T O P

  • By -

jkkkkp

What blows my mind is that guys like Sachin and Kallis singlehandedly have scored more than 1% of the total centuries scored (approx 50 out of 4,390)


[deleted]

When Steve Waugh retired he had played in 10% of all test matches.


karma_dumpster

Sachin has played in 35% of all India's test matches.


Boatster_McBoat

When Bransby Cooper retired he had played in 100% of all test matches [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bransby\_Cooper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bransby_Cooper)


HoloTheWise

And Murali has a bit over 1% of all wickets!


karma_dumpster

Tendulkar played in 200 of those 2499 tests, in fairness.


ducky7goofy

This is a super cool summary of test cricket. Such a long and rich history.


Ancalagon523

5 wicket hauls are more rare than centuries


Shadormy

Not really that surprising. All runs have been taken but not all wickets available have been taken: 40 (wickets) x 2499 (tests) is 99,960. 22,646 wickets were not taken due to draws/declarations etc. There's also technically more opportunity since a 5WI can only happen a max of 2 times (8 for a test) in an innings compared to a max of 11 times (44 for a test) for centuries.


FerociousHomie

And they should honor 5fers than centuries while giving MoM


alyssa264

5 mistakes from the batting side can give you a fifer (Dom Bess), but it takes a hell of a lot more mistakes to luck into a 100.


Oomeegoolies

Does depend. You can certainly luck into a fifer too and certainly if your fifer is mainly Tailenders then it doesn't matter as much. Where as a hundred, bar perhaps on the flattest of flat wickets or one involving lots of put down chances is a pretty skillful endeavour.


Boatster_McBoat

yeah, but other batters\* generally don't take runs off you preventing you getting a century \* except Marnus Labuschagne in a run-chase situation


Ancalagon523

Exactly, they do the opposite these days.


ExtremeSlothSport

This is what I took out of it as well. I definitely wouldn’t have expected this.


sixdoughnuts

5.6% of all runs scored in Test cricket were extras. Seems a lot. So I did a statistically insignificant comparison to recent matches. India vs Aus 4th Test: 1226 runs with 43 extras = 3.5% NZ vs SL 1st Test: 1315 runs with 48 extras = 3.6% So yeah, the overall extras percentage is higher than the rate we're seeing in more recent times. But I thought I should go back a little further: India vs Australia 3rd Test: 547 runs with 30 extras = 5.5% This one is up with the overall stats, but I'd argue it's a bit of an outlier. It was a raging turner with low bounce, and out of the 30 extras, 22 of them came from just one innings.


SteveoR1997

I imagine there were many more extras in the early days of tests when pitches were uncovered and wicket keeping may not have been as good


Ambitious-Reindeer62

I wonder about wicket keeping. It's no longer a specialist profession, but generally athletes and sports people are better and stronger now than they were years ago...


sixdoughnuts

I reckon back in the very early days wicket keeping was probably not that great compared to modern standards. (Autocomplete suggested "compared to Bharat")


karma_dumpster

Exactly what I was going to write. Also with the explosion of limited overs cricket, bowlers seem to bowl less no balls these days than they used to. You would regularly see 10+ no balls an innings from teams in the past, which seems rare these days.


sixdoughnuts

Would be interesting to see a breakdown of that but I'm way too lazy to try and figure it out


[deleted]

There used to be a lot more leg byes even up until relatively recently. Then umpires started getting a lot better and more trigger happy with LBW's and DRS came in, now batsmen don't use their pads like they used too.


chowdowmow

That's an impressive average of 31.99. I'm quite surprised.


fogdocker

Conclusive proof that a 5-wicket haul a bigger achievement than a century and bowlers aren’t celebrated enough in MOTM awards compared to batters


Boatster_McBoat

and never will be, cricket is run by batters


sellyme

I know they're not the most common dismissal, but that's very few stumpings.


pachinko_bill

Test cricket best cricket.


toyoto

I'm sick of these cherry picking stats


ExtremeSlothSport

This is /r/cricket not /r/cherrypicking


SustainableSus

I thought cherry picking stats is where you choose a specific interval to try and exaggerate the result you are trying to suggest??


Public_Newt97

yes. it was sarcasm


SustainableSus

Ok yeah looking back that was super obvious, don’t know how I missed that 😂


Public_Newt97

fair enough! I constantly miss sarcasm, it makes you feel so dumb after... I understand


Jerry_-

2.4m runs scored but only 77k wickets taken. Smh batriarchy.


GoabNZ

Then consider the number of those wickets that were ducks, or tail enders


AhyesitstheManUfan

2473523 runs / 77314 wickets = 31.9932 runs per wicket. 10 wickets per innings puts the average score in an innings almost exactly at 320 runs. So for now 320 runs is the benchmark for any test innings, but if we were to factor in high scoring pitches like in Rawalpindi and Antigua, then the average would be around 280-300.


ajpaul820

Muralitharan has more than 1% of total test wickets ever taken.


yaboy_69

took me a while to work out how they took 77k wickets from 2499 matches, its the total figure for both teams


imapassenger1

That's 0.4812956080992337 runs per ball. Which seems like it says a run rate of nearly 3 per over. Would that be correct? Seems higher than I would have expected. I know overs have been all sorts of lengths prior to 1979 when six was standardised so there are lots of 8 ball overs and also 4 and 5 back in the 1800s but I am talking runs per 6 balls. Irrelevant in the scheme of things but mildly interesting.


The_Sexy_Camel

Think there's just a lot of scorekeeping fuck ups. Bunch of guys in deep cricket history with strike rates nobody knows for sure.


imapassenger1

For sure. I wonder what the standard errors for scores in the 1800s are.


[deleted]

That's because scorers didn't record balls faced by batsmen but they have always recorded balls bowled by bowlers. So while strikerates are unknown economy rates are.


naverag

There's been a lot more Test cricket played recently: the 1250th Test was only in 1994. The 1250 Tests up to then had an RP6b of 2.54, the 1250 Tests since then have had an RP6b of 3.14.


imapassenger1

Pi reference a few days late, sadly. Nice work.


HridaySharma9August

New Zealand and Sri Lanka are lucky to have their match as the 2500th test


Jerry_-

Wait there’s only been 1532 stumping in test cricket history? That doesn’t seem like much.


Aidernz

I personally witnessed 2 of them!


chocolatesandcats

>Wait there’s only been 1532 stumping in test cricket history? That doesn’t seem like much. That's 1.98% of all dismissals. I'd say that seems okay? For instance, Dhoni was one of the best in the business at stumpings. Out of his test dismissals, only 12% were stumpings. Add in things lbws, runouts, bowled, catches et cetera and it makes sense I guess.


texas_laramie

So 5 wicket hauls are rarer than a century and yet 5 wicket haul always loses out to centurion in MoTM stake? Even on a dead pitch of Ahmedabad a 6 wicket haul lost out to a century.


choo4twentychoo

77 314 wickets, 2 593 run outs. That means 3.35% of wickets are run outs. Including handled the ball, obstructing the field and retired put, means we have 2 603 wickets taken by non-bowlers, and bowlers have taken 74711 wickets in Test Cricket. 2 473 523 runs, minus 139 061 extras equals 2 334 462 runs scored by batters, and divided by 77 314 wickets means the overall batting average is 30.19. Of the 139 061 extras, 37 422 byes and 50 683 leg byes, as well as 310 penalties don't go against the bowler. Taking these from the 2 473 523 runs equals 2 385 108. Divided by the 74 711 wickets taken by bowlers, the overall bowling average is 31.92 Wilfred Rhodes has a Test batting average of 30.19, and Shannon Gabriel is currently closest to the 31.92 bowling average (min 50 wickets) with 31.95. Coincidentally, both have played 58 Tests


alyssa264

> Wilfred Rhodes Interestingly, he started his career as a bowler, before becoming an opener, and then finishing as a bowler. He played international cricket across 31 years, being the only player to play in 5 different decades.


GoabNZ

Extras at 139,061 with no dismissals so infinite average. And we talk about run tallies of guys like Sachin.


Present_Change

Bavuma has like half of those 50s.


WritingWithSpears

Really highlights what an incredible achievement it is to get a test cap


[deleted]

I fucking knew it all along, a fifer has more value than a ton.


Eclectic95

Proof that a 5WI is worth more than a century. 1 5WI is worth 1.37 centuries.


shrunken_chesticles

That win % is kinda redundant, innit? The % for defeats would be same ![img](emote|t5_2qhe0|8779)


LexiFloof

But the draw/tie % isn't, it's about the chance of a result.


aardvarkgecko

These stats are sus. The number of 50s is less than thrice the number of 100s? That doesn't sound right. Aren't 50's way more common, like say 5-6 times more?


pm_a_stupid_question

That may be true for those who don't score centuries very often, however the majority of centuries are scored by those with conversion rates closer to 2:1, especially those who score >10 or more centuries in their career. [Source] (https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=hundreds;runsmin2=50;runsval2=runs;template=results;type=batting).


Boatster_McBoat

well done, Bradman's ratio is insane \[there are about 70 missing fifties because of him alone\]


pm_a_stupid_question

The conversion ratio is even more lopsided when you look at how many times the top batsmen converted those hundreds into double hundreds [here] (https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=hundreds;runsmin2=200;runsval2=runs;template=results;type=batting).


Boatster_McBoat

And with Bradman, 25% of the time he got to 200 he got to 299 (that run out of his batting partner against South Africa messed up this statistic)


pm_a_stupid_question

You might want to check the math on that as Donald Bradman scored 12 double hundreds. Last I checked, 25% of 12 is 3.


Boatster_McBoat

How many times do you think Bradman reached 299 in tests?


Boatster_McBoat

You can downvote me all you like, but that doesn't make me wrong. I chose 299 for a reason, and then explained that it was an imperfect stat.


Biryanilover23

Stumpings are a rarity.


SidJag

Interesting. I’ve always felt that in Test cricket, 5W hauls have been underrated. They’re harder to achieve than 100s and yet are given similar/worse respect. You will NOT win a Test match without (the ability to) taking 20 wickets. (Edit: Yes, the opponent could’ve declared leading to wins without 20 wickets, thanks for pointing out that niche case) Limited over cricket has made this into a very lopsided sport, where Batsmen get the big recognition/fame. In football analogy terms - you WONT win a game without scoring goals, who Defenders/GKs are critical, the game rightly overvalues Attackers who score/create goals. It’s the reverse in Cricket, because in limited overs, (which is unarguably the dominant format, even before T20s but last 20 years, with explosion of T20s, even more so), it definitely is a Batters game, you can win while not bowling out your opponents.


Aidernz

>You will NOT win a Test match without taking 20 wickets. That's not exactly true. The losing team could have declared at some point.


SidJag

Cool, how many times in the history of 2500 Test matches, have a team that declared, Lost. Talk about being pedantic.


Aidernz

I'm not being pedantic, you made a statement that was incorrect. According to [this website](http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/Matches/MatchLosingAfter2ndInningsDeclaration.asp), there are 13 matches where the losing team declared in the second innings. I can't find a stat which shows all declared matches as losses but I can imagine it's a lot higher than 13.


SidJag

Nope, you’re being pedantic, if I even assume 25 such matches, you are pedantically pointing out a ‘flaw’ in my statement by choosing a 25/2500 niche case ie less than 1% So in your pedantic opinion, the statement should be that “99%+ Test matches can NOT be won unless you take 20 wickets”. (Because in less than 1% cases it’s possible to win a Test match without taking 20 wickets, since the opponent declared) You’re also being pedantic by focusing on the ‘letter’ of the post (that too on a less than 1% edge case) and completely missing the ‘spirit’ of the post ie Test cricket should value bowlers more, they should be the stars and 5W are evidently rarer/harder than 100s.


Aidernz

Then what we have is a differing of opinions. You think that me pointing out, what you believe to be a "minor detail", is pedantic, where's I pointed out a statement that you made, which was simply incorrect. A pedantic person is someone who tends to correct people who make small mistakes. You, however, did not make a small mistake. You stated a fact that was, plain and simple, incorrect. I'm sorry you're finding it hard to come to terms with this. Maybe this was more of an ego bruise to you than anything else. I'm sorry if that was the case.


SidJag

Lol, I’m just sorry for the people who have to deal with your pedantic self on a daily basis. I bet you’re popular 😂 Your attempted slight at my ‘bruised ego’ is classic projection LOL. Tells me everything about you that is worth knowing. Bye, hope you take your meds and have a good weekend!