 60% to DpT and 40% to batting be tweaked to weed out anomalies (I am calling it so only because of his achievements) such as this one? And secondly, if the most of the dismissals were in the form of getting out bowled or LBW, then wouldn't 60% to DpT do injustice to the keeper? (For eg., 38% of Murali's wickets were B and LBW) Awaiting the 2nd part with eagerness. Thanks.
One possibility is to consider the DpT based on tests in which the keeper was a designated keeper. But problems if he was substituted by another one in the other innings. Or oif someone else kept for part of the innings. Warts and all, it is not a bad measure.
Your second query is something about which again nothing can be done. But then again, you could stump batsmen off Murali or pouch catches.
Kishan Bharadwaj on February 4, 2017, 15:22 GMT
A very very insightful piece. Loved the way you assign weights to the bat indx and bowling index. Just the piece to read, given I am starting out on a journey of a cricket data cruncher.
gagan on February 4, 2017, 15:20 GMT
@theluckycountrty : are you for real mate? everytime whinnning..aus have been beaten In India fairly..you can check scorecard of 2008,2010 and 2013..and Ashes 2015 or 2013 or 2009 doctored pitches ?..get some life other than whinnning..
Sunil on February 4, 2017, 15:03 GMT
I agree with the summary by @Karthikeyan007, and the comment by the author, which reveals Tendulkar's consistency away, all through his career. This is also reflected in the usual stats by the fact that he is the only modern Test batsman to average 40+ batting away in every Test nation.
Dipanjan on February 4, 2017, 14:52 GMT
with the query about vvs answered.. i would also like to know where Dada stands post his exploits in England..
Ganguly has done quite well in England. His numbers are quite good: 9 tests/915 runs/RpAI 65.12. In fact he is in the 12th place in the Index table and is a serious contender.
1RahulKaushal2 on February 4, 2017, 14:32 GMT
Excellent analysis -- disappointed, though, not to see Murli featured anywhere or his team-mate Sankara (too few Sri Lanka visits abroad)?
Murali just missed out in England depsite 48 in 6. In Australia he was very average. Saf was also okay (35 in 6) but again there was only one place.
Sangakkara excelled only in Pakistan (695 in 6). So these will fall in place in Part-2.
Master on February 4, 2017, 14:22 GMT
A great read thank you. I would have Hammond at 5 not 3 though, and Lara and Dravid at 3 not 5. If you wanted to refine the batting orders you could compare the selected 11s batting records at different positions. And then perhaps prove me wrong. In modern times on any ground in any conditions without recourse to the stats I would pick this XI: Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Lara, Richards, Pietersen, Gilchrist, Wasim, Marshall, Warne, Ambrose, Murali. I'd make an exception at the WACA and play Kallis and Waqar instead of the spinners.
Batting order is the prerogative of the captain. So let us tell Richards to decide what he wants. The other changes are fine. But as far as this exercise is concerned SCG and WACA are treated the same manner.
Dave on February 4, 2017, 14:12 GMT
Call me a visionary if you will...but I won`t be surprised if an Australian leggie makes the team for India.
Maybe the wrong leggie. one captured 52 in 8 and the other, 34 in 9.
karthi6792761 on February 4, 2017, 14:06 GMT
First of all, superb article! Covers most bases in terms of selection. However, I think like in one of your previous articles, performance of others players in the match should be taken into consideration with a 10% weightage because conditions also become a factor. For example, at the WACA, only the best survive the pace. Whereas, at Trent Bridge or Wanderers, you have high scoring games. Also RpAI should consider strike rate of a batsman when considering an innings. Example, a batsman's career RpI is 42 and hits 45 off 24 balls (although it's very modern-day like) it shouldn't be considered a test innings. Also, a suggestion: In your next article, wicketkeepers should have 70% weightage for their keeping in Asian conditions because of the spin factor. Anyway, I shouldn't be so critical because this is one of the best analysis I have read in a while. Looking forward to the next article!
My principle always has been to keep it simple. The way the RpAI has been designed, you could extract any players' data onto an Excel sheet and in two minutes flat, get his RpAI. If I include scoring rate or the peer performances, it would become too complicated. Also I have set out only try to correct the anomalies in the average. This is not a Ratings measure.
Phillip on February 4, 2017, 14:04 GMT
@FIERYFERG -I think AN meant that with tongue firmly in cheek!!
Karthikeyan on February 4, 2017, 14:01 GMT
Ah. There you go. One Mr. SRT makes to the top batsmen in all 3 lists and in two of the teams. There is something beyond just pure averages. Ponting makes only one of two 2 eligible lists and that too under SRT. Lara makes only 1 of 3 eligible lists. And King Kallis is a grand 0 out of 2 eligible lists. No other Indian batsmen makes it to more than 1 list and a grand zero from SL and Pakistan.
Patience. Wait till all teams are in. But SRT was very consistent, that must be agreed.
Vatsa on February 4, 2017, 14:01 GMT
Super article. Enjoyed going through it.
P on February 4, 2017, 13:52 GMT
Ananth, kudos to Pawan Mathur for this brainwave and to you for having racked your brains to conjure the above numbers. Some stunning facts are beginning to unravel in this fascinatingly interesting exercise.Thanks !
As always, the idea is to make the readers think and come out with constructive arguments: For or against, it does not matter.
Phillip on February 4, 2017, 13:21 GMT
Ponting over Sachin in SA is my only quibble. Punter scored match winning and very crucial innings in SA repeatedly in 2006. Sachin's impact in SA only resulted in drawn tests. IN both the tests India won in SA, Laxman and Dravid played a bigger part than Sachin.
I would agree with you 100%. I would be very happy to have Ponting there. In fact they are quite close. But Tendulkar has slightly higher rating points.
Fayyaz on February 4, 2017, 13:21 GMT
Well done Anantha, You have really made these three XI such good that it is hard to say that why "this" player in not in the team. For visiting Australia, first I thought Kohli should be there on for Sachin, because of the way he gets under the skin of the bowlers and his numbers are not bad either. But then I thought, oh come on! When Sachin played, Australia had one of the all time best bowling attack. In the visiting side for England, Smith's selection is not convincing, but yes, we cannot drop him because of his numbers. Similarly, it would have been tough for you to drop Garner for Lille. No comments on visiting side for South Africa since Cricket was banned there when West Indies had their best team. Looking forward for the sides visiting India and Pakistan. Great Work!
Kohli is there in 10th position. 5 years from now, he would be a certainty.
I have tried to be as true to numbers as possible. If there are variations, maybe there are reasons or maybe these are my personal preferences. That is all.
Jatish on February 4, 2017, 13:18 GMT
I think teams should be selected based on 100 years of play. i. e. 1917 to 2017.
No justification at all.
Dave on February 4, 2017, 13:11 GMT
@Unnikuttan and cricfan0820 re. no VVS Perhaps because Hammond scored 2000 runs in Aus at 62, Sachin 1800 at 53, Viv 1750 at 48...and VVS a very respectable 1200 at 44?
Thanks, David. Nice if it comes from another reader.
ajay on February 4, 2017, 13:05 GMT
no Lord of Lords in the visiting XI to England?
If you are referring to Vengsarkar, the overall numbers are quite below-par. 13 Tests/960 runs/RpAI 41.74.
ronhur0718202 on February 4, 2017, 12:54 GMT
Hi, I enjoy reading other people's views, part of the fun of sharing common interests. Is it possible to have an option where readers like myself can say "Agree" or "Disagree" regarding comments others have made?
You can always find your own way of doing that.
Richard on February 4, 2017, 12:46 GMT
No Gary Sobers means this is a futile pursuit. A GOAT visiting bowling team to Australia is not complete without Marshall and Garner in it, no way. My selection is Sobers at 7, then Hadlee, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose.
Absolutely no problems with your selections. A terrific team indeed. If the WSC games were considered as Tests, Sobers would walk in.
Bruce on February 4, 2017, 12:29 GMT
All teams coming Down Under get to play on proper Test wickets whereas all teams prepare doctored pitches to aid their own side and to combat our awesome pace threat. It is due to teams being scared of being whitewashed, which would happen. Their batters can't take the pace of our bowlers. Down Under it is real Test cricket for real men.
jr16729532661 on February 4, 2017, 12:24 GMT
Allan Border ranks higher than Dravid for England tours but the author finds a way to sneak Dravid in. Gotta love Indian bias
Unni on February 4, 2017, 12:08 GMT
May i ask why there is no VVS in Australia touring teams?
Pl see earlier response.
Manav on February 4, 2017, 11:56 GMT
I would usually disagree with selection based on pure statistics (obviously in this case there was no choice) but your formula might even work for real international selections. Warner is the only current player to be selected in a team. Interesting to see whether there will be more next time.
Fergus on February 4, 2017, 11:43 GMT
Nice article but I don't see the point of the comment regarding the SA supporters reaction if Strauss was selected? If it's a reference to his birth there, then it never created any controversy when he did tour the country, so why imply that now? Whether he's a better selection than Warner depends on how you want your openers to play. Personally, I'd go with Strauss just because he sold his wicket more dearly - Warner gives a lot of chances and can leave you in a hole very quickly. Conversely he could have a hundred before lunch and there's nothing worse as an opening bowler than an opening bat who hits everything.
No, certainly not the place of birth but the style of attritional play vs the free-scoring Warner game. My apologies for the unintended slight.
cricfan08206922 on February 4, 2017, 11:03 GMT
surprising to see vvs omitted from the australia considerations...
This applies to any further comments on Laxman vs Australia.
Unfortunately Laxman's summary of his visits to Australia are 15 Tests/1236 runs/RpAI of 43.20. This puts him in the 29th position amongst visiting batsmen to Australia. Tell me how does he displace any one of Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Hammond/Richards/Tendulkar/Faulkner.
dgleve6051599 on February 4, 2017, 11:03 GMT
Brilliant article. I thought I had picked virtually all imaginary teams possible. I am beyond remorse at my neglect. I do not agree with all of your ratings but that, of course, is part of the joy. Thank you and well done and I look forward to the next instalment.
Robert on February 4, 2017, 10:50 GMT
Lovely! Food for endless fireside bickerings in these long winter nights! Look forward to Part 2!
No featured comments at the moment.
Robert on February 4, 2017, 10:50 GMT
Lovely! Food for endless fireside bickerings in these long winter nights! Look forward to Part 2!
dgleve6051599 on February 4, 2017, 11:03 GMT
Brilliant article. I thought I had picked virtually all imaginary teams possible. I am beyond remorse at my neglect. I do not agree with all of your ratings but that, of course, is part of the joy. Thank you and well done and I look forward to the next instalment.
cricfan08206922 on February 4, 2017, 11:03 GMT
surprising to see vvs omitted from the australia considerations...
This applies to any further comments on Laxman vs Australia.
Unfortunately Laxman's summary of his visits to Australia are 15 Tests/1236 runs/RpAI of 43.20. This puts him in the 29th position amongst visiting batsmen to Australia. Tell me how does he displace any one of Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Hammond/Richards/Tendulkar/Faulkner.
Fergus on February 4, 2017, 11:43 GMT
Nice article but I don't see the point of the comment regarding the SA supporters reaction if Strauss was selected? If it's a reference to his birth there, then it never created any controversy when he did tour the country, so why imply that now? Whether he's a better selection than Warner depends on how you want your openers to play. Personally, I'd go with Strauss just because he sold his wicket more dearly - Warner gives a lot of chances and can leave you in a hole very quickly. Conversely he could have a hundred before lunch and there's nothing worse as an opening bowler than an opening bat who hits everything.
No, certainly not the place of birth but the style of attritional play vs the free-scoring Warner game. My apologies for the unintended slight.
Manav on February 4, 2017, 11:56 GMT
I would usually disagree with selection based on pure statistics (obviously in this case there was no choice) but your formula might even work for real international selections. Warner is the only current player to be selected in a team. Interesting to see whether there will be more next time.
Unni on February 4, 2017, 12:08 GMT
May i ask why there is no VVS in Australia touring teams?
Pl see earlier response.
jr16729532661 on February 4, 2017, 12:24 GMT
Allan Border ranks higher than Dravid for England tours but the author finds a way to sneak Dravid in. Gotta love Indian bias
Bruce on February 4, 2017, 12:29 GMT
All teams coming Down Under get to play on proper Test wickets whereas all teams prepare doctored pitches to aid their own side and to combat our awesome pace threat. It is due to teams being scared of being whitewashed, which would happen. Their batters can't take the pace of our bowlers. Down Under it is real Test cricket for real men.
Richard on February 4, 2017, 12:46 GMT
No Gary Sobers means this is a futile pursuit. A GOAT visiting bowling team to Australia is not complete without Marshall and Garner in it, no way. My selection is Sobers at 7, then Hadlee, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose.
Absolutely no problems with your selections. A terrific team indeed. If the WSC games were considered as Tests, Sobers would walk in.
ronhur0718202 on February 4, 2017, 12:54 GMT
Hi, I enjoy reading other people's views, part of the fun of sharing common interests. Is it possible to have an option where readers like myself can say "Agree" or "Disagree" regarding comments others have made?
You can always find your own way of doing that.