Anantha Narayanan

Mahela Jayawardene made his ODI debut against Zimbabwe in 1998. He did not have a great start to his career. The first-ten matches produced only 122 runs. During this time he missed as many matches as he played since the Sri Lankan team had stalwarts like Sanath Jayasuriya, Marvan Atapattu, Aravinda de Silva, Arjuna Ranatunga and Roshan Mahanama. Everything changed a year later in Adelaide where Jayawardene crafted a magnificent match-winning hundred against England. Afterwards he was a fixture in the Sri Lankan team until World Cup 2015.

Kumar Sangakkara made his debut a couple of years later. He had a better start but a poor run cost him his place during 2001. He came back strongly and the two wonderful cricketers formed the backbone of the Sri Lankan batting until World Cup 2015.

It is not often that both batsmen failed. The numbers are enumerated later. But they have achieved what very few batting pairs have, other than Australia: A share of the ICC Champions Trophy 2002, World T20 champions in 2014 and World Cup finalists in 2007 and 2011. Let us see what Jayawardene and Sangakkara achieved as individuals and as a pair during their illustrious careers.

Jayawardene played more matches but compiled fewer runs. This is clearly shown by the RpI value of Sangakkara, which, at 37.46 is nearly 25% better than Jayawardene's. The strike rates are virtually identical. Thus the Batting Index, which is a simple product of the RpI and S/R stands at 24 and 29.5 respectively for Jayawardene and Sangakkara.

Sangakkara's career aggregate stands at 14,234, second only to Sachin Tendulkar. Does any current player have a chance of breaking this? Hashim Amla is 32 and he is unlikely to play ODIs beyond another five years. He may not even get to 10,000. AB de Villiers is 31 and has scored 7900-plus runs. He may not play long enough to overhaul Sangakkara, looking at his commitments on the T20 circuit. It is possible that de Villiers may overhaul Jayawardene though. So it looks likely that only Virat Kohli will cross Sangakkara's tally.

Jayawardene and Sangakkara played together in 369 matches and Sri Lanka won 55% of these matches. Since they missed very few matches there is no comparison point. Either or both of them contributed in 122 of these matches, around a third. In 77 of these matches they scored centuries either individually or together. Jayawardene crossed hundred three times when Sangakkara was not playing and Sangakkara did the same four times in Jayawardene's absence. It is not surprising to note that Sri Lanka won 57 of these matches (74%).

In 43 of these matches both Jayawardene and Sangakkara failed and were dismissed for aggregate score of 20 or less. Surprisingly, Sri Lanka won 18 of these matches.

Jayawardene led Sri Lanka in almost thrice the number of matches as Sangakkara. As a captain both of them out-performed their own numbers by 25-30%. Jayawardene's win percentage was slightly lower at 57.1% as compared to 61.4% but that was across plenty more matches. Jayawardene took Sri Lanka to the 2007 World Cup infal and Sangakkara, to the 2011 final.

Jayawardene scored 14.4% of his team runs, which is par for a top-order batsman. Sangakkara scored 17.8% of the team runs, which is above par: Only Tendulkar and Brian Lara have higher percentage figures amongst the top-10 batsmen. Sangakkara has scored over 20% of his team runs over the last 15 or so matches.

This analysis is current and includes the Bridgetown Test (Test #2160). It was indeed heart-warming to see shades of the vintage West Indies on show for three days. Darren Bravo, Jermaine Blackwood and Jason Holder should form the nucleus of a resurgent West Indian team, which should at least compete, in future. They may not be able to shed the tag "mediocre" in a hurry, but they have already acquired another tag: "fighters". And Shivnarine Chanderpaul, all of 41, should look at quitting. His last-six Tests have yielded 183 runs. At this rate the 87 runs he needs to overhaul Brian Lara may not materialise in the two-Test series against Australia.

First let me state all qualification and selection criteria, of which there are quite a few. The following relates to batsmen streaks.

1. Only batsmen who have scored in excess of 3000 Test runs are considered. The others would not have played enough Tests.
2. Only batsmen whose batting averages are greater than 30 will be considered. This will eliminate bowlers who could bat like Hadlee, Vaas and Warne.
3. But this is not enough. Bowling allrounders like Daniel Vettori, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Ian Botham, Shaun Pollock et al and wicketkeepers like Matt Prior, Brad Haddin, Alan Knott et al have to be specifically excluded. All these players have batting averages in excess of 30. Otherwise the table will be dominated by these dual-skill performers.
4. To determine the trough I will use a sequence of 10 Tests. This is likely to cover a period of between eight and 15 months and cover two or three series. Anything fewer will devalue the non-contribution nature of the batsman and anything higher would be too long. It should not be forgotten that if there is a 14-Test streak in which a batsman scored x runs, there will be a streak of ten Tests with fewer than x runs scored, within this longer streak. Ten is not an arbitrarily picked round number but a carefully selected one.

With this introduction, let me move on to the tables. The first table lists the stretches in which the batsmen scored 275 or fewer runs. I have tried to go as low as possible to "enhance the value" of the trough. There were too few entries at 250 and too many at 300. And do not forget that this is across ten Tests. An average score of 27.5 runs per Test is indeed a real trough.

The presence of a few top-order batsmen in this table is quite surprising. Steve Waugh had a sequence of ten Tests at the start of his career in which he scored 271 runs. Mark Taylor scored 251 runs during his leanest of patches during 1996. Zaheer Abbas could only gather 259 runs during mid-career. Graeme Hick and Sanath Jayasuriya are not big surprises.

However, the lowest of troughs was reached by Nasser Hussain when he could manage only 183 runs during 2000. The sequence was a mind-blowing 16, 15, 25, 10, 0, 21, 8, 15, 6*, 10, 22, 0, 0*, 0, 7, 5 and 23. The average: an adjective-defying 13.07.

Ravi Shastri's average all-round skills are showcased by his two streaks. Saleem Malik and Jayasuriya also have two such streaks. However the surprise is that Waugh had two such streaks: One at the beginning of his career and the other after he was established.

The second table lists the troughs of the top-20 batsmen in terms of career runs.

Tendulkar's streak of 337 runs in ten Tests was towards the end of his illustrious career which unfortunately meandered aimlessly towards the 200-Test mark. The last 15 Tests were particularly excruciating. Ricky Ponting's poor stretch was during the early part and included the Indian tour. Jacques Kallis was poor only during the first ten Tests unlike Rahul Dravid who could not deliver in his final series.

Note the very high trough values of Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara, who both had a low which was nearly 500 runs. And it is of interest to note these are two free-scoring batsmen. Kumar Sangakkara and Graeme Smith are also quite close to this mark.

This is a special table. This lists the top ten of the lowest aggregates of runs scored in the batsman's career. As usual it is Don Bradman at the top, then a few kilometres and the next best batsman. Bradman's lowest 10-Test streak was 997 runs during a period which included the Bodyline Tests. But look at Jack Hobbs. His worst streak was nearly 700 runs, which could be the best streak of a few specialist batsmen.

But the most interesting player is the next one. David Warner's lowest 10-Test aggregate is an imposing 594. Granted, that he has played only 36 Tests. But this comprises of 26 10-Test streaks and Warner has never gone below this figure. I doubt whether he would ever go below 500 in future as he plays more Tests, he being an attacking batsman like Sehwag. Ross Taylor is a real surprise at No. 10. This shows a level of consistency not normally attributed to Taylor. Jonathan Trott's appearance in this list of top batsmen belies his travails after his comeback, beautifully described in George Dobell's moving article.

Now for the details relating to bowler streaks.

1. Only bowlers who have captured in excess of 100 Test wickets. This would require between 15 and 30 Tests: enough Tests to do a decent analysis.
2. But this is not enough. Batting allrounders like Garry Sobers, Kallis, Carl Hooper, Wilfred Rhodes, Shastri, Trevor Bailey et al have to be specifically excluded. Otherwise the table will be dominated by these dual-skill performers.
3. To determine the trough I will use a similar sequence of ten Tests. This is likely to cover a period of between eight and 15 months and cover two or three series. Anything fewer will devalue the non-contribution nature of the bowlers and anything higher would be too long. It should not be forgotten that if there is a 13-Test streak in which a batsman captured x wickets, there will be a streak of ten Tests with fewer than x wickets captured, within this longer streak.

With this introduction, let me move on to the tables. The first table lists the stretches in which the bowlers captured 15 or fewer wickets. I have tried to go as low as possible to "enhance the value" of the trough. There were too few entries at 12 and too many at 18. And do not forget that this is across ten Tests. One-and-a-half wickets per Test is indeed a real trough.

The English selectors during late-1990s should have been a really patient lot. Otherwise how would they have kept their faith in Andrew Flintoff when he captured seven wickets in his first ten Tests? Not that his bat was very effective: he scored only 255 runs. The "Next Botham" promise should have seen Flintoff through a few Tests. But he repaid the faith vested in him by the selectors: and how? It is amazing how John Emburey kept his place in the English team with an average of two wickets per Test. His worst stretch was during the peak of his career when he captured a princely one wicket per Test. Amazing! It is the only word that comes to mind.

The top bowlers who appear in this list are Alan Davidson, Richie Benaud and Craig McDermott, right at the beginning of their careers, Imran Khan and Botham towards the end and Chaminda Vaas, Ishant Sharma and Underwood at their peak. Some of these played as pure bowlers.

Unlike batsmen, no bowler had two non-overlapping streaks.

The top batsmen like Sachin Tendulkar, Ponting and Steve Waugh have had very poor runs in their career. However the bowlers are different. Of the top-13, barring Kapil Dev, no one has had a real poor run. Kapil captured 16 wickets in a barren mid-career period. Kapil, incidentally, captured only 20 wickets in his last ten Tests. Shane Warne had an average haul of 22 wickets during 1998. Shaun Pollock captured only 21 wickets during an average stretch but scored over 400 runs during this phase.

Dale Steyn and Richard Hadlee have been magnificent even when things were not going well. Steyn's lowest haul is 37 wickets while Hadlee's is 36. These figures are better than many a bowlers' career WpM figures. Anil Kumble and Glenn McGrath are the other bowlers who have never gone below 30 during their worst career phases.

This is the special list of bowlers whose troughs are better than the crests of many bowlers. The most intriguing bowler in this list is Mohammad Asif. What a waste of world-class talent. I have found that after Asif's ban, Pakistan has played 36 Tests. If he had maintained the wonderful strike rate he exhibited in the early matches, he would be sitting with 250-plus Test wickets. He might even have upstaged Steyn.

Bill O'Reilly's lowest stretch produced 47 wickets. Recently Saeed Ajmal has been very good. It is unfortunate that he has been banned, no doubt due to his own shortcomings, and has come back half the bowler he was. Stuart MacGill is a revelation. What heights he might have reached if he had been born a decade earlier or later? R Ashwin has bowled mostly on favourable wickets. Ryan Harris is another example of an outstanding bowler who has achieved a lot despite a multitude of injuries.

To resume Test analysis I have selected a semi-anecdotal piece completing a theme I stared during July 2014. Then, I had done an article titled "Coming back to win from hopeless first-innings situations". This covered Tests in which teams recovered from the brink in the first-two innings. I had mentioned in that article that the third and fourth innings are very different and would be handled later. This article covers those aspects.

When I started doing this work, I understood that Test cricket is so nuanced that each innings, from the second onwards, has its own set of parameters to be considered. The dynamics vary so much that each innings must be evaluated independently. Nothing can be deduced during and after the first innings. A dismissal for 45 does not mean the end of the world, nor does a score of 445 indicate that the match is in the bag. Incidentally, the former match was won and the latter match was lost.

At the mid-point of a Test match, the two teams could be at varying levels of MSI (Match Status Index) values. Readers might remember MSI from the referenced article. Say, if the two teams are tied at 300 each, the MSI for each team is 50.0. The worst MSI situation was in Test #153: Eng-436 & SA-30 produced MSIs of 93.6-6.4%. In Test #70: Eng-376 & Aus-36 produced MSIs of 91.3-8.7%. Finally, in the recent Test #2033: NZ-495 & Zim-51 produced MSIs of 90.7-9.3%.

The third innings is a target-setting innings. This is true whatever happened in the first two innings. Whether the third batting team is trailing by 25 or 225 runs, their task is to score enough to set a decent fourth-innings target. Instead of trying to be ultra-smart and coming out with a potentially unsound formula, I have taken the eminently common sense and pragmatic view that the minimum target a team would like to set is 250. Anything more is a bonus. Anything less makes their bowlers' task tougher.

The MSI is calculated differently for different innings. The MSI for the third innings is evaluated by determining the ratio of the projected score with the target for the innings. Say the team is trailing by 150 runs in the first innings. Their target is 400: to set a fourth-innings target of 250.
- If the score is 90 for 1, the projection is capped at 500 (90/0.121, 0.121 being the Wicket Resource Factor (WRF) for 1 wicket). So the MSI is 125.0% (500/400). They are very well placed.
- If the score is 90 for 2, the projection is 363 (90/0.248, 0.248 being the WRF for 2 wickets). So the MSI is 96.75% (363/400). They are well placed.
- If the score is 90 for 3, the projection is 234 (90/0.384, 0.384 bring the WRF for 3 wickets). So the MSI is 48.5% (234/400). They are not so well placed.
- Finally, if the score is 90 for 5, the projection is 141 (90/0.637, 0.637 being the WRF for 5 wickets). So the MSI is 35.25% (141/400). They are very poorly placed and looking at a defeat.

There is an alternate method to determine the MSI. That is, to do it based on the projection being defined as the actual lead rather than the team score at any point of time. But that does not seem correct from a cricketing point of view.

The WRF is determined by analysing the fall of wickets and final scores for each of the 7000+ innings. It could be fine-tuned by calculating separately by innings (no great changes) or teams (significant variations). But, in general, the single set of values works well.

The fourth innings is a target-chasing innings. The MSI for the fourth innings is determined in a similar fashion. The only significant difference is that this time the target is known and the calculations are accurate. There is no estimate involved.

Three types of wins are analysed and presented here. The first relates to wins by first batting teams which trail in the first innings. The key innings is the third innings in which the trailing team is setting a target for the fourth innings, and falls way behind, but goes on to win. I understand that if the team batting first has a small lead in the first innings and is setting up a target, these conditions will still apply. But I have to draw the line somewhere. What happens if the first batting team has a 100-run first innings lead?

The second type of matches is the one in which the fourth batting team is chasing a target and falls way behind, but still manages to win.

The third set of matches is exactly three in number. These are the matches in which the second batting team won the Test after being asked to follow-on. The third innings still remains same: the three teams have to set up decent targets.

With this lengthy introduction, let us move on to the tables and matches. There are three tables and corresponding match scores.

The table is self-explanatory and is ordered on the MSI, the indicator of the match status. The MSI at halfway stage is also presented. This indicates the way the match has moved. The character '@' indicates that the MSI at the end of the third innings has been used since that was the lowest point.

1. Test #2032. England vs Pakistan.

On 25,26,27,28 January 2012. at Abu Dhabi.
Pakistan    : 257 all out
England     : 327 all out  (MSI of Pak at this stage was 44.0%)
Pakistan    : 214 all out  (at 54/4, Pak had a low MSI of 32.5%)
England     :  72 all out
   Abdur Rehman   10.1  4  25  6
Pakistan won by 72 runs.

Pakistan was reasonably placed at the mid-point. Then they slumped to 54 for 4, at which point the projection was only 104. They were rescued by Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq to a below-par score of 214. Although England's target was only 145, Abdul Rehman and Saeed Ajmal secured a memorable win for Pakistan.

2. Test #1207. New Zealand vs Pakistan.

On 2,3,4,5 January 1993. at Hamilton.
Pakistan    : 216 all out
New Zealand : 264 all out  (MSI of Pak at this stage was 45.0%)
Pakistan    : 174 all out  (at 39/5, Pak had a low MSI of 33.6%)
New Zealand :  93 all out
   Wasim Akram    22-4-45-5
   Waqar Younis   13.3-4-22-5
Pakistan won by 33 runs.

A similar match to the previous one: Pakistan were poorly placed at 39 for 5 and were rescued by a classic 75 by Inzamam-ul-Haq. Then the unlike but fearsome-together "W" pair took care of the home team batsmen.

3. Test #9. England vs Australia.

On 28,29 August 1882. at Oval, London.
Australia   :  63 all out
England     : 101 all out  (MSI of Aus at this stage was 38.4%)
Australia   : 122 all out  (at 79/5, Aus had a MSI of 43.1%)
       (at end of third innings, Aus had a low MSI of 33.6%)
England     :  77 all out
   FR Spofforth   18.4-15-44-7
Australia won by 7 runs.

A typical low-scoring match, prevalent in the early years, Australia were poorly placed at 79 for 5, but did not recover to their projected value. They went further behind and at the end of third innings, the MSI was standing at 33.6%. However, let me say that 250 is indeed a very high target for a match like this. But I have stuck by the comfort feeling the target of 250 would have given the team concerned, right through the years. Frederick Spofforth ran through England like a tornado through a wooden barn.

4. Test #1377. England vs Australia.

On 21,22,23 August 1997. at Oval, London.
England     : 180 all out
Australia   : 220 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 45.0%)
England     : 163 all out  (at 52/4, Eng had a low MSI of 34.5%)
Australia   : 104 all out
   AR Caddick     12.0-2-42-5
England won by 19 runs.

England, trailing by 40 runs, were on the edge at 52 for 4. The projection of 100 would have given Australia a target of only 60. England recovered somewhat through Mark Ramprakash and Graham Thorpe and set a target of 124, which was still below 50% of a safe target. However a strong Australian batting line-up was ripped apart by Caddick and Phil Tufnell.

5. Test #707. Australia vs Pakistan.

On 6,7,8,10,11 January 1973. at S.C.G.
Australia   : 334 all out
Pakistan    : 360 all out  (MSI of Aus at this stage was 48.1%)
Australia   : 184 all out  (at 73/6, Aus had a low MSI of 35.1%)
Pakistan    : 106 all out
   MHN Walker     21.2- 8-15-6
Australia won by 52 runs.

Two close middling scores left Australia 26 behind in the first innings. At 73 for 6, there seemed to be no way out. They recovered only partly through John Watkins and Bob Massie, to 184. The target of 158 proved insurmountable for Pakistan. Walker and Lillee orchestrated an unexpected Australian win.

6. Test #25. Australia vs England.

On 28,29,31 January 1887. at S.C.G.
England     :  45 all out
Australia   : 119 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 27.4%)
England     : 184 all out  (at 103/7, Eng had a low MSI of 38.0%)
Australia   :  97 all out
   W Barnes       30.4-29-28-6
England won by 13 runs.

Somewhat similar to the Test #9. A target of 250 was never in the picture for England who trailed by the big margin of 74 runs. From 103 for 7, they recovered to 184, a huge total in this low-scoring match. Billy Barnes and George Lohmann took care of the Australian batsmen.

7. Test #1240. Pakistan vs Zimbabwe.

On 9,10,11,13,14 December 1993. at Rawalpindi.
Pakistan    : 245 all out
Zimbabwe    : 254 all out  (MSI of Pak at this stage was 49.1%)
Pakistan    : 248 all out  (at 58/5, Pak had a low MSI of 38.6%)
Zimbabwe    : 187 all out
   Wasim Akram    23.2-3-65-5
Pakistan won by 52 runs.

Two matching first innings and 58 for 5 pushed Pakistan to the brink. Asif Mujtaba and Rashid Latif rescued them to a fair total. The two "Ws" took care of the fourth innings.

8. Test #1363. West Indies vs India.

On 27,29,30,31 March 1997. at Bridgetown, Barbados.
West Indies : 298 all out
India       : 319 all out  (MSI of Win at this stage was 48.3%)
West Indies : 140 all out  (at 95/8, Win had a low MSI of 38.7%)
India       :  81 all out
West Indies won by 38 runs.

The first innings scores were on either side of 300. Then West Indies recovered from 95 for 8 to 140. The last wicket added 33 valuable runs. The West Indies pace trio dismissed a strong Indian batting line-up for a sub-100 score.

9. Test #112. Australia vs South Africa.

On 31 December 1910, 2,3,4 January 1911. at M.C.G.
Australia   : 348 all out
South Africa: 506 all out  (MSI of Aus at this stage was 40.7%)
Australia   : 327 all out  (at 94/4, Aus had a low MSI of 44.4%)
   VT Trumper     159 
South Africa:  80 all out
   WJ Whitty      16.0-7-17-6
Australia won by 89 runs.

This was a high-scoring match. Australia conceded a huge first innings lead and were tottering at 94 for 4, looking to set a sub-50 target for South Africa. Then Victor Trumper played one of his greatest innings ever and took Australia to a respectable 327. Still the target was only 170 in a high-scoring match. Tibby Cotter and Bill Whitty dismissed South Africa for a sub-100 total.

10. Test #2095. Zimbabwe vs Pakistan.

On 3,4,5,6,7 September 2013
at Harare Sports Club.
Pakistan    : 249 all out
Zimbabwe    : 327 all out  (MSI of Pak at this stage was 43.2%)
Pakistan    : 419 for 9 wkt(s)  (at 23/3, Pak had a low MSI of 45.7%)
   Younis Khan    200*
Zimbabwe    : 120 all out
Pakistan won by 221 runs.

This is a very recent match. Zimbabwe had Pakistan on the mat at 23 for 3, with a first-innings lead of 78. Even at an increased projection of 150, Pakistan's MSI was only 45%. Younis Khan played one of his best innings for Pakistan and took them to safety and a huge win.

11. Test #1243. Australia vs South Africa.

On 2,3,4,5,6 January 1994. at S.C.G.
South Africa: 169 all out
Australia   : 292 all out  (MSI of Saf at this stage was 36.7%)
South Africa: 239 all out  (at 110/5, Saf had a low MSI of 46.1%)
Australia   : 111 all out
   PS de Villiers 23.3-8-43-6
South Africa won by 5 runs.

South Africa conceded a big lead of 123 and then recovered from 110 for 5 to 239, thanks to Jonty Rhodes. Then Fannie de Villiers and Allan Donald destroyed the strong Australian batting line-up to give South Africa one of its greatest ever Test wins: the margin, less than a single stroke.

12. Test #1257. West Indies vs England.

On 25,26,27,29,30 March 1994
at Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain, Trinidad.
West Indies : 252 all out
England     : 328 all out  (MSI of Win at this stage was 43.4%)
West Indies : 269 all out  (at 51/3, Win had a low MSI of 46.0%)
England     :  46 all out
   CEL Ambrose    10.0-1-24-6
West Indies won by 147 runs.

Almost all the West Indian batsmen helped West Indies recover from a poor 51 for 3 to 269. And then the gentle giant took over.

13. Test #1798. South Africa vs New Zealand.

On 15,16,17,18,19 April 2006. at Centurion.
South Africa: 276 all out
New Zealand : 327 all out  (MSI of Saf at this stage was 45.8%)
South Africa: 299 all out  (at 73/4, Saf had a low MSI of 46.8%)
New Zealand : 120 all out
   M Ntini        14.0-3-51-5
   DW Steyn       17.0-4-47-5
South Africa won by 128 runs.

This match follows some of the earlier matches, with three middling scores, followed by the pacemen, this time, Dale Steyn and Makhaya Ntini, running through the opposition for a small score.

14. Test #1436. Australia vs England.

On 26,27,28,29 December 1998. at M.C.G.
England     : 270 all out
Australia   : 340 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 44.3%)
England     : 244 all out  (at 78/4, Eng had a low MSI of 46.9%)
Australia   : 162 all out
   DW Headley     17.0-5-60-6
England won by 12 runs.

This was a win secured by Nasser Hussain, Hick and Devon Malcolm.

15. Test #392. Australia vs England.

On 17,18,20,21,22 December 1954. at S.C.G.
England     : 154 all out
Australia   : 228 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 40.3%)
England     : 296 all out  (at 55/3, Eng had a low MSI of 47.5%)
   PBH May        104 
Australia   : 184 all out
   FH Tyson       24.4-1-85-6
England won by 38 runs.

Peter May and Frank Tyson were the architects of this narrow win over a strong Australian team. Neil Harvey's fighting unbeaten 92 was in vain.

16. Test #1490. West Indies vs Zimbabwe.

On 16,17,18,19,20 March 2000. at Port of Spain, Trinidad.
West Indies : 187 all out
Zimbabwe    : 236 all out  (MSI of Win at this stage was 44.2%)
West Indies : 147 all out  (at 119/7, Win had a low MSI of 47.5%)
Zimbabwe    :  63 all out
West Indies won by 35 runs.

This was an awful match for Zimbabwe. They were left with a 1880s type target of 99 but were no match for the West Indian pace quartet.

17. Test #906. England vs Australia.

On 30,31 July, 1,2 August 1981. at Edgbaston, Birmingham.
England     : 189 all out
Australia   : 258 all out  (MSI of Aus at this stage was 42.3%)
England     : 219 all out  (at 115/6, Aus had a low MSI of 48.0%)
Australia   : 121 all out
   IT Botham      14.0-9-11-5
England won by 29 runs.

It would be hard to find someone who has not heard of the 1981 heroics of Ian Botham in Headingley. This match is covered later. Many might not remember what that giant did a few days later at Edgbaston. England continued to bat poorly and conceded a first innings lead of 69. Then they slumped to 115 for 6 and all the euphoria of Headingley was about to disappear. The bowlers contributed with the bat and they managed to cross 200. This time the target was 151. At Headingley it was Bob Willis: Here it was Botham, with the ball. His 5 for 11, and contributions from the other bowlers, took Australia out for 121, a loss by 29 runs.

18. Test #1505. Sri Lanka vs South Africa.

On 30,31 July, 1,2 August 2000
at Asgiriya Stadium, Kandy.
South Africa: 253 all out
Sri Lanka   : 308 all out  (MSI of Saf at this stage was 45.1%)
South Africa: 231 all out  (at 50/3, Saf had a low MSI of 49.2%)
Sri Lanka   : 169 all out
South Africa won by 7 runs.

Jacques Kallis led the batting recovery for South Africa and the bowlers shared the wickets. Nicky Boje was the finisher at the end.

Now we will look at the matches which were won by the teams batting second. The key innings thus is the fourth innings. The target is clearly known to the batting team. Fortunately the learned professors from UK have not had their say in Test cricket. So the target remains inviolate, rain or shine.

There are no second chances in the fourth innings, unlike in the third innings where someone like Willis or Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis or Spofforth or Curtly Ambrose or AB de Villiers was there to bail out the batting team. So I have increased the selection cut-off slightly, to 60%. This ensures that there are sufficient matches to analyse.

19. Test #1012. New Zealand vs Pakistan.

On 9,10,11,13,14 February 1985. at Dunedin.
Pakistan    : 274 all out
New Zealand : 220 all out  (MSI of Nzl at this stage was 55.5%)
Pakistan    : 223 all out
New Zealand : 278 for 8 wkt(s)  (at 23/4, Nzl had a low MSI of 36.0%)
      Situation was much worse. Possibly around 20%.
   JV Coney       111*
New Zealand won by 2 wickets.

The target for New Zealand was the highest of the Test. This tough target seemed unreachable when New Zealand slumped to 23 for 4. Since the final projection is very low, I have done a tweak to move this up to 100, when warranted. After all the players will play carefully and get a partnership going. Even at this level, New Zealand was at 36.0%, a very low win expectation. Then Martin Crowe and Jeremy Coney salvaged the situation with a stand of 156. After the departure of Crowe, Coney held the rest of the innings together and carried New Zealand to a magnificent win.

20. Test #74. England vs Australia.

On 11,12,13 August 1902. at Oval, London.
Australia   : 324 all out
England     : 183 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 63.9%)
Australia   : 121 all out
   WH Lockwood    20.0  6  45  5
England     : 263 for 9 wkt(s)  (at 48/5, Eng had a low MSI of 38.0%)
      Situation was much worse. Possibly around 25%.
   GL Jessop      104 
England won by 1 wicket.

One of the most famous wins of all time. Chasing 263 to win and losing five wickets for 48, England looked like certain losers. A gentleman by name Gilbert Jessop walked in. He proceeded to play the most important innings of his Test career. In only 77 balls he scored a breath-taking hundred and then got out. Others followed suit and 15 runs were still needed when Wilfred Rhodes walked in to join George Hirst: two Yorkshire players of steel. Whether it was true that Hirst told Rhodes "We will get'em in singles" or Rhodes told Hirst, or neither did, that makes an excellent tale to portray what happened. They got'em in singles and completed a famous win.

21. Test #320. South Africa vs Australia.

On 20,21,23,24 January 1950. at Kingsmead, Durban.
South Africa: 311 all out
Australia   :  75 all out  (MSI of Aus at this stage was 80.6%)
South Africa:  99 all out
   IW Johnson     22.4-2-34-5
Australia   : 336 for 5 wkt(s)  (at 59/3, Aus had a low MSI of 45.5%)
   RN Harvey      151*
Australia won by 5 wickets.

One of my favourite Tests. From a 19.4% MSI at the mid-point, Australia got back into the game by dismissing South Africa for 99. That still left a huge task in the fourth innings. At 59 for 3, the projection was at 150 and a huge defeat looked likely especially as Hugh Tayfield was bowling. Neil Harvey then played one of the three greatest fourth innings ever and took Australia to a comfortable win.

22. Test #1972. India vs Australia.

On 1,2,3,4,5 October 2010. at Mohali, Chandigarh.
Australia   : 428 all out
India       : 405 all out  (MSI of Ind at this stage was 51.4%)
Australia   : 192 all out
India       : 216 for 9 wkt(s)  (at 48/4, Ind had a low MSI of 46.3%)
      Situation was much worse. Possibly around 30%.
India won by 1 wicket.

I have always thought that, despite all the hoopla around the 2001 Kolkata Test, this was a greater win for India. After two big first innings, India trailed by only 23 runs. The Indian bowlers worked together to dismiss Australia for below 200 and the target of 216 looked an easy one. When the score was 48 for 4 and 76 for 5, even 120 looked like a dream. Partial recovery was initiated but soon India were at 124 for 8. VVS Laxman and Ishant Sharma took India to 205 for 9 and the last 11 runs were added during a period punctuated by a very close lbw appeal and a missed run out.

23. Test #88. South Africa vs England.

On 2,3,4 January 1906. at Old Wanderers.
England     : 184 all out
South Africa:  91 all out  (MSI of Saf at this stage was 66.9%)
England     : 190 all out
South Africa: 287 for 9 wkt(s)  (at 89/5, Saf had a low MSI of 48.9%)
South Africa won by 1 wicket.
   AD Nourse       93*

A huge deficit of 93 and a reasonable England third innings of 190 left South Africa with a mountain to climb: a target of 284. When they went down to 89 for 5, half the target seemed unreachable. The MSI was 53.2%. At 239 for 9, the MSI might have been around 80% but the real chance of loss was huge. Forty-eight runs represented a taller mountain than the 284, at the start. Dave Nourse played what I feel is the best sub-100 innings ever and took South Africa to a win, in the company of Percy Sherwell.

24. Test #1704. England vs New Zealand.

On 10,11,12,13 June 2004
at Trent Bridge, Nottingham.
New Zealand : 384 all out
England     : 319 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 54.6%)
New Zealand : 218 all out
England     : 284 for 6 wkt(s)  (at 46/3, Eng had a low MSI of 52.8%)
   GP Thorpe      104*
England won by 4 wickets.

Chasing 284 to win, England were tottering at 46 for 3. Their MSI was a low 52.8%. Then Graham Thorpe got in and took them to a win, with two useful stands from Jones and Giles.

25. Test #1453. West Indies vs Australia.

On 26,27,28,29,30 March 1999. at Bridgetown.
Australia   : 490 all out
West Indies : 329 all out  (MSI of Win at this stage was 59.8%)
Australia   : 146 all out
   CA Walsh       17.1-3-39-5
West Indies : 311 for 9 wkt(s)  (at 101/5, Win had a low MSI of 53.2%)
   BC Lara        153*
West Indies won by 1 wicket.

One of the most famous chases of all time. In my analytical opinion, and supported by many, the best chasing innings ever by a player. I am referring to Brian Lara's 153*. That too, against Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie, Shane Warne and Stuart MacGill. The lowest point for West Indies was when they were at 105 for 5. The projection left them, nearly 150 short. The MSI situation at 248 for 8 was not too bad, but the on-ground situation was much worse. What happened afterwards was history.

26. Test #1658. Pakistan vs Bangladesh.

On 3,4,5,6 September 2003. at Multan.
Bangladesh  : 281 all out
Pakistan    : 175 all out  (MSI of Pak at this stage was 61.6%)
Bangladesh  : 154 all out
Pakistan    : 262 for 9 wkt(s)  (at 99/5, Pak had a low MSI of 59.4%)
   Inzamam-ul-Haq 138*
Pakistan won by 1 wicket.

Bangladesh, even during these early days, was a spirited opponent. They got a useful first-innings lead and set Pakistan a tough 261 to win. Inzamam-ul-Haq stood like a rock but no one stayed with him and Pakistan went through 99 for 5 to 205 for 8. There was a good ninth wicket stand but Umar Gul was out a few runs from win. Inzamam saw the team through, as Lara did in the previously chronicled match. I consider Lara's 153*, Inzamam's 138 and Harvey's 151* to be the three greatest chasing innings ever.

27. Test #1926. West Indies vs Bangladesh.

On 17,18,19,20 July 2009. at St George's, Grenada.
West Indies : 237 all out
Bangladesh  : 232 all out  (MSI of Bng at this stage was 50.5%)
West Indies : 209 all out
   Shakib Al Hasan 24.5-3-70-5
Bangladesh  : 217 for 6 wkt(s)  (at 67/4, Bng had a low MSI of 59.9%)
Bangladesh won by 4 wickets.

This time it is the turn of Bangladesh to win from behind. This match is recent vintage and was played away in Grenada. Let us forget what happened off the ground. If the West Indian players refused to play, what could Bangladesh do about it? Three similar innings of 200+ scores left Bangladesh a difficult 215 to win. At 67 for 4, the projection was only 129 and the MSI was 60%. Slowly they recovered and Shakib Al Hasan saw them through to a famous win.

Now we come to the third category: the three wins after following on. Readers are in for a surprise here since the situations in two of these matches are not as difficult as widely perceived. There have been much worse situations in the matches chronicled earlier.

28. Test #42. Australia vs England.

On 14,15,17,18,19,20 December 1894. at S.C.G.
Australia   : 586 all out
England     : 325 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 64.3%)
England     : 437 all out  (at 296/6, Eng had a low MSI of 77.5%)
   A Ward         117 
Australia   : 166 all out
   R Peel         30.0-9-67-6
England won by 10 runs.

Despite the dismissal of England at 325 and the enforcing of follow-on, the situation did not look that bad for England. Their late order batsmen had added over 150 runs and almost everyone had contributed. The pitch was still good, as was the pitch at Calcutta, over 100 years later. They scored well in the second innings and were comfortably placed at 245 for 3. Then 3 wickets fell for 50 runs and their lowest MSI was when they were at 296 for 6.

The projection saw them reaching 396 and a few runs off the cushion of 250. They recovered partly and set a target of 177. Australia fell short by 10 runs due to the spin bowling of Bobby Peel and Johnny Briggs. The worst MSI for England was at the midway point (64.3%). Even at the end of third innings, their MSI was 70%. So this match was nowhere as bad for the winning team as many other teams had in other non-follow-on matches.

29. Test #905. England vs Australia.

On 16,17,18,20,21 July 1981. at Headingley, Leeds.
Australia   : 401 for 9 wkt(s)
England     : 174 all out  (MSI of Eng at this stage was 69.7%)
England     : 356 all out  (at 41/4, Eng had a low MSI of 21.0%)
   IT Botham      149*
Australia   : 111 all out
   RGD Willis     15.1-3-43-8
England won by 18 runs.

This was quite unlike the other two wins after being asked to follow-on. England was in the direst of straits after following on, 227 behind. At 37 for 3, their MSI was 31.4%. At 41 for 4, 21.0% (the lowest MSI). At 105 for 5, 34.4%. At 133 for 6, 37.3%. Finally at 135 for 7, 34.0%. The rest is history. Ian Botham and Bob Willis were the two colossus, ably supported by Graham Dilley and Chris Old.

For a period of 35 overs, the MSI of England oscillated between 20 and 37.5%: Quite desperate indeed. Even at the end, the target set was only 130. The bowlers did not have any cushion. They had to dismiss Australia in 35 overs or else. So there was no doubt that this ranks way ahead of the two other wins after being asked to follow-on.

30. Test #1535. India vs Australia.

On 11,12,13,14,15 March 2001. at Eden Gardens, Calcutta.
Australia   : 445 all out
India       : 171 all out  (MSI of Ind at this stage was 72.2%)
India       : 657 for 7 wkt(s)  (at 115/3, Ind had a low MSI of 57.1%)
   VVS Laxman     281 
   R Dravid       180 
Australia   : 212 all out
   Harbhajan Singh 30.3-8-73-6
India won by 171 runs.

A few myths are going to be busted, I am afraid. Let me re-iterate that this was one of the greatest of Indian Test wins, the best innings played by an Indian batsman, the Australian juggernaut was virtually unstoppable et al. But I have to say that the situations were not as bad as we think.

At 115 for 3, the projection was 299, a possible comfortable Australian win. The MSI was 57.1%. Afterwards it was downhill all the way. At 232 for 4, the projection was 448. This would have set a tricky target for Australia. The Rubicon was crossed at 250 for 4. This was already a match-winning position. Anything afterwards was only situation-firming up batting. In fact the MSI for the later stages of the innings was above 100%.

I am firmly of the view that Sourav Ganguly did not have a win in his mind at all, right through the Indian second innings. If so, he would not have batted on for an hour on the fifth day, with a commanding lead of 315. The win was happenstance, courtesy Harbhajan Singh, Sachin Tendulkar and the Australian batsmen who were in unfamiliar territory after 18 months.

I suggest readers go back to my chronicling of Test match # 1972. That was a much tougher, more difficult and greater win than the Kolkata Test. By comparing two magnificent Indian wins, I have made sure that no one can accuse me of (anti-Indian) bias.

Richie Benaud RIP: Much loved, revered and listened to. A great player (my first cricketing hero), a magnificent captain (tactically miles ahead of most captains), an extraordinary raconteur and a truly memorable commentator. He will be missed badly, not just down under, but around the world. Somewhere up there he must be regaling the celestials with description of the divine game.

The first three days of the Antigua Test have proved one point irrefutably. England in whites are a totally different team to England in colours. They bat much better, bowl more purposefully and will always be a match for even the top-ranked team in the world. Australia cannot take them lightly this summer. India: the other way around. They fly, so to speak, in colours.