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

[Dhondy]

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.

Those are emotive knocks because you felt the sweat and adrenaline while watching them. The computer is cold and dispassionate and adjusts every innings against the number of runs scored by others and the quality of bowlers. Therefore, on a pitch like Chennai, when Sehwag scores 319 against Steyn, Ntini, Kallis and Morkel, while Dravid only scores a 100, the computer rates it as a great knock. It can't, in fact is not allowed to, take account of the fact that eight batsmen didn't bat in that innings.

[Mr. Wicket]

Indeed. So if Sehwag and Gambhir faced Bangladesh in a test tomorrow and pillaged 250 each, a few others came in and threw wickets away slogging merrily making quick and entertaining 30s and 50s, and Bangladesh then got rolled... those two innings would hypothetically be ranked higher than a lot of better innings as per the computer model. And anyone who actually watched it would skim over it and tell me far more about Sehwag's 195 at the MCG, his audacity in the morning session with the ball swinging and hitting him and Chopra on the head often, and the way he threw NZ into a panic while making a smaller total, a smaller percentage of the game's runs and so on...

[Dhondy]

Why don't you present the argument Dhondy then' date=' 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 [i']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.

I am not saying that Sehwag's Chennai innings belongs up there. However, if you see some of the things I posted on the previous post and consider that the computer looks admiringly at the fact that he scored>50% of team runs, you begin to understand how, in an indirect way, even a machine can be confounded by the rate of noughts at which Sehwag scores his runs. BTW, that 233 by Dravid suffers because it was scored against a weakened bowling side, and because of Laxman's 150 scored in the same dig. His 72* scored in the 2nd innings is irrelevant because the metric is innings, and not match performance.

[Mr. Wicket]

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).

Agreed. One of the great innings in context, and especially for the manner it broke the spirit of a team that felt like victory was around the corner when the 4th wicket fell. That was a mesmerizing innings to watch. I'd take that over Sehwag's 319 and Ponsford's 266 based on what I've read of that innings. Was amazing to see how England's spirit fell from trying to take a wicket every ball to just giving up all hope and letting it end that day, without even allowing themselves the dignity of returning on day 5 to fight one last time.

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.

The Old Trafford knock was great. But the Briz hundred IMO was not in the same league given the quality of bowling there, and the Adelaide knock was a notch below considering the bowling and an incredibly flat track. (200 for Class Act Collingwobble!)

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.

Which knock are you talking about? He had two absolutely sensational innings, the 187* against Larwood and co.'s Bodyline attack when pretty much all else failed, and the 232 at Trent Bridge that had Bradman instructing his teammates to get on the balcony and watch 'as they may never see such an innings again', and then telling McCabe he'd be a proud man if he could play such an innings.

[graphic23]

Agreed. One of the great innings in context, and especially for the manner it broke the spirit of a team that felt like victory was around the corner when the 4th wicket fell. That was a mesmerizing innings to watch. I'd take that over Sehwag's 319 and Ponsford's 266 based on what I've read of that innings. Was amazing to see how England's spirit fell from trying to take a wicket every ball to just giving up all hope and letting it end that day, without even allowing themselves the dignity of returning on day 5 to fight one last time.

And it gave SA a win in England (wasn't it their first series win) after a LONG time!

The Old Trafford knock was great. But the Briz hundred IMO was not in the same league given the quality of bowling there, and the Adelaide knock was a notch below considering the bowling and an incredibly flat track. (200 for Class Act Collingwobble!)

Agreed.

Which knock are you talking about? He had two absolutely sensational innings, the 187* against Larwood and co.'s Bodyline attack when pretty much all else failed, and the 232 at Trent Bridge that had Bradman instructing his teammates to get on the balcony and watch 'as they may never see such an innings again', and then telling McCabe he'd be a proud man if he could play such an innings.

I was talking about the 232 at Trent Bridge. According to Wisden (which says according to Bradman), it was an extraordinary innings, and when Bradman himself acknowledged it, and this algorithm doesn't, it is not a worthy one that should be called 'official'. What a farce ICC is. This comes after Sachin Tendulkar is listed as the 20th or 21st best batsmen in world cricket -ever.

[Mr. Wicket]

Statistical models used to determine greatness in cricket = Epic fail. If you understand cricket and its nuances, you can see and appreciate greatness and it needs no explanation or numbers to back it up, IMO. Statistics and numbers are never going to explain why Warne's spell in the 99 WC semi is a great one, or why Tendulkar is one of the very best to have played this game. Yes, the nos will put SRT at the top of various lists (most runs in this, most runs in that), but they'll never come close to doing justice to his real impact in the game.

[graphic23]

Statistical models used to determine greatness in cricket = Epic fail. If you understand cricket and its nuances, you can see and appreciate greatness and it needs no explanation or numbers to back it up, IMO. Statistics and numbers are never going to explain why Warne's spell in the 99 WC semi is a great one, or why Tendulkar is one of the very best to have played this game. Yes, the nos will put SRT at the top of various lists (most runs in this, most runs in that), but they'll never come close to doing justice to his real impact in the game.

World cricket in general, and Wisden's "great only if match won" criteria is never going to give credit to several phenomenal innings played by several teams when were coming up and becoming a force. Gavaskar's knocks, Sachin's knocks, and several others are not going to be counted because were shining lights in an otherwise poor performance. I think the 116 at the MCG was an amazing knock.

[Dhondy]

The thread of course demonstrates how ranking innings, a very pleasurable exercise, can be such a nightmare. Set up a human panel, like Wisden did, and you get the uproar that greeted the non-inclusion of any of Tendulkar's innings. Set up a computer model, and people find numerous lacunae. Consider this though- if, as some were suggesting, you weight second innings knocks over first innings ones, you risk missing out on great innings played on greentops or moist tracks such as the Karachi pitch on India's last but one trip, where India had Pakistan on 39 for 6 before Akmal rescued them, the recent Ahmedabad test against SA, or even the last Test match at Durban, where batting in the second innings got a lot easier. If you weight away Test scores over home Tests, you introduce an inherent unfairness. Remember, what is "away" for the visiting side is "home" for the opposition. Therefore you discriminate against one set of players despite playing conditions which are basically identical for all. Weight innings in matches won over those lost or drawn and you fall into the trap of judging the "match winningness" of batsmen in what is essentially a team game, whereby knocks like the 136 played by Sachin at Chennai are relegated to the footnotes, as are Lara's epic innings played on his last SL trip. This is why feel that some of the critique here has been unduly harsh. There is no perfect system, but at least we have one. Can you improve on it?

[graphic23]

The thread of course demonstrates how ranking innings, a very pleasurable exercise, can be such a nightmare. Set up a human panel, like Wisden did, and you get the uproar that greeted the non-inclusion of any of Tendulkar's innings. Set up a computer model, and people find numerous lacunae. Consider this though- if, as some were suggesting, you weight second innings knocks over first innings ones, you risk missing out on great innings played on greentops or moist tracks such as the Karachi pitch on India's last but one trip, where India had Pakistan on 39 for 6 before Akmal rescued them, the recent Ahmedabad test against SA, or even the last Test match at Durban, where batting in the second innings got a lot easier. If you weight away Test scores over home Tests, you introduce an inherent unfairness. Remember, what is "away" for the visiting side is "home" for the opposition. Therefore you discriminate against one set of players despite playing conditions which are basically identical for all. Weight innings in matches won over those lost or drawn and you fall into the trap of judging the "match winningness" of batsmen in what is essentially a team game, whereby knocks like the 136 played by Sachin at Chennai are relegated to the footnotes, as are Lara's epic innings played on his last SL trip. This is why feel that some of the critique here has been unduly harsh. There is no perfect system, but at least we have one. Can you improve on it?

Unfortunately, Cricket is one sport where statistical analyses for "greatness" doesn't really come into play Dhondy. If we are to do how bowlers performed or batsmen performed on a pitch or in a country or how many extras a team gave away, etc - sure those are helpful. But to judge an innings of a batsman or the spell of a bowler by the # of wickets or the # of runs and whether the team won is illogical, and it doesn't mean anything.

[Anakin]

What I don't get is why behave like some sort of super duper AI is doing all these calculations. It's just plain cold formula fed by some people only looking at cricket from very few criteria, there is nothing objective about it. Cricket isn't a simple enough game for this kind of calculation and attempting to justify this as some sort of flawless cold objective calculation is just futile.

[bunny]

Oho Bunny-ji, they did. Individual innings are rated on two things; 1. Number of runs scored by the individual vis-a-vis other batsmen in that match 2. Ratings of opposition bowlers These are computer generated. nothing subjective about it. Notice, no other batsman on that list is currently playing cricket.

I know that. But the parameters are not good enough. Their calculations work well in allotting points so as to get the cumulative player ratings, but when you talk of the real great innings they need to make a lot of fine adjustments in their calculations.

[Rajiv]

So ultimately this is a figurative list, not exactly a pot where other things were considered. Also, why is it a crime to mention Indians, as if w are guilty to include them. if someone played a good innings then they ought to be mentioned, for the sake of argument Steve Waugh's swinging innings v.s england in that cold morning - now that was something

[bunny]

What I don't get is why behave like some sort of super duper AI is doing all these calculations. It's just plain cold formula fed by some people only looking at cricket from very few criteria, there is nothing objective about it. Cricket isn't a simple enough game for this kind of calculation and attempting to justify this as some sort of flawless cold objective calculation is just futile.

I think what we need here is to define the features first. Then define a couple of really good innings from each test playing nation. And let the calcultor learn the formula. That'd turn out to be much better than the current calculator which has a plugged-in formula without relying on feedback.

[DomainK]

Oho Bunny-ji, they did. Individual innings are rated on two things; 1. Number of runs scored by the individual vis-a-vis other batsmen in that match 2. Ratings of opposition bowlers These are computer generated. nothing subjective about it. Notice, no other batsman on that list is currently playing cricket.

If that's what it is, its BS. You need a mind to judge an innings. It can not be defined in a logic-based algorithm and hence a computer can never make a sound analysis.

[Anakin]

Yep, just because it's computer generated doesn't mean it's objective

[DomainK]

Yep' date=' just because it's computer generated doesn't mean it's objective[/quote'] Not only that.....just because its computer generated means it bullshit. Computers can give you list sorted in an order based on statistical data. Like a list of biggest, longest, highest, lowest etc. But greatest? Never. To find out the greatest, you need to analyze quality. And quality can not be translated into a digital language as statistics can be and a computer can not analyze whats not digital. What you need to do is get a computer to analyze the stats, give the output to a team of qualified human beings and let them reason and decide whats greatest. When you leave everything to a computer, you ger bull crap as output.

[bunny]

Not only that.....just because its computer generated means it bullshit. Computers can give you list sorted in an order based on statistical data. Like a list of biggest, longest, highest, lowest etc. But greatest? Never. To find out the greatest, you need to analyze quality. And quality can not be translated into a digital language as statistics can be and a computer can not analyze whats not digital. What you need to do is get a computer to analyze the stats, give the output to a team of qualified human beings and let them reason and decide whats greatest. When you leave everything to a computer, you ger bull crap as output.

Dont agree with that. You just need to have a right set of parameters.

[Anakin]

Dont agree with that. You just need to have a right set of parameters.

Which is almost impossible in cricket if anyone or anything claims to be totally objective.

[bunny]

Which is almost impossible in cricket if anyone or anything claims to be totally objective.

Naa I am not saying that a perfect objective calculator is possible because the definition of a great innings itself is subjective. But it's surely possible to design a calculator so that it's output is agreeable to a lot many experts.

[graphic23]

Dont agree with that. You just need to have a right set of parameters.

Lets think about this for a second. What parameters would you pass? I'll only speak for the batting here: There's the: capability of the bowling attack (how strong/weak they were based on averages, s/r,etc.), the pitch on which the match was played (not sure how to quantify it but i'm sure we can somehow), the team's position when coming into bat, the partnership built, team's position when exited, the size of the ground, the type of ball used, the season in which the match was played in which country, the quality of the batting teammates, the ranking of the opposition during the knock, the # of matches played by the player upto the knock. These are what I can think just off the top of my head. What I would do from here, is to come up with about 20-or-so combinations with these things (I know a lot more are possible), and assign a particular knock that can be rated as the best to that combination, and judge everything else relative to that. Perhaps, you can offer a better idea.