A look back at Australia at the 1996 World Cup

After dominating ODI cricket for several years, Australia’s failure at its home 1992 World Cup was a shock to the national cricket establishment and remains one of Australian cricket’s biggest post-WSC failures. Methods, players and tactics that had been shown to be reliable and successful for several years were shown up to be stale, timid and complacent once the tournament started.

Therefore, Australia had to reinvigorate their one-day cricket in anticipation of the next World Cup to be held in Asia in 1996. The path to revitalizing their ODI cricket only really began once they made opening batsman Mark Taylor permanent captain after Allan Border’s retirement in 1994.

On the surface Taylor hardly seemed an apt choice as ODI captain as he had been a less than regular choice in the side when he was just an opening batsman. But as was to become immediately apparent, he was an inventive captain (and excellent slips fielder) so his moderate ODI batting skills could be tolerated for the greater good.

Australia’s ODI results were largely very strong under Taylor’s tenure in the couple of years leading up to the 1996 WC. Their only poor performance had been a 4-1 series defeat in the West Indies but it was apparent that Australia saw that series as a sideshow to their real aim of winning the Test series (which they famously achieved).

But probably the greatest improvement in Australia’s ODI cricket in the years between the 1992 & 1996 World Cups was Shane Warne becoming an outstanding matchwinner of the side. In truth Warne’s success as an ODI bowler was more unlikely than his Test success as the perception until then was that the 50 Over format was just not viable for leg-spin as it was too high risk to succeed in a format geared towards batsmen.

Indeed, it took almost two years after his Test debut before Warne was given a chance in the ODI format but it became immediately apparent that he was to be an essential part of the side as he broke all the assumed thinking about leg-spin bowling in this format; not only was he an aggressive and successful wicket-taker but he could be relied upon to be economical.
Otherwise, Australia’s side was a strong mix of quality aggressive batting, outstanding fielding and a varied, multi-faceted top-class bowling attack. Any potential weaknesses they might have had in spin-friendly Asian conditions appeared to be mitigated by having the likes of Mark Waugh opening the batting and Warne’s spinning abilities.

Australia seemed well-placed in the months leading up to the World Cup but the home 1995/96 tri-series revealed some unexpected challenges and issues that would crop up in the tournament. And it wasn’t the expected big challenge of the West Indies who played largely labored and tired cricket throughout the tournament; it was Sri Lanka, a side that had previously had little ODI success in Australia.

While Sri Lanka didn’t win the tri-series, their cricket had a freshness and daring that made Australia’s style look old-hat. This was especially so when they moved wicket-keeper Ramesh Kaluwitharana up to the top of the order with Sanath Jayasuriya which was a groundbreaking move on two counts. Firstly, there had been aggressive, risk-taking opening ODI batsmen before but hardly ever both openers being this way and also the concept that a keeper could be infinitely more valuable in this format as a genuine bat in their own right.

Still, Australia looked a formidable prospect for the World Cup and despite having to forfeit a match against Sri Lanka over security concerns their passage to the knockout stages was never in doubt.

Particularly impressive was beating India on their home turf in a high-quality encounter. Australia batted first and Mark Waugh – probably at the peak of his powers – continued his golden tournament by scoring 126. While Australia’s innings fell away towards the end to only score 258 it proved enough for a 16 run win with Damien Fleming taking 5 wickets

A look at Australia’s bowling scorecard for this match shows how Taylor was prepared to be unconventional in his plans; main strike bowler Glenn McGrath didn’t get to bowl his full compliment of overs while Mark Waugh’s modest off-breaks got the full 10 overs, and the pivotal wicket of Sachin Tendulkar.

Australia were heavily favoured in their quarter-final against New Zealand but looked for a while to be heading for a shock defeat when keeper/captain Lee Germon & all-rounder Chris Harris combined for a brutal 168 run stand. However, New Zealand failed to fully capitalize in the later overs and only managed 286 when they should’ve got well over 300. As it turned out 325 may not have been enough as Australia cruised to the target with 6 wickets and 13 deliveries to spare on the back of another Mark Waugh century.

Taylor’s strengths and weaknesses as a ODI captain/player were again on display in this match. His leadership inventiveness was shown when he brought Shane Warne up the order to No. 4 as an effective pinch-hitter (a tactic hardly ever employed before or since) with his 21 off 14 providing invaluable momentum in Australia’s chase. On the other hand, Taylor scored a stodgy 10 off 24 and frankly his early dismissal probably helped his side with the rest of the batting lineup much more adept at chasing down the target. His limitations as a one-day batsman were to become unavoidable over the next 12-18 months.

Then came the semi-final against the West Indies, still one of the most famous ODIs Australia has ever played. The West Indies had a tournament of extremes, a humiliating loss to Kenya but also managed to beat Australia in the group stage and then a shock quarter-final win against South Africa on the back of a Brian Lara masterclass. They were clearly a side on the decline but still had champions galore and highly dangerous.

And it appeared that the West Indies had the match won within the first 10 overs, reducing Australia to 4/15, including their best batsman in Mark Waugh for a duck. But Australia still had Michael Bevan, the perfect batsman to form a rearguard in this situation and with Stuart Law they had a stoic 138 run partnership and enabled the side to manage 207; a score under par but certainly defendable.

But the West Indies looked to be cruising with young left-hander Shiv Chanderpaul scoring 80 at the top of the order and by the 42nd over, only needed 43 runs to win off 53 deliveries with 8 wickets. Taylor tried 8 bowlers to change things around but even the most ardent of Australian fans would’ve thought the match was lost.
But even in this dominant position the TV commentators were noting the West Indies were a bit panicky in their batting seemingly wanting to try and slog boundaries when it wasn’t needed and once Chanderpaul departed, the soft underbelly of the West Indies batting lineup with a long tail and horribly out of form batsmen like Keith Arthurton to come was exposed.

And with a player like Shane Warne, Taylor had the perfect bowler to exploit the panic as a series of wild shots resulted and even with Richie Richardson still there, they had a major collapse.

By the final over the West Indies needed 10 runs for victory with just two wickets in hand (a tie would’ve seen Australia out) but when Richardson scored a boundary off the first ball of Fleming’s over, it appeared the West Indies had control. But in another sign of muddled thinking, Richardson when for a desperate single next delivery which would’ve seen tailender Curtly Ambrose be on strike and play right into Australia’s hands; in any case he was run out and there was only going to be one winner from that point. Undoubtedly this was the high point of Mark Taylor’s ODI captaincy tenure.

But, alas from Australia, the mental and physical effort to win the previous two knockout matches seemed to tell on the side as they were no match for Sri Lanka in the final. Batting first Australia started off well with Mark Taylor scoring 74 (at an atypically brisk rate) but once he fell, Australia’s batting got ground down by the plethora of Sri Lanka’s spinners and 7/241 appeared about 30-40 runs short.

And despite losing their two aggressive opening batsmen early, Sri Lanka were never troubled in chasing down the total, winning with 22 deliveries and 7 wickets to spare on the back of an Aravidna De Silva century. Even Shane Warne could do little to turn things around this time.

On a broader level, the final illustrated the changing of the guard that had been begun during Australia’s battles with Sri Lanka in their home summer. Sri Lanka’s increased level of self-belief and their increased aggression – initially through their openers – had manifested itself throughout their entire batting lineup and had seen some astonishing scoring feats during this tournament and made them deserved winners.

In contrast, the final was the beginning of a dire period of 18 months of ODI that would result in major upheaval in the leadership and structure of the side. Would Australia learn from this period and become an even stronger ODI side over future World Cups? Only time would tell.

from Cricket Web http://bit.ly/2UOGlDI

England v South Africa in Print – Part 1

A few years ago three members of the Book Review team at CW put together a series of four articles about books on the Ashes. We have, sadly, absolutely no idea how many hits those got, but they can’t have been too terrible as two ‘proper’ cricket writers took the trouble to get in touch with us to say that they enjoyed the pieces. It was a while ago now, and for those new or newish to CW the four links appear in last week’s introductory post.

So despite the traditional tour account being very much a thing of the past we thought it would be worth doing the same with England’s past series against the other Test nations. The Ashes is, certainly in bibliographical terms, a very special contest and there is nothing like the same amount of literature around for other tours, but there is enough for a couple of posts on South Africa, and at least one each on West Indies, New Zealand, India and Pakistan.

England’s inaugural Test against South Africa was played in 1888/89, although no one knew it at the time. The Englishmen were nothing like truly representative of the strength of English cricket, but were not aa bad side. They were led by the useful cricketer and later Hollywood actor Charles Aubrey ‘Round the Corner’ Smith, and three of their number, Bobby Abel, George Ulyett and Johnny Briggs all enjoyed success against the Australians. On the other hand there were some on the tour who were there strictly to make up the numbers. The Tests played by Basil Grieve, Charles Coventry and Emile McMaster were the only First class matches any of them played. Nonetheless the Englishmen recorded two crushing victories.

There is an account of the 1888/89 tour however, and a 219 page one at that. The Cricketing Record of Major Warton’s Tour 1888/89 was published in Port Elizabeth. It will doubtless come as no surprise to know that the book is a rare item, the occasional copies that appear at auction fetching substantial four figure sums. The book is not unprocurable however, John McKenzie have produced a very nice facsimile back in the 1980s complete with an introduction from the pen of the late David Rayvern Allen. Irrespective of the cricket content the book is almost worth buying for the 45 pages of contemporary advertising, all of which are also faithfully reproduced in the reprint.

Another English side was in the Cape three years later, in 1891/92. This time the captain was the Surrey amateur Walter Read, scorer of a century against Australia. In a tour whose Test status is, realistically, even more absurd Read’s side were assisted by two leading Australians, Billy Murdoch and JJ Ferris, as well as three Hearnes. One of these was the great Middlesex medium pacer Jack, and Alec and George were brothers who played for Kent. A third brother, Frank, had played for England in the two 1888/89 Tests, and he turned out again, this time for South Africa, for who he top scored in each innings of what was another crushing defeat for the home side.

Port Elizabeth was once again the place where a book on the subject of the tour appeared titled, in the manner of the times, Visit of WW Read’s 1891-92 English Cricket Team to South Africa. A rather slimmer volume at 108 pages. This time Mr McKenzie has not produced a facsimile, but in 2007 he did publish an original book on the tour, written by Brian Bassano and Rick Smith.

The next two sides to play in South Africa were both led by the Yorkshire captain Lord Hawke. In 1895/96 a side that contained CB Fry, the Australian Sammy Woods and George Lohmann won 3-0, mainly due to Lohmann’s 35 wickets at 5.80 in the three Tests. There is no tour account for that series, nor indeed for that which followed in 1898/99. In the latter series a good England side overpowered their hosts in the second Test, but South African cricket was improving and the hosts could and should have won the first Test. Again there is no book of the tour although it is one of the five trips that feature in ‘Plum’ Warner’s 1900 published Cricket in Many Climes.

Warner led England on the next tour, in 1905/06, and it was then that South African cricket arrived, their battery of googly bowlers, Aubrey Faulkner, Ernie Vogler and Reggie Schwarz securing a 4-1 win in the five match series. Warner’s team was a strong one, but nothing like as powerful as that which had retained the Ashes in the home series played a few months prior to the trip. On his return Warner wrote an account of the tour. It was and remains the only book on the trip, but at least is relatively easy to obtain.

Normal cricketing relations were resumed in England in 1907 when a much stronger England side won the first series to be played between the two countries in England. There was a 140 page account of the tour written by F Neville Pigott, though I have never seen a copy and had not, prior to writing this post, realised it existed. The best source of information on the series comes from the pages of Cricket – A Weekly Record of the game. Original copies are tricky to find, tend to be fragile and are by no means cheap. That said in digitised form this splendid contemporary resource is available free of charge to all, via the ACS website.

South Africa won again in 1909/10, this time 3-2. Sadly there is no book of the series, contemporary or otherwise, to record some interesting cricket and in particular the considerable success of the Englishman George Simpson-Hayward. Most certainly a throwback to the days before Test cricket Simpson-Hayward took 23 wickets with his lobs.

1912 saw the first and so far only Triangular Tournament. The South Africans under Frank Mitchell disappointed and did not win a game nor look like winning one. There is a contemporary account by EHD Sewell, Triangular Cricket, and a painstakingly researched and well written recent addition, Before The Lights Went Out, Patrick Ferriday’s first book.

Two years later, in Test cricket’s last series before the Great War, Sydney Barnes took 49 wickets in just four Tests as a strong England team reasserted their authority. It is disappointing and indeed slightly surprising that Barnes’ famous contest with the South African batsman Herby Taylor has never inspired a writer to produce a full account of the tour.

Once the lights came back on again it was 1922/23 before the two countries met again. Frank Mann of Middlesex led an England side that would not have been sent out to Australia but was nonetheless a good one, and his team clinched a 2-1 victory as they won the final Test. Again there was no book of the tour at the time although writer Bassano and publisher McKenzie made sure that Mann’s Men appeared in 2004.

The next three series between the two sides were ignored by publishers. In 1924 a weak South African side were soundly beaten by Arthur Gilligan’s England and in all probability only the weather saved them from a 5-0 humbling. Next, in 1927/28, Rony Stanyforth led England to a 3-0 win in South Africa before Jack ‘Farmer’ White and Arthur Carr were at the helm as the home side won 2-0 in England in 1929.

The 1930s saw the South Africans rising again. They won a home series 1-0 against a team led by Percy Chapman in 1930-31 and then humbled a Bob Wyatt led England in 1935. The South Africans adapted much better to a wicket at Lord’s that was damaged by a plague of leatherjackets and were shrewdly led after that by Herby Wade. There was a contemporary account of the 30/31 series, The Two Maurices Again, a breezy account co-authored by Maurice Turnbull and Maurice Allom. Of the 1935 series there was no substantive account at all until 2012, when Rick Smith finished off a project started by Brian Bassano and John McKenzie published Maiden Victory. 

As they did before the first global conflict of the twentieth century so again did England and South Africa contest the final southern hemisphere Test series before the Second World War. England won a tight series in 1938/39 1-0, the fifth ‘timeless’ Test notoriously being left drawn after ten days to enable England to board their ship home. There was no contemporary account of the series, but Bassano and McKenzie ensured one appeared in 1997 before, two decades later in 2017, John Lazenby published Edging Towards Darkness, a book that much impressed myself and the Mac.

from Cricket Web http://bit.ly/2PBivKt

Zero to Sixty – the Final Hundred, from Langer to Bairstow

This feature expands on my previous articles, Zero to Sixty – Important Runs in Test Cricket, Zero to Sixty – the First Hundred from Grace to Worrell, Zero to Sixty – the Second Hundred, May to Gavaskar and Zero to Sixty – the Third Hundred, from Richards to Flower. These articles summarise the performances of top batsmen throughout Test history when their team’s win expectation was 60% or less when they came into bat, i.e. behind or in the balance – what I’m defining as “important” innings. Below are the details of the final hundred batsmen under review.

The tables below are basically split chronologically into groups of five batsmen, showing the Player name, peak ICC rating, Average of important innings (iAvg), total number of important hundreds and fifties (i100/i50), Average of regular innings (rAvg), total number of regular hundreds and fifties (r100/r50), the differential between important and regular averages (iDiff) and the difference between the number of important runs scored as a percentage of all runs and the number of important innings as a percentage of all innings – the abbreviations may be used in the text for brevity. There are a number of digressions to discuss the achieving of various milestones, etc.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
JL Langer	780	50.27	18/17	38.40	5/13	+11.87	+6.4%
V Kambli	673	68.79	4/2	28.00	0/1	+40.79	+15.9%
MJ Slater	774	48.76	10/16	33.53	4/5	+15.22	+8.5%
GP Thorpe	793	43.60	11/31	47.95	5/8	-4.35	-3.4%
BA Young	639	33.48	2/9	27.69	0/3	+5.79	+3.2%

Justin Langer‘s iAvg did not exceed 40 until his 44th Test, and did not exceed 50 until his 82nd Test, but once there it never dropped below 50 again. Of those with more than 20 important scores over fifty, only Sobers, Hammond and Bradman had a better conversion rate than Langer. Only Bradman, Sutcliffe and Gavaskar have ever exceeded Vinod Kambli‘s performances in important innings through their first seven Tests, although Kambli’s batting average of 99.75 at that stage shaded even the great man’s 99.67. Kambli’s important average was a phenomenal 110.86 at that point. Graham Thorpe‘s iDiff was still positive after 60 Tests but had fallen to around -14 with 90 of his eventual 100 Tests completed, however an iAvg of 101.33 for those final Tests, including three tons, brought his iDiff back up to -4.35.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
G Kirsten	767	47.15	13/24	41.53	8/10	+5.62	+4.4%
ML Hayden	935	49.53	16/22	52.59	13/6	-3.06	+1.7%
S Chanderpaul	901	49.79	23/53	58.97	7/12	-9.18	-0.4%
SP Fleming	725	41.53	8/37	36.24	1/9	+5.29	+2.7%
JP Crawley	582	32.32	2/8	46.92	2/1	-14.60	-2.6%

When Matthew Hayden hit twin centuries against Sri Lanka in 2004 he had twelve i100s and twelve i50s with an iAverage over 62 – he barely missed joining the 50/50 club. Shiv Chanderpaul “enjoyed” a high number of important innings (229), but his ratio of i100s (23 in 229 innings, for 10.0%) to r100s (7 in 52 innings, for 13.5%) and total i50s (76 in 229 innings, for 33.2%) to total r50s (19 in 52 innings, for 36.5%) are comparable.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
GJ Blewett	696	33.94	3/9	35.52	1/6	-1.58	-2.7%
SL Campbell	688	31.08	3/14	40.25	1/4	-9.17	-4.9%
Habibul Bashar	656	31.78	3/23	4.33	0/1	+27.45	+5.2%
SM Pollock	565	31.49	2/11	33.31	0/5	-1.82	-0.3%
RT Ponting	942	65.02	37/37	33.40	4/25	+31.62	+14.3%

Habibul Bashar had massive numbers of iInns (93%) and almost all of his runs were classified as important, with the result that he shows a massive iDiff; his first regular innings was not until his 45th. One ton and seven fifties in his first 15 innings saw his iAvg close to 50. Basically the the opposite of Bashar, with far fewer important innings, Shaun Pollock was pretty consistent regardless. His iDiff was still in double figures after 79 Tests, but 42 innings where he hit just one fifty changed that.

I highlighted Ricky Ponting‘s performance in important situations in the opening feature, where he showed as being second only to Bradman. In his first 20 innings he only faced an important situation seven times, but still his iAvg was over 54, his two tons to that point coming in such a scenario. Just to get a feel for how he could turn it on, there was a period of 13 Tests during which he was struggling with 13 scores under 18 – even then, his average in the important innings was 86.33, otherwise it was under 20! After his 73rd Test his iDiff was over 50, and was still at that level 15 Tests later – it didn’t drop below 40 until his 128th Test. Below is a table showing all of the players who achieved an iDiff greater than 50 for at least 10 Tests with an rAvg of at least 20:-

iDiff	Player	Tests
82.95	DG Bradman	12
75.75	TT Samaraweera	11
70.25	AC Gilchrist	10
68.33	NC O’Neill	10
68.11	V Kambli	10
55.82	RT Ponting	74
54.61	RT Ponting	75
54.03	V Kambli	11
52.79	DG Bradman	13
52.68	RT Ponting	76
52.48	MJ Greatbatch	10
51.85	GC Smith	11
51.76	V Kambli	14
51.51	AC Gilchrist	12
51.40	DG Bradman	19
51.24	RT Ponting	80
50.72	RT Ponting	81
50.67	TT Samaraweera	12
50.47	RT Ponting	88

WG Grace also had an iDiff over 50 after 11 Tests, however his iAvg was less than 20. There were other examples of iDiff >50 for Ponting, but the above were the highest per number of Tests. No one else in the list except Bradman managed to maintain an iDiff >50 for more than 14 Tests, and Bradman’s best was 19 Tests – Ponting got to 88! The man was simply immense. (See also below the table on inter-1000 innings.)

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
JH Kallis	935	51.98	30/34	60.57	14/13	-8.60	0.0%
NJ Astle	690	33.94	6/16	43.97	5/8	-9.17	-5.9%
L Klusener	640	34.11	3/4	30.96	1/4	+3.10	-2.6%
R Dravid	892	53.42	28/46	47.39	8/17	+6.03	+2.5%
PD Collingwood	730	39.56	6/12	39.92	4/7	-0.36	-0.6%

Jacques Kallis‘ iDiff of -8.60 may seem to support criticisms that he didn’t take the match situation into account, but his total of 30 important tons is only one behind Lara. He was the 10th to achieve an average of 50+ regardless of the situation, such that his percentage of important innings and important runs are identical. His iDiff was positive for his first 50 Tests, negative thereafter, although during that period his iAvg rose from 41.36 (6 i100s/9 i50s) to 51.98 – his rAvg meanwhile rose from 40.32 (1 r100/7 r50s) to 60.57. His 100s/50s for each category after 50 Tests were respectively 24/25 and 13/16; his conversion rate was always better when the situation was important. Rahul Dravid‘s iDiff remained positive for the final 138 Tests of his 164-Test career. He is one of only three players to reach 10,000 important runs, with Tendulkar and Lara. He had the third highest total of scores of 50+ ever, after Tendulkar and Chanderpaul and level with Ponting.

Digression #1 – Important Runs Milestones

The next lists show those who were quickest to reach milestones in iRuns, namely 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000 and 10,000, as well as those who were quickest to progress from each milestone to the next.

Innings to reach 5000 important runs

iInns	Player
52	DG Bradman
76	RT Ponting
87	L Hutton
89	SM Gavaskar
91	SR Tendulkar
94	V Sehwag
95	GS Sobers
95	MJ Clarke
96	R Dravid
99	IVA Richards
99	ML Hayden

Bradman was the first to reach 5000 important runs and remains the fastest to achieve that milestone in terms of important innings played.

Innings to reach 6000 important runs

iInns	Player
90	RT Ponting
104	V Sehwag
108	SR Tendulkar
112	Javed Miandad
113	R Dravid
114	SM Gavaskar
117	BC Lara
122	KC Sangakkara
123	DPMD Jayawardene
126	GC Smith

Boycott was the first to reach 6000 important runs, with Ponting well ahead overall. Many of those in the 6000 list don’t appear in the 5000 list for several reasons, partly because many of the players in the 5000 list retired before reaching 6000, but also because some of those in the 6000 list went from 5000 to 6000 very quickly – the latter are included in the table below:-

Innings to move from 5000 to 6000 important runs

iInns	Player
9	Javed Miandad
10	V Sehwag
14	RT Ponting
14	DPMD Jayawardene
15	SR Waugh
16	CH Gayle
17	BC Lara
17	SR Tendulkar
17	R Dravid
18	Younis Khan
18	JH Kallis
19	KC Sangakkara

Miandad’s progress is astonishing – those nine innings included six tons, two of them doubles. He needed just 99 runs from his final four Test innings to reach 7000 but fell seven runs short. Sehwag is not far behind. Waugh and Gayle shook off slow starts (121 and 124 innings respectively to reach 5000) to surge to 6000 important runs.

Innings to reach 7000 important runs

iInns	Player
106	RT Ponting
130	V Sehwag
132	SR Tendulkar
132	R Dravid
133	BC Lara
139	SM Gavaskar
144	KC Sangakkara

Gasvakar got there first, but again Ponting was miles quicker than anyone else, taking fewer innings to reach 7000 important runs than Kallis, Jayawardene, Amla and Younis Khan (plus a host of others) needed to reach 5000 runs. Steve Waugh nailed it with his final innings, needing 28 he scored 80.

Innings to move from 6000 to 7000 important runs

iInns	Player
16	BC Lara
16	RT Ponting
18	S Chanderpaul
19	SR Waugh
19	R Dravid
22	KC Sangakkara
23	JH Kallis
23	Younis Khan
24	SR Tendulkar

Ponting is also quickest to 8000 and 9000 runs, however only Lara (183 innings), Tendulkar (193) and Dravid (198) reached 10,000 runs. Only Tendulkar went on to reach 11,000 (206) and 12,000 runs (232). Notably Sangakkara (7000-8000) and Lara (8000-9000) achieved those 1000 run transitions in just 11 innings.

Returning to our main review:-

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
HH Gibbs	825	46.38	11/22	32.53	3/4	+13.85	+7.7%
VVS Laxman	781	45.10	11/42	46.40	6/14	-1.31	-0.2%
DJ Lehmann	693	52.71	4/5	36.37	1/5	+16.35	+6.8%
ME Trescothick	818	46.93	10/26	35.68	4/3	+11.25	+4.6%
MA Boucher	566	31.18	3/26	30.00	2/8	+1.18	+0.9%

VVS Laxman only hit two tons in his first 55 innings, but what a pair they were – first, the 167 out of 258 at Sydney in 2000, then the 281 which helped turn the Kolkata Test and series the following year. Laxman’s iDiff was positive for 90 consecutive Tests from his 38th Test, only dropping below zero for his final six Tests. Marcus Trescothick‘s iDiff went positive in his third Test and stayed there for the remainder of his career. It’s notable that his rAvg was over 41 but slowly declined over the final dozen or so Tests, while his iAVg remained constant – which is the opposite to what I would have expected, considering the issues which led to his early retirement from the international game.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
ND McKenzie	642	41.57	5/11	27.11	0/5	+14.46	+8.6%
AG Prince	756	51.18	8/9	32.19	3/1	+19.0	+8.4%
Shahid Afridi	582	38.79	4/5	30.54	1/3	+8.26	+4.0%
AC Gilchrist	874	54.52	11/16	41.76	6/9	+12.76	+6.5%
MG Elliott	704	30.62	1/3	37.79	2/1	-7.17	-3.4%

To a certain extent these numbers are irrelevant for Shahid Afridi as he just whales away whatever. Still, they’re pretty good in any case. After six Tests Adam Gilchrist‘s iAvg stood at 236! It was still above 60 after 70 Tests and his iDiff never went negative, and though he was fortunate to face an important situation in less than 50% of his innings he really made the most of them. Matt Elliott always struck me as looking more like a night shift security guard than a cricketer; in direct contrast to Gilchrist, Elliott’s iDiff never went positive.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
MA Butcher	729	36.10	8/18	29.36	0/5	+6.75	+4.5%
A Flintoff	645	30.51	2/19	34.95	3/7	-4.43	-2.9%
DL Vettori	672	31.94	5/17	27.05	1/5	+4.88	+3.1%
A Symonds	718	42.95	2/5	37.69	0/5	+5.26	+5.1%
MP Vaughan	876	43.18	13/13	36.85	5/5	+6.33	+4.8%

Though Mark Butcher‘s overall numbers are not great, all his tons were made in important situations, one of course being more memorable than the others. Michael Vaughan‘s iAvg was above 50 until about half way through his Test career (nine i100s/six i50s), then 33.13 (four i100s/seven i50s) after that. Vaughan had a penchant for ‘daddy’ hundreds, as his thirteen i100s averaged over 150 despite never logging a double century.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
BM McMillan	703	36.51	2/15	43.13	4/4	-6.62	-2.4%
MEK Hussey	921	51.47	9/21	45.75	9/8	+5.72	+2.8%
SM Katich	807	48.02	7/20	40.96	3/5	+7.05	+4.5%
MW Goodwin	698	41.58	3/7	62.50	0/1	-20.92	-0.7%
DPMD Jayawardene	883	46.28	21/34	57.67	13/15	-11.39	-3.6%

After 20 Tests Michael Hussey‘s iAvg was 86.18 and his rAVg 83.71, remarkable figures. He was never going to maintain that level, but still retired with his iAvg over 50 and a healthy iDiff. Though his conversion rate isn’t particularly impressive, Simon Katich did maintain an iAvg above 50 until his last three Tests, over which he averaged just 26. Mahela Jayawardene has a reputation of being a home-loving man, is that shown in his important numbers? See below:

Venue	iAvg	i100	i50	rAvg	r100	r50	iDiff
Home	59.30	15	24	26.36	8	11	+32.94
Away	49.21	6	12	60.13	5	2	-10.92

There’s a huge difference between his iDiffs at home and away, however most of the difference comes from his performance in regular innings rather than in important innings.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
WW Hinds	588	34.50	5/11	26.58	0/3	+7.92	+2.9%
RR Sarwan	767	41.57	13/25	34.20	2/6	+7.37	+3.5%
BJ Haddin	637	30.88	1/12	31.88	3/5	-1.00	-1.9%
Mohammad Yousuf	933	51.69	17/25	54.11	7/8	-2.43	-0.9%
AJ Strauss	769	42.64	17/19	38.09	4/8	+4.56	+3.6%

Mohammad Yousuf is the 11th player to average over 50 regardless of the situation. Clearly he steeled his batting later in his career, as his iAvg did not exceed 50 until three-quarters of the way through his career; at the mid-point his iDiff was as low as -14. Andrew Strauss had a positive iDiff right up until his 88th Test. When he hit 161 at Lord’s in the 2009 Ashes his overall conversion rate was 18/14, after which he went 3/13 in 60 innings. Overall though his performance is pretty consistent.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
W Jaffer	608	41.25	5/8	19.60	0/3	+21.65	+11.7%
MS Sinclair	649	27.13	2/3	49.18	1/1	-22.05	-6.5%
TM Dilshan	700	39.99	11/15	45.94	5/8	-5.95	-1.9%
TT Samaraweera	775	47.16	11/21	48.38	3/9	-1.22	+1.2%
CJL Rogers	793	39.24	2/11	48.64	3/3	-9.41	-4.6%

Tillakaratne Dilshan‘s first 100 was against Zimbabwe and was followed by a run of low scores in important situations, such that his iDiff was less than -60 after 12 Tests. But six tons in 17 innings during 2009 saw that differential reduced to -3.21. After just five Tests, thanks to two not out centuries Thlan Samaraweera‘s iAvg was 258.00! Though it ended a little lower than 50, his iAvg was above 50 for 88 of his Test innings.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
CH Gayle	755	43.74	13/31	34.44	2/5	+9.29	+4.9%
SS Das	575	36.97	2/8	30.00	0/1	+6.97	+8.9%
S Ramesh	641	42.12	2/6	28.55	0/2	+13.57	+6.7%
MS Dhoni	662	33.32	4/21	45.64	2/12	-12.32	-5.6%
Yuvraj Singh	506	35.36	3/4	36.06	0/5	-0.70	-3.1%

The big-hitting Chris Gayle has been a very consistent performer in important innings, of which he has faced a lot. 44 important innings of 50+ puts him in the top 20 of all-time to that point. His career breakdown is interesting:-

Tests	i100	i50	r100	r50	Comments
1-11	0	1	1	0
12-35	1	9	1	1
36-50	5	7	0	0	only one regular innings
51-75	0	11	0	1	no tons, four regular innings
76-90	7	2	0	2	three regular innings
91-103	1	2	1	3	nine regular innings

Quite the purple patch between the 76th and 90th Tests, which included his 165* at Adelaide and his second triple century, at Galle.

***HALF-WAY***

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
G Gambhir	886	41.03	6/16	49.00	3/4	-7.97	-3.8%
V Sehwag	866	54.62	23/24	31.54	0/7	+23.08	+7.8%
IR Bell	822	40.61	12/32	41.81	10/14	-1.20	-1.7%
KP Pietersen	909	48.16	16/22	46.12	7/12	+2.04	-0.3%
Taufeeq Umar	703	31.07	3/8	55.10	4/5	-24.02	-10.3%

A massive iDiff for one of the greatest run-scorers in history, Virender Sehwag has the highest number of total centuries which were all were made in important innings. He eased himself in slowly, but from the time of his first triple century, 309 against Pakistan, his next twelve hundreds from that point averaged 212. Ian Bell of course began with a famously high average, and his final situation averages were very consistent. In a 19-Test period in the middle of his Test career, during which he faced South Africa, Australia and India all while at or around the top of the Test team rankings, Bell averaged a shade under 90, with eight tons (4 i100s/4 r100s) and seven fifties (4 i50s/3 r50s). Like Bell, KP has very level career averages. His iAvg only dropped below 50 for his final eight Tests, but his Test career was basically split down the middle:-

Tests	iAvg	i100	i50	rAvg	r100	r50	iDiff
1-45	54.87	10	8	44.24	5	3	+10.63
46-102	43.16	6	14	47.93	2	9	-4.77

Though his average in regular innings was similar, there was a large reduction in his iAvg in the second half of his Test career; his conversion rate was far superior in the first 45 Tests.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
MJ Clarke	900	52.06	20/14	43.56	7/13	+8.51	+5.4%
KC Sangakkara	938	55.31	26/38	62.70	12/14	-8.98	-3.1%
JA Rudolph	564	37.95	4/7	32.84	1/1	+5.10	+5.7%
MH Richardson	773	48.02	3/17	34.60	1/2	+13.42	+4.4%
HM Amla	907	45.03	17/24	47.66	11/15	-2.63	-1.9%

Between his innings’ of 329* and 230 Michael Clarke maintained an iAvg of 197.50 over eight inns, his career iAvg being 61.08 at that point with an iDiff of 21.02; his career iAvg was still over 60 after his 95th Test. Fantastic conversion rate in important innings, too, the best since Bradman. Kumar Sangakkara‘s total number of important fifties (64) is seventh all time. He has an iAvg which is 3.25 runs higher than Clarke’s, however Sanga’s rAvg is almost 20 runs higher. However, Clarke’s conversion rate in important innings is far higher than Sanga’s. When he fashioned two consecutive double centuries against Bangladesh after the earlier 287 against South Africa, all made when Sri Lanka was already ahead, Sanga’s iDiff was at that point -27.49. The second half of his Test career was much different:-

Tests	iInns/N.O.	iRuns	iAvg	rInns/N.O.	rRuns	rAvg	iDiff
First 67	74/3	3281	46.21	36/6	2211	73.70	-27.49
Last 66	92/7	5348	62.91	30/0	1551	51.70	+11.21

Quite a turnaround after he gave up the keeper’s gloves. By averaging more than 55 regardless of the match situation, Sangakkara joins the elite group of Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Sid Barnes, Graeme Pollock and Steve Smith as the only players to have achieved that feat. Hashim Amla has a pretty good conversion rate in important innings, around the same as in regular situations, and in fact both of his averages are quite close. He still had a positive iDiff after his 100th Test. In 32 innings from his 253 to his 311* he averaged more than 85 in important innings, 57 otherwise.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
JDP Oram	606	40.38	4/5	27.13	1/1	+13.25	+9.3%
SR Watson	729	45.24	2/13	50.89	1/3	-5.65	-0.6%
BB McCullum	760	39.62	8/27	32.23	3/5	+7.39	+3.4%
GC Smith	843	48.07	21/23	49.47	6/14	-1.40	-0.9%
IJL Trott	856	45.73	6/13	42.24	3/6	+3.49	+1.9%

After 81 Tests Brendon McCullum had seven Test tons to his name, three of them in important innings, with just one over 150. From that point on he went on a tear, with three doubles, one of them a triple, followed immediately by a 195 which saw his clutch average rise from 36 to over 40, and his iDiff to more than +10. In 12 Tests with three double centuries his iAvg was over 80. Graeme Smith fashioned some famous knocks in important innings, none more so than the 154* at Birmingham in 2008, however he was very consistent, averaging over 48 regardless of the situation, maintaining a positive iDiff up to his 109th Test. His conversion rate in important innings is excellent and far superior to that in regular innings. Jonathan Trott‘s mental issues have been well documented, but in his pomp he starred in two Ashes series victories. Ater 16 Tests both his iAvg and rAvg were over 65 and though he competed his career with a positive iDiff, as late as his 34th Test that iDiff was over +11. Trott was the quickest to reach 1000 important runs (17 innings) since Andrew Strauss five years earlier.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
Younis Khan	880	51.11	24/26	56.31	10/7	-5.20	-4.3%
PA Jaques	631	41.75	2/2	57.29	1/4	-15.54	-7.7%
MJ Prior	745	39.74	3/21	40.55	4/6	-0.81	+2.5%
Azhar Ali	787	44.71	11/23	36.79	4/8	+6.79	+2.9%
CA Pujara	888	49.23	13/14	43.18	5/5	+6.05	+2.7%

Though lauded as ‘the kind of man who responds best in adversity’, Younis Khan is the 12th player to manage to average 50 regardless of the situation – he was great no matter what the circumstances. His conversion rate was awesome, even in important innings. From his third Test, Younis’ iDiff was negative for 112 Tests until his retirement, and as late as his 92nd Test was lower than -11. Cheteshwar Pujara became the joint-fastest Indian to 1000 Test runs – how does he rate as regards the quickest to 1000 important runs?

Digression #2 – quickest to 1000 important runs

iInns	Player
11	Bradman
12	H Sutcliffe, Hutton
14	MA Taylor
15	Strauss
16	Hammond
17	KD Walters, Kara, Ganguly, IJL Trott
18	Gavaskar, RB Richardson
19	Ponsford, WA Brown, AR Morris, ED Weekes, GM Turner, Kallicharran (19 players below 20 inns)
20	FS Jackson, Woodfull, Paynter, WJ Edrich, Worrell, Rowe, Dujon, Azharuddin, Slater, Collingwood, AC Gilchrist, MEK Hussey, GC Smith (32)
21	TW Hayward, Bardsley, GA HEadley, DCS Compton, McGlew, CC McDonald, SM Nurse, RG Pollock, Sadiq Mohammad, Houghton, KP Pietersen, Sangakkara, MH Richardson (45)
22	Faulkner, McCabe, AD Nourse, JB Stollmeyer, CL Walcott, RN Harvey, Barrington, NC O’Neill, KC Bland, Nawab of Pataudi Jr, Cowper, IVA Richards, Mohsin Khan, SV Manjrekar, Ponting, SR Watson (61)
23	B Sutcliffe, Graveney, Hunte, Barlow, Miandad, Haynes, Gower, DM Jones, AH Jones, AJ Stewart, Thorpe, Dravid, Samaraweera, Styris, Pujara, M Vijay (77)

So there are no fewer than 61 players sitting atop Pujara in terms of innings needed to reach 1000 important runs, including five Indians. Vinod Kambli did not reach 1000 important runs, falling just shy with 963 in 14 innings, but it’s reasonable to assume he could have achieved that feat in 15 innings. With 496 runs in his first 10 important innings, Gary Ballance was on pace for 1000 in 20 or 21 innings, however his form fell off so badly afterwards that he never reached that milestone, stalling at 862 runs in 29 important innings at an iAvg of 29.72.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
Misbah-ul-Haq	842	42.55	4/29	56.48	6/9	-13.93	+12.4%
LRPL Taylor	871	43.04	13/22	51.80	5/8	-8.76	-0.5%
JD Ryder	607	43.00	3/5	43.00	0/1	0.00	-0.4%
DJ Bravo	709	30.35	1/11	39.17	2/2	-8.82	-4.3%
AN Cook	874	45.54	26/43	44.23	7/14	+1.31	+3.5%

Misbah has a much better conversion rate in regular innings than in important ones. After his epic 290 against the Australians at Perth in 2015, Ross Taylor‘s iDiff was +11.16, but just one of his next five tons came in important innings. Jesse Ryder came in to bat on only two occasions when his team was on top. He is the only player whose iAvg, rAvg and batting average are all identical. Alastair Cook‘s 26 important centuries has him in seventh place all time, while his 69 scores of fifty or more has him one place higher, in sixth. After 21 Tests Cook’s iDiff was still massively negative, at -11.50, and did not go positive until  he made 189 at Sydney in his 64th Test. It was still negative after 153 Tests. Between his 110 vs Pakistan at the Oval and his 294 against India a year later he averaged 103 in 15 important innings.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
AB de Villiers	935	49.03	12/34	49.19	8/11	-0.16	-0.3%
Shakib Al Hasan	694	41.38	5/23	24.80	0/1	+16.58	+3.2%
Tamim Iqbal	709	42.03	3/8	32.29	1/0	+9.75	+3.3%
MJ Guptill	597	35.35	1/3	30.00	0/1	+5.35	+5.2%
DA Warner	903	50.11	14/22	40.06	7/7	+10.05	+3.8%

An iDiff of -0.16 suggests a very consistent performer, though a closer inspection of AB de Villiers‘ figures suggests a Test career of fits and starts. After consecutive tons in his first ten Tests his conversion rate was 3/4 (iDiff +13.31), following which he hit nine consecutive fifties without converting any of them. A similar streak bookended his career, going seven fifties in a row with no hundreds. After his 278 against Pakistan his iDiff was positive, but after that he hit four tons in 50 important innings and 5 in 31 regular innings to send it very slightly negative by the close. Shaqib Al Hasan shows a massive iDiff with all but one of his 29 innings of 50-plus being made in important innings. His first 22 innings were all played without his side enjoying a lead – how does that compare with other consecutive streaks? See Digression #3 below. After 27 Tests David Warner‘s iAvg and rAvg were 36.89 and 39.26 respectively; his next 11 innings saw him net six tons and two more fifties, adding almost ten runs to each of those. His 253 against NZ at Perth, though insufficient to garner him the match award thanks to Ross Taylor’s own heroics, took his iAvg above 50 thanks to nine tons in 30 innings.

Digression #3 – longest streak of consecutive important innings

iInns	Player
45	Bashar
36	H Sutcliffe, Hutton
33	Mushtaq Mohammad
32	Shastri
31	Roy, Gooch
30	DS Smith
29	Gavaskar, Ramdin, Hossain
28	L Amarnath, PA de Silva
27	JG Wright, Kapil Dev
26	TA Ward, Botham, Gatting, Flynn

I’ve left out some other Bangladesh players as otherwise the list would be dominated by them. Hasan’s compatriot, Habibul Bashar, has by far the longest streak of consecutive important innings ever.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
M Vijay	747	46.44	12/13	21.77	0/2	+24.67	+13.2%
V Kohli	935	54.13	18/12	56.26	7/7	-2.14	+0.8%
SPD Smith	947	64.51	17/11	59.97	7/13	+4.54	+3.4%
KS Williamson	893	52.32	17/20	53.32	3/7	-1.00	+0.9%
LD Chandimal	755	43.79	9/11	34.19	1/5	+9.61	+4.0%

Murali Vijay shows as being a massively impactful player in important innings, with a huge iDiff and an excellent conversion rate, considering that all of his tons were made in important innings. Virat Kohli is one of that select group to average over 50 no matter what the circumstances. After 15 Tests his iDiff was +17 and, despite that dropping all the way to +2 approaching his 30th Test, a run of four tons in seven consecutive important innings brought it back up to +13. By the time he knocked up his 235 vs England it was +22 after 50 Tests. The reason his iDiff is slightly negative now is that, like Jayawardene, he has found a way to raise his game for regular innings as well as important innings – while his iAvg has remained unchanged since then, his rAvg has rocketed up from just over 35 to more than 56. Kohli’s conversion rate of 60.00% in important innings only just trails Steve Smith (60.71%) as the best since Bradman. Smith took 23 innings before registering his first Test hundred, at which point his iDiff was -12, however he had batted in important situations more than 80% of the time. Of course he took off after that to such an extent that his iDiff just ten innings later was +24 (45.62/21.65). After 40 Tests he had batted in just 55% important circumstances and his iDiff was back to -14 (52.79/66.52). After his Ashes masterclass it was back to +6.95 (63.85/56.90), Smith is just 0.03 from being the first to average at least 60 regardless of match situation since Bradman – no one else has achieved that mark. Now that he’s back in the international fold he may reach that landmark soon. Kane Williamson also joins the group who average above 50 regardless of the match situation. After 31 Tests both averages were below 40, however by the time he hit 242* vs Sri Lanka at Wellington his iAvg was over 50, though his rAvg did not exceed 50 until his 200* against Bangladesh last February.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
JE Root	917	50.66	12/32	44.03	4/8	+6.63	+3.2%
B Stokes	664	35.00	5/16	29.95	1/1	+5.05	+4.1%
BKG Mendis	693	42.23	5/6	18.77	0/0	+23.46	+11.0%
FDM Karunaratne	754	36.14	6/10	37.54	2/7	-1.40	-1.3%
MM Ali	655	34.62	5/6	27.82	0/7	+6.80	+6.2%

Joe Root has a decent iDiff but a fairly low conversion rate – when he notched his fifth important ton he had seven fifties to go with them, but his next five important tons were mired among a further 25 fifties. When Root scored 190 against South Africa both averages were above 50, though he has maintained his important average at that level. Despite the low conversion rate, Root’s total number of i50s (44, which represents 40.37% of his important innings) does compare favourably with, for example, Steve Smith (28, 40.58%) and David Warner (36, 41.38%). Moeen Ali has a great conversion rate in important innings, all of his tons coming in such circumstances.

Player	ICCrate	iAvg	i100/i50	rAvg	r100/r50	AvDiff	%iDiff
BJ Watling	644	34.80	3/7	44.07	3/7	-9.27	-1.6%
S Dhawan	627	42.50	6/3	34.47	1/2	+8.03	+3.4%
Mushfiqur Rahim	658	39.10	5/13	29.57	1/2	+9.53	+4.9%
KC Brathwaite	701	35.61	6/14	40.05	3/3	-4.45	-0.2%
R Jadeja	511	30.12	0/4	37.25	1/6	-7.13	+3.1%
D Elgar	784	40.68	10/5	33.72	1/7	+6.96	+4.2%
J Bairstow	772	38.00	6/14	30.90	0/6	+7.10	+3.5%

Dean Elgar has a fantastic conversion rate in important innings, while Jonny Bairstow‘s highest iAvg value was 44.34 after 36 Tests.

 

In summary, of these 102 players:-

– three players had an important average over 60 (Vinod Kambli, Ricky Ponting, Steve Smith – 0 last time)

– 20 players had an important average over 50 (9 last time)

– 19 players scored at least 15 important hundreds (highest Ponting, 37 – 5 last time)

– 58 players scored at least 20 important fifties, more than half (highest Ponting, 74 – 45 last time)

– 5 players had an average differential over 20 (highest Habibul Bashar +27.45, 2 last time)

Expanding the above to all of the players reviewed:-

Parameter	1st 100	2nd 100	3rd 100	4th 100	Overall
iAvg >60	6	5	0	3	14
iAvg >50	27	15	9	20	71
15+ i100s	4	5	14	19	42
20+ i100s + 150s	13	29	45	58	145
iDiff >15	12	9	2	5	28

So what have we seen?

This study has reviewed the performance of 402 batsmen in important innings. We can see a gradual decline in numbers of players achieving the average thresholds of 60+ and 50+ up to the era encompassed by Viv Richards and Andy Flower, but an increase in the 21st century. Naturally, the aggregate thresholds have continued to rise with the increasing number of Tests played.

I included the ICC ratings as I wanted to see how the batsmen’s iAvg stacked up against those ratings. If we look at any of the groups of five players it’s apparent that, though there is a correlation based on high quality, the ranking of each group based on ICC rating is not equivalent to the iAvg ranking. I feel therefore that the important runs average can show how a batsmen raises his game when it counts, in a way that the ICC rating, or the batting average for that matter, can not.

The best performance for i100s has progressed as follows:-

i100s	Player
2	WG Grace
2	Steel
2	Shrewsbury
2	Stoddart
3	SE Gregory
4	FS Jackson
5	MacLaren
7	Trumper
11	Hobbs
15	Sutcliffe, Hammond
23	Bradman
32	Gavaskar
42	Tendulkar

Ricky Ponting (37), Brian Lara (31) and Jacques Kallis (30) also achieved more than 30 important centuries. Others to notch 20 such hundreds include Garry Sobers, Javed Miandad, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Shiv Chanderpaul, Rahul Dravid, Mahela Jayawardene, Virender Sehwag, Michael Clarke, Kumar Sangakkara, Graeme Smith, Younis Khan and Alastair Cook. Of current players, Virat Kohli, Steve Smith and Kane Williamson should join their ranks before too long.

 

I have been personally impressed by how the following have shown up in this study:- CB Fry, whom I had previously discounted but whose high iDiff has made me realise the error of those ways; Dudley Nourse who, though he didn’t make the cut based on my thresholds, had a higher iDiff than Bradman; George Headley, who at a shade under 70 has the highest iAvg after Bradman; Tom Graveney, whom I had also previously disparaged in comparison to Hanif specifically, but who clearly was a batsman to fear when his team was still in it; Andy Flower, who was the only player with an iAvg over 50 that also had more than 90% of his career runs made in important innings.

But the most impressive is Ricky Ponting who, as mentioned above and in the first feature, was absolutely massive in the clutch.

Here are the final records as they stand for each parameter studied:-

Record	Player
Most i100s	42 SR Tendulkar
Most i50s	92 SR Tendulkar
iAvg	111.60 DG Bradman
iDiff	+34.32 DG Bradman

So Sachin Tendulkar owns the records based on longevity, Don Bradman owns those based on averages.

Nothing changes, does it?

 

from Cricket Web http://bit.ly/2ZCOX42

An Introduction to the Bibliophile’s Blog

When this blog opened for business the original intention was for a number of the pages of the existing review section to be moved into it. Unfortunately however no one on the review team raised this with anyone with any technical knowledge and, unfortunately, it would seem that sticking to our plan would be far from straightforward.

So, instead of that we have decided to write this introduction and provide links to the original pieces we feel should be in here, so that anyone who wishes to access the articles can do so.

The CW Book Review section first opened for business on Boxing Day 2005 with eleven reviews from The Mac, and his opinion piece on the subject of biographies. Shortly afterwards The Mac added a similar piece on a more general theme.

The majority of the existing reviews that are not, strictly, reviews are Martin’s six monthly overviews  of recent and forthcoming books. In future this will appear here. The first piece appeared in July 2009, and subsequently they have been kept up and appeared in December 2009, July 2010, December 2010, July 2011, December 2011, July 2012, January 2013, July 2013, January 2014, July 2014, January 2015, July 2015, January 2016, July 2016, January 2017, July 2017, January 2018, July 2018 and January 2019.

Another semi regular feature has been our look back at the previous year’s books in the context of our Book of the Year awards to which, latterly, a number of authors contributed. It is not something we have done every year, and there are no current plans for such a feature for last year, but articles appeared for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017. In 2010 we also did a Book of the Decade piece, the winner of which was David Frith’s Bodyline Autopsy. We are not sure who is responsible, but our piece on that one is referenced in and quoted from in the Wikipedia article on Frith.

In 2010 we had a look back, in four parts, at books on the Ashes – follow the links for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 of the Ashes in Print. One day we might need to do a Part 5, but sadly not yet. In the future a look at tour books in relation to contests between England and South Africa is being prepared, and there may be other similar pieces.

In 2009 Martin proved an Introduction to Wisden. Bear in mind that this, as with all the articles linked here, has not been updated, although the comment should perhaps be added that, Martin’s recent small complaint apart, Bloomsbury have proved to be an entirely suitable custodian of the John Wisden imprint.

Another possible direction for the blog in the future is to look at individual authors, in a similar manner to the way Martin looked at Irving Rosenwater here.

One particular article where it is important to bear in mind that the link is to the original text is the Guide to the Dealers that we posted ten years ago. In truth the landscape has not much changed, so no immediate plans for a second edition, but certainly not all of the dealers mentioned are still with us and/or trading.

Something that will definitely follow in the future will be looks at the smaller independent cricket publishers, and future articles on the back catalogues of John McKenzie, Christopher Saunders, The Cricket Publishing Company, Boundary Books, Red Rose Books and Richard Walsh are already in the course of preparation, and there may well be others in the future.

 

from Cricket Web http://bit.ly/2XIWQTA

Wisden 2019 – A Small Complaint

In every edition since 1950 Wisden has carried an article reviewing the previous years cricket books. The first person to write the essay was the late John Arlott and, up until his death in 1991, he did so almost every year. You knew what you were getting with Arlott. There were a handful of sentences on every substantial book published, and brief mentions for various annuals, brochures and souvenirs.

Post Arlott the articles have been entrusted to a variety of writers and, since 2003 the person concerned has selected a Book of the Year. Being within the gift of a single individual the award is not as prestigious as, say, The Cricket Society/MCC Book of the Year, but with the Almanack having sales of, as far as I am aware, the best part of 50,000 copies a year it is an endorsement that is bound to generate useful sales.This year Geoff Lemon’s Steve Smith’s Men picked up both awards – if he could have chosen just one I wonder which it would have been?

For a number of years now the format of the article has been that it has been concluded with a list of titles, I assume limited to those submitted for review – certainly it is not a comprehensive list. The  main body of the article, which precedes the list, is therefore able to concentrate on an extended look at some of the titles that appear in the list. Thus some books are fully reviewed, a few get what we at CW tend to refer to as ‘honourable mentions’, and others merely get a note of author, title, publisher and cover price in that list at the end.

This year’s choice as writer of the book review was freelancer Tanya Aldred. I am not desperately familiar with Ms Aldred’s work. She has not, certainly as far as I am aware, yet written a book herself, but she is a fine writer and I am looking forward to reading when she does. She has, in an excellent year for books, written a splendid piece which I much enjoyed and, in respect of those titles we have both read I found myself agreeing with her views, but I do nonetheless have one concern.

The article begins with a look at Derek Pringle’s splendid autobiography, and is followed by those of Shane Warne, Moeen Ali and James Taylor. Other UK published books to get the full treatment are Simon Wilde’s major work on English cricket and the wonderful book that Stephen Fay and David Kynaston have constructed around the lives of John Arlott and Jim Swanton. All those books have two things in common. All are excellent, and all come from the larger publishing houses as does last year’s anthology of Mike Brearley’s writings, which also gets a decent mention if not a full review.

It is good to see that Ms Aldred gave the Wisden accolade to Australian published book, and she also had a long look at the book that Gideon Haigh published on the same subject. Also looked at  are an acclaimed Indian book from Boria Majumdar and, slightly to my surprise, a more modest effort from the sub-continent being a slim biography of MS Dhoni. In addition, and to her credit, Ms Aldred notices the post war political history of the game by Steven Wagg that so impressed Jon Gemmell.

My concern is at the way in which smaller publishers are either ignored completely, or confined to an appearance in ‘the list’. The two titles of Mark Peel’s published by Pitch Publishing over the year in question were both excellent. Von Krumm Publishing weighed in with a fine book by Patrick Ferriday and later added Rob Kelly’s hugely enjoyable biography of Robin Hobbs. The specialist Welsh publisher St David’s Press added autobiographies from Malcolm Nash and Alan Wilkins and, in a more historic vein, Chequered Flag went back to the ‘Golden Age’ and contributed biographies of the Haywards and Teddy Wynyard and, from more recent times, David Steele. I assume, by virtue of their appearance on the list that copies of all were received at Wisden. If, as seems to be the case, none were read then the Almanack has done cricket literature a disservice.

To be fair to Ms Aldred she did notice two books on the women’s game which, I suspect by its nature, is not a subject the bigger publishing houses wish to get involved with yet. At least the ACS emerge with some well deserved coverage for Adam McKie’s look at the history of the women’s game, and their biography of Enid Bakewell. None of the Association’s other titles got more than a place in the list however.

And then there is the game’s increasing number of self-publishers. David Battersby sent as many as seven of his publications in without getting off ‘the list’ and none of Tim Cawkwell, Ross English, Jeff Nicholls* and Christopher O’Brien have their books discussed at all. It is hardly surprising that most self-publishers from outside the UK did not bother to incur the no doubt not inconsiderable sums involved in posting copies to Wisden when there is so little chance of being mentioned. t

I know not who has been commissioned to write the book review section of the 2020 Wisden, but I do hope that whoever it is decides to do something more than the obvious. Wisden aims to be comprehensive in its coverage of cricket and surely its aims should be the same in respect of the literature of the game, a magnificent resource without which the Almanack itself would probably not exist, and certainly wouldn’t in the form that we know so well.

from Cricket Web http://bit.ly/2veNxP1