The Top Ten Test Innings of All Time....Officially

[fineleg]

Stupid list this. Laxman Calcutta is one of the best out there. What a turn around for the match! Also, Dravid 200 in Australia - we were in a difficult position but a brilliant double from RD to not "save" the match alone, but ultimately we won the match. Multan was a bloody flat pancake. A 300 is 300, but you gotta look at the pitches and bowling attack, and match situation too.

[Sachinism]

Sehwags triple ton in Multan better than VVSs knock??? No indian fan would agree with that. Not the sensible ones anyway:winky:

agreed, VVS 281 was the best innings ever

[graphic23]

Wisden released a list a while ago that had Laxman's knock at #5 at the all-time great list. I'm sorry Dhondy,I just don't agree with this one - I think its wrong to have a 306 and the 319 in there. It is just not a correct way to judge innings -mathematically or otherwise.

[The Outsider]

This exercise just shows that to capture a sport like cricket, or for that matter any sport, in purely statistical numbers is a futile pursuit. From the looks of it the list is very biased towards large scores. A 300 in a 600 total - such large totals come in good batting conditions will be ranked above a 90 in a 200 total on a minefield. More often than not the second innings would be better in terms of difficulty.

[Anakin]

300 on a highway is better than Gavaskar's 90 odd or SRT's 136 or Laxman's 281 against much better bowling attacks, on much worse pitches and under severely adverse situations ? As I keep saying, number without context is meaningless. And how's this not subjective anyway?

[Rajiv]

..and no mentionabout sahcins 139 v.s Pak - we lost but in pure cricketiting sense, determination, some class bowling and hopes of a billion - cmon

[Dhondy]

Bullshyte. Every single innings mentioned by you guys that ought to have been there, and isn't, just happen to be by Indians. And then you argue that such lists are not fair.

[punjabi_khota]

^Lol pwnt.

[The Outsider]

Bullshyte. Every single innings mentioned by you guys that ought to have been there' date=' and isn't, just happen to be by Indians. And then you argue that such lists are not fair.[/quote'] How about these non Indian ones : 1. Lara's 153* 2. Botham's 148* 3. Greenidge's 214* 4. Hanif's 334 5. Gooch's 150* ?

[Sachinism]

Bullshyte. Every single innings mentioned by you guys that ought to have been there' date=' and isn't, just happen to be by Indians. And then you argue that such lists are not fair.[/quote'] Many people have said Sehwag's 300s should be there either

[Dhondy]

How about these non Indian ones : 1. Lara's 153* 2. Botham's 148* 3. Greenidge's 214* 4. Hanif's 334 5. Gooch's 150* ?

Duminy's 166 at the MCG near the top for me. Edit: Also Hayden's 119 at Sharjah in that match.

[Dhondy]

Many people have said Sehwag's 300s should be there either

But why? Pakistan were bowled out for 100 runs below his individual score in their second innings.

[The Outsider]

Duminy's 166 at the MCG near the top for me.

Agreed, and it goes with the general point I was making that the rankings in the OP are too biased towards big scores. I wouldn't call them junk and adding a few more parameters would actually come up with a more intuitive list.

[Mr. Wicket]

I could live with the 309 being considered in that top bracket. It is an outstanding innings, and the context (first test and innings of a series, against a much hyped attack with Shoaib, Sami and Saqlain, and ending the career of one of the finest finger spinners the world has known) only adds to it. The 319 though is no different from some of Jayawardene's or Gayle's flat track triples recently. A wonderful display of Sehwag's exhilarating strokeplay, but on a track where some of the world's finest quick bowlers were stripped of all venom. Sehwag has played far superior innings to that (his debut hundred at Bloemfontein, the 195 at MCG and his 155 against Australia at Chennai all stand above that triple for me), and I find it absurd to dub something a great innings when it came in the context of a disgustingly placid wicket where 1498 runs were scored and just 25 wickets were taken (an average of 60 runs per wicket, which is just painful). The rankings of the bowlers may be high, but this is why statistics mean so little in cricket. Take footage of that test, show it to anyone who hasn't seen much of the game recently and then try to explain that it featured three of the most promising young pacemen in the world, an experienced veteran ranking among the world's best and a world class spinner when pretty much all and sundry looked like trundlers thanks to such a pathetic wicket. And more than that, it's hard to place that above some far greater innings that stand out for various reasons - Botham's Old Trafford 118 in 1981, where he was slapping some of the most fearsome quicks in the world off his eyebrows without a helmet and perfect timing throughout, Lara's 153 (which I consider among the greatest knocks I've witnessed), Tendulkar's 155 at Chennai or Gavaskar's 96 which for me are gold standards for batting against spin bowling, Hanif Mohammad's rearguard or Atherton's Wanderers defensive.

[Dhondy]

Don't forget Shabbir Ahmad at Multan, Thal. He was having batsmen for breakfast before he was "chucked" out. Sehwag makes tracks look flat when he gets going and other Indian bats feed off him. If you wish, i can give you examples of several seemingly very flat tracks where he failed and others followed suit.

[Mr. Wicket]

Indeed Dhondy, but my point is that this wasn't an instance of the track looking flat when he batted. Some of the other performances in the game are textbook examples of mediocre or out of form batsmen benefiting from a road. Dravid and Jaffer both making runs in the midst of lean trots, Neil MacKenzie totalling almost 250 runs for the game and hardly among the finer batsmen in South Africa. I have no objection to his Galle double hundred though, except that it may be ranked too high. I still consider a number of those innings I mentioned above superior. The Botham 118 in my opinion is one of the most exhilarating displays of aggressive batting I've ever seen against some superb bowlers on a quick pitch. To consistently keep hooking Lillee off one's eyebrows with perfect timing and placement (into the stands quite often) and no helmet is just thrilling to watch. I can't comment on the Hutton and Ponsford innings as I have little knowledge on those, although I've seen all of Lara's batting in that 98/99 series v. Aus, and still consider the 153* a superior knock to anything else he played then, or heck most knocks I've seen in my life.

[Dhondy]

Then there's Bangalore, Melbourne and Adelaide and of course Galle, where he seemed to be batting on a different pitch from his colleagues. I have absolutely no issues with his Galle knock being rated the best this decade and the third best ever. It's difficult to keep your self belief gpoing when your illustrious colleagues are trying their best to give the impression that bowlers are hurling hand grenades on a pitch that's actually a WWII trench.

[Mr. Wicket]

I have no problem with it being called a great knock. But the sheer mastery of Botham at Old Trafford, Lara at Barbados, Laxman at Kolkata, Gavaskar at Bangalore and the circumstances around Bradman's 270 with some of the most absurdly ballsy captaincy imaginable, a wet wicket and a 0-2 deficit in the Ashes that was turned around makes me wonder if it can be ranked above such innings.

[graphic23]

Bullshyte. Every single innings mentioned by you guys that ought to have been there' date=' and isn't, just happen to be by Indians. And then you argue that such lists are not fair.[/quote'] Why don't you present the argument Dhondy then, why you consider Sehwag's 319 (which I'm watching now by the way) is superior to the Laxman's 281. It was only the 11th time in the history of Test Cricket that a team won after being asked to follow on. It came against the best team in the world at the time and after 16 matches they won around the world. He was the highest scorer in the first innings with 59 and then didn't give them much of a chance in the 2nd innings (and despite the top order failing - again). We didn't lose a single wicket on the 4th day of the match. It was the highest score by an Indian at that time and came against an attack of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. Enough said. Sehwag's 319, which is on that list, came after SA had made 540. It was made on the 3rd day (which was our first innings by the way) - on a rather against Dale Steyn, Morkel, and Jacques Kallis. Wasim Jaffer, who was found out by Australia earlier that year made 70 odd, and Rahul Dravid, who was woefully out of form made a 119. I'll give the match the respect it deserves, by watching it several times for the audacity of the shots and the innings. The nonchalant sixes, and fours, and the way he unnervingly smashed a four off the last ball before tea off Ntini. But anything more that, its certainly not. And to list it alongside his 201* in SL is insulting that effort, to be honest. That Graeme Smith's 154 in England last year isn't mentioned is an insult to Smith - it came in the 4th innings chasing 281. I think thats a hell-of-an-effort (as Chappelli would put it). That none of Ricky Ponting's exploits feature is a sham - his innings in the 2005 Ashes of 156 at Old Trafford was absolute class. Several of his innings in the Ashes revenge were gems as well. That Rahul Dravid's (including the excellent -strokefilled, for our Dravid haters here) 233 against Australia in Adelaide isn't put here is a sham. He followed that up with a 72* in the 2nd innings, when our usual 4th innings collapse happened. We were the first team to take a series lead in Australia since Kepler Wessels' South African outfit did so in the 90s. Not many teams have lost after making 500 in the first innings, and beating Australia in Australia is an enormous effort, and that entire tour belonged to Rahul Dravid. I think the list is absolute crap. I am surprised to know that you value it at anything other than a media attempt to create some controversy. And, yes, as a Sachin devotee, it bothers me that none of his innings are on there. Please don't use the "none of his innings were matchwinning" argument here - as an Indian fan, you would know what the situation was. And if the list has Sehwag's superb efforts, whatever happened to Stan McCabe's effort? Bradman himself acknowledged it to be one of the best (or the best) ever.

[Mr. Wicket]

BTW, the question's also whether we choose innings for the sheer volumes of runs or the quality of batting. Botham's batting in the 1981 Ashes is the perfect example. His 149 at Headingley is the more well known innings, because that sparked the miracle turnaround from facing an innings defeat against odds of 500-1 and launched an unbelievable revival. Interestingly Botham admits in his autobiography that he was quite lucky with a number of shots there and benefited from some poor, overly short bowling as well on a small ground. Lillee knocks that innings calling it very lucky with a lot of edges and the sort of knock where he felt Botham could have fallen at any point (and highlights of that don't disprove that). Botham's 118 at Old Trafford is the opposite. Everything so perfectly middled, just the ne plus ultra of how to dismantle a bowling attack by confronting great bowlers head on. Lillee bowling brilliantly and dispatched through cover, point and over long leg with unbelievable force and timing. Botham was far more effusive in his autobio about that innings (in fact the Wisden editorial/review asked whether it was the greatest innings ever back then) and Lillee's view is that it was one of the all time great assaults. Going by the volumes of runs (esp. in contrast with his teammates) and statistical significance, the 149 might be considered the superior innings. Going by a pair of working eyeballs and an appreciation for great batting, the 118 at Old Trafford is one of THE GREAT INNINGS. Hence why I have so little time and regard for statistics and lists based off them. Give me Warne, Lillee, Gavaskar or Benaud telling me what they consider the greatest innings based on the contexts and understanding for intangibles in the game (quality of strokeplay, situations, pitches and conditions) that can't be accounted for by stats, and I'll pay attention. A list drawn up by a model or some computer program, and I'll just sigh at how ridiculous half of it is.