The fastest ever innings according to zeddy

...and the slowest.

http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

Extreme Batting

What are the fastest and slowest Test innings of all time?

A simple question like this is actually tricky, thanks to the extreme range of possible scores. Comparing innings large and small, based on scoring speed alone, is unsatisfactory. For instance, Adam Gilchrist’s 102 off 59 balls in 2006 was considerably faster that Nathan Astle’s 222 off 168 balls in 2002; both were freakish innings, but which was the more remarkable?

One way to answer this is by measuring how far each innings deviates from normal innings of similar size. To do this, we take every innings of a given size and calculate the average (or mean) balls faced, and then calculate the standard deviation, which is a measure of the spread or variability of the data. We can then give the most exceptional innings a z-score (the number of standard deviations from the mean) which becomes a measure of how extraordinary the innings were.

An example may help clarify this. Let’s look at all innings of exactly 76 runs in Test matches. We have balls faced data for 119 such innings. The average number of balls faced is 161 and the standard deviation of this data is about 49.

The fastest known innings of 76 in Tests was off 72 balls by Viv Richards at Adelaide in 1980. This is 1.75 standard deviations faster than the average, so the innings gets a z-score of -1.75. Likewise, the slowest innings of 76 was 315 balls by Glenn Turner in 1971, with a z-score of +3.2.

To compare many innings of different sizes, the process must be repeated for all possible scores. This process gives big innings a better rating than smaller innings of a similar speed, because it is more difficult to score rapidly for longer periods.

So which innings have the most extreme z-scores? At fast end of the scale, the results look like this:

The most Extreme Fast Innings
z-score
Runs
Balls
-2.58
IVA Richards
110
58
WI v EN
St John's, Antigua
1986
-2.54
NJ Astle
222
168
NZ v EN
Christchurch
2002
-2.45
AC Gilchrist
102
59
AU v EN
Perth (WACA)
2006
-2.36
CL Cairns
82
47
NZ v EN
Lord's
2004
-2.34
JM Gregory
119
81
AU v SA
Johannesburg (Old Wanderers)
1921
-2.34
JH Kallis
54
25
SA v ZI
Cape Town
2005
-2.33
N Kapil Dev
89
55
IN v EN
Lord's
1982

Recent innings are prominent in this list, a sign of the speed of the modern game. Still, no batsman has reached quite the extremes of Viv Richards in his record-breaking century in 1986. I wonder what it is about English bowling that has attracted so many extreme innings.

At the other end of the scale, we must go a further back in time.


The most Extreme Slow Innings
z-score
Runs
Balls
7.90
Hanif Mohammad
20
223
PA v EN
Lord's
1954
7.88
AC Bannerman
91
620
AU v EN
Sydney (SCG)
1892
7.66
HL Collins
40
340
AU v EN
Manchester
1921
7.15
JT Murray
3
100
EN v AU
Sydney (SCG)
1963
6.90
Yashpal Sharma
13
159
IN v AU
Adelaide Oval
1981
6.80
GI Allott
0
77
NZ v SA
Auckland
1999

It is interesting to see a wide range of scores, from 0 to 91, appearing on this list. Modern cricket watchers can only wonder at the extremes represented here. Hanif, at modern over rates, would take more than five hours for his 20 runs, while Alec Bannerman’s 91 would probably take more than two full days in the modern game. Apart from Bannerman, every other batsman who has faced 620 or more balls in a Test innings has scored well over 200 runs, and the most balls faced (known) in reaching a century is 525 by Colin Cowdrey in 1957. Perhaps it is no wonder that Bannerman, unlike his more adventurous brother Charles, never scored a Test century.

Of course, there are quite a number of past innings for which balls faced are unknown, so we don’t know exactly where they may fit on the scale, but we can still make some estimates. Of particular interest is Dilip Sardesai’s 60 against the West Indies at Bridgetown in 1962. Sardesai was at the crease for 155 overs, and probably faced over 450 balls; if so, his z-score would be 7.93. His dismissal in that match started an extraordinary collapse that saw Lance Gibbs take eight wickets for six runs.

A postscript puzzle: innings of four runs, on average, involve fewer balls faced than innings of three runs. There is a logical reason for this (for readers to ponder.)

[Notes for the statistically-minded: this process works quite well when we have a very large number of innings with data available. However, it does require some smoothing and trend-fitting at higher, rarer scores (above 120). Note also that the distributions are skewed, so z-scores of fast innings are different in magnitude to slow ones, and at the fast end of the scale the calculation is not very useful for innings of less than 40 runs. However, the process is still useful as long as we just compare fast with fast, and slow with slow.]

Bullsht. Gilbert Jessop has the fastest ever innings. Z-score's so one-eyed. they just make sh!t up.

fattest ever innings ... the Blobster, surely

Interesting stuff JGK. Pity our old mate zeddy doesn't rock up here occasionally. We'd love to hear his perspective.

Bullsht. He'd probably say something like - "Although Gilbert Jessop had the fastest ever innings, there was an occasion the sun came out and batting conditions were fair for a few minutes".

Of course if it wasn't for the cheating ump that didn't call a Hoggard ball a wide when Gilly was on 96, Gilly would be No 1.

Batfink Begins wrote:Bullsht. He'd probably say something like - "Although Gilbert Jessop had the fastest ever innings, there was an occasion the sun came out and batting conditions were fair for a few minutes".

Sage.

JGK wrote:Of course if it wasn't for the cheating ump that didn't call a Hoggard ball a wide when Gilly was on 96, Gilly would be No 1.

Sager.

JGK wrote:...and the slowest.

http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

Extreme Batting

What are the fastest and slowest Test innings of all time?

A simple question like this is actually tricky, thanks to the extreme range of possible scores. Comparing innings large and small, based on scoring speed alone, is unsatisfactory. For instance, Adam Gilchrist’s 102 off 59 balls in 2006 was considerably faster that Nathan Astle’s 222 off 168 balls in 2002; both were freakish innings, but which was the more remarkable?

One way to answer this is by measuring how far each innings deviates from normal innings of similar size. To do this, we take every innings of a given size and calculate the average (or mean) balls faced, and then calculate the standard deviation, which is a measure of the spread or variability of the data. We can then give the most exceptional innings a z-score (the number of standard deviations from the mean) which becomes a measure of how extraordinary the innings were.

An example may help clarify this. Let’s look at all innings of exactly 76 runs in Test matches. We have balls faced data for 119 such innings. The average number of balls faced is 161 and the standard deviation of this data is about 49.

The fastest known innings of 76 in Tests was off 72 balls by Viv Richards at Adelaide in 1980. This is 1.75 standard deviations faster than the average, so the innings gets a z-score of -1.75. Likewise, the slowest innings of 76 was 315 balls by Glenn Turner in 1971, with a z-score of +3.2.

To compare many innings of different sizes, the process must be repeated for all possible scores. This process gives big innings a better rating than smaller innings of a similar speed, because it is more difficult to score rapidly for longer periods.

So which innings have the most extreme z-scores? At fast end of the scale, the results look like this:

The most Extreme Fast Innings
z-score
Runs
Balls
-2.58
IVA Richards
110
58
WI v EN
St John's, Antigua
1986
-2.54
NJ Astle
222
168
NZ v EN
Christchurch
2002
-2.45
AC Gilchrist
102
59
AU v EN
Perth (WACA)
2006
-2.36
CL Cairns
82
47
NZ v EN
Lord's
2004
-2.34
JM Gregory
119
81
AU v SA
Johannesburg (Old Wanderers)
1921
-2.34
JH Kallis
54
25
SA v ZI
Cape Town
2005
-2.33
N Kapil Dev
89
55
IN v EN
Lord's
1982

Recent innings are prominent in this list, a sign of the speed of the modern game. Still, no batsman has reached quite the extremes of Viv Richards in his record-breaking century in 1986. I wonder what it is about English bowling that has attracted so many extreme innings.

At the other end of the scale, we must go a further back in time.


The most Extreme Slow Innings
z-score
Runs
Balls
7.90
Hanif Mohammad
20
223
PA v EN
Lord's
1954
7.88
AC Bannerman
91
620
AU v EN
Sydney (SCG)
1892
7.66
HL Collins
40
340
AU v EN
Manchester
1921
7.15
JT Murray
3
100
EN v AU
Sydney (SCG)
1963
6.90
Yashpal Sharma
13
159
IN v AU
Adelaide Oval
1981
6.80
GI Allott
0
77
NZ v SA
Auckland
1999

It is interesting to see a wide range of scores, from 0 to 91, appearing on this list. Modern cricket watchers can only wonder at the extremes represented here. Hanif, at modern over rates, would take more than five hours for his 20 runs, while Alec Bannerman’s 91 would probably take more than two full days in the modern game. Apart from Bannerman, every other batsman who has faced 620 or more balls in a Test innings has scored well over 200 runs, and the most balls faced (known) in reaching a century is 525 by Colin Cowdrey in 1957. Perhaps it is no wonder that Bannerman, unlike his more adventurous brother Charles, never scored a Test century.

Of course, there are quite a number of past innings for which balls faced are unknown, so we don’t know exactly where they may fit on the scale, but we can still make some estimates. Of particular interest is Dilip Sardesai’s 60 against the West Indies at Bridgetown in 1962. Sardesai was at the crease for 155 overs, and probably faced over 450 balls; if so, his z-score would be 7.93. His dismissal in that match started an extraordinary collapse that saw Lance Gibbs take eight wickets for six runs.

A postscript puzzle: innings of four runs, on average, involve fewer balls faced than innings of three runs. There is a logical reason for this (for readers to ponder.)

[Notes for the statistically-minded: this process works quite well when we have a very large number of innings with data available. However, it does require some smoothing and trend-fitting at higher, rarer scores (above 120). Note also that the distributions are skewed, so z-scores of fast innings are different in magnitude to slow ones, and at the fast end of the scale the calculation is not very useful for innings of less than 40 runs. However, the process is still useful as long as we just compare fast with fast, and slow with slow.]

OMG...!!!
Did Karti get back? Did Karti get back? Did Karti get back?

skully wrote:Interesting stuff JGK. Pity our old mate zeddy doesn't rock up here occasionally. We'd love to hear his perspective.

What about Karti? Would You like to hear his perspective?

Karti and perspective, not possible


passion - yes ... perspective - no

Your logic's gone to pot, Mr Spock. Do that eyebrow lifting thing and put your head on one-side.

eowyn wrote:Your logic's gone to pot, Mr Spock. Do that eyebrow lifting thing and put your head on one-side.

The Karti factor is a phenomenon that can induce the most logical of Vulcans to feel an extremely emotional discord they are highly unfamiliar with, and logically, untrained to deal with. They may experience a scientific condition, I believe, called Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.

In simple terms Captain, it means a fear of long words and in this case very long posts.

:|

Bump in honour of Gilly.

Does anyone know how many tons he has at better than 100 SR?

JGK wrote:Bump in honour of Gilly.

Does anyone know how many tons he has at better than 100 SR?

For JGK. Not a definitive answer, but gives you a good idea. What a farkin legend:

Code:

Score  Opposition  Venue                    Strike Rate

149* v Pakistan    Hobart 18 Nov 1999          91.41
122  v India        Mumbai 27 Feb 2001          108.92
152  v England      Birmingham 5 Jul 2001      106.29
118  v New Zealand  Brisbane 8 Nov 2001          74.68
204* v South Africa Johannesburg 22 Feb 2002    95.77
138* v South Africa Cape Town 8 Mar 2002        127.77
133  v England      Sydney 2 Jan 2003          109.91
101* v West Indies  Port of Spain 19 Apr 2003    97.11
113* v Zimbabwe    Perth 9 Oct 2003            120.21
144  v Sri Lanka    Kandy 16 Mar 2004            77.83
104  v India        Bangalore 6 Oct 2004        95.41
126  v New Zealand  Brisbane 18 Nov 2004        70.78
113  v Pakistan    Sydney 2 Jan 2005 Test      94.16
121  v New Zealand  Christchurch 10 Mar 2005    96.03
162  v New Zealand  Wellington 18 Mar 2005      110.95
144  v Bangladesh  Fatullah 9 Apr 2006          67.92
102* v England      Perth 14 Dec 2006          172.88


And in ODIs, he's farkin scary. Only 2 of his tons came at under 100 SR. And his crowning glory was the 2007 WC Final:

Code:

Score  Opposition      Venue                    Strike Rate

100  v South Africa  Sydney 26 Jan 1998            95.15
118  v New Zealand    Christchurch 8 Feb 1998      100.85
103  v Pakistan      Lahore 10 Nov 1998            99.03
131  v Sri Lanka      Sydney 13 Jan 1999            111.01
154  v Sri Lanka      Melbourne 7 Feb 1999          119.37
128  v New Zealand    Christchurch 26 Feb 2000      130.61
105  v South Africa  Durban 3 Apr 2002            100.96
124  v England        Melbourne 15 Dec 2002        119.23
111  v India          Bangalore 12 Nov 2003        106.73
172  v Zimbabwe      Hobart 16 Jan 2004            136.50
121* v England        The Oval 12 Jul 2005          119.80
103  v ICC World XI  Melbourne (Dock) 7 Oct 2005  130.37
116  v Sri Lanka      Perth 29 Jan 2006            110.47
122  v Sri Lanka      Brisbane 14 Feb 2006          134.06
149  v Sri Lanka      Bridgetown 28 Apr 2007        143.26


Interesting that his last Test ton and last ODI ton were his fastest. What a farkin legend.

So in fact none of his tons were made at less than 4rpo.

JGK wrote:So in fact none of his tons were made at less than 4rpo.

Remarkably, all of his ODI tons were made at 95 SR or better (let's call it 6 runs an over) and all but 4 of his 17 Test tons were made at 90 SR or better. Amazing stats. How do you replace somebody of that stature? I guess the answer is simple - you don't.